Inter-intimacy in relation with poetry and objects Video Essay 2023 U1 Submission MA Intercultural Practices Central Saints Martin London UK
“No man is an island, entire of itself;
every man is a piece of the continent,
a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friend’s
or of thine own were.
Any man’s death diminishes me
because I am involved in mankind;
and therefore never send to know for
whom the bell tolls,
it tolls for thee. . . . “
— Mediation 17 by John Donne, 1624
For me a poem is a poem itself in which I have no doubt to feel much like it’s death poem after finishing the work. It does not physically death but it was a part of me, as a part of time, a part of the mankind, a part of sympathy. And a part of the moment that I call “The inter-intimacy” that I would never found again in any nonlinear worlds that I create in the future. Writing poetry is emerging in our own way of thinking with an unconscious realization that we have something behind which trying to chasing ourselves to get to the word or to satisfied the feeling by our own word. They’re the context of our characters, our ways of speaking, our past patterns or the complexity of the present. All are connected in one ultimate moment that cannot be upwards or downwards (in relations with “object” definition in OOO), grasp each other to break the distinction and conjunction, in an intimacy woven to be one-new-single-reality.
“If the poet chooses to write of an apple, he does not say, I love, he says, here it is, and his love is consumed without residue in the act of creation. He sees himself as one who loses his life by making things, “objects, realities which he has to abandon to make another, and another, perfectly blank to him as soon as they are completed”.
— A Poetry of Things: Williams, Rilke, Ponge
By saying this, Williams perhaps refuses to perceive language as a literal interpretation even in the most significant cases. The act represent for his love with the word is nothing more than a method of an implicit expression. If so do speaking have their own complexity of patterns in which word interpret the whole and versa. An apple cannot be an apple itself without an apple tree, an apple cannot be alive in the poem without the image of the apple tree in reader mind, an apple cannot be the lover of the writer without its present by word. By saying so, it must be realized that apple as an object cannot be changed its reality in that moment of “inter-intimacy”.
“He turns away from himself and from the various ideas and sentiments which human beings lay upon things and examines the things themselves. For he sees that trees and flowers do not change, regardless of the ways we talk about them”
— A Poetry of Things: Williams, Rilke, Ponge
And even considering all the factors that seem to be logical here, we cannot deny the fact that we are laying our own perception on the objects, in this case, the writer put his indication in the trees, the flowers, and the apple. We are going beyond the capability of understanding nature as they are existed in their own world (OOO), and we do not affect them in a sense that they are things merely exist with our own ecology system. We cannot know how they feel or what they interact except perceiving their vibrant living.
every man is a piece of the continent,
a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friend’s
or of thine own were.
Any man’s death diminishes me
because I am involved in mankind;
and therefore never send to know for
whom the bell tolls,
it tolls for thee. . . . “
— Mediation 17 by John Donne, 1624
For me a poem is a poem itself in which I have no doubt to feel much like it’s death poem after finishing the work. It does not physically death but it was a part of me, as a part of time, a part of the mankind, a part of sympathy. And a part of the moment that I call “The inter-intimacy” that I would never found again in any nonlinear worlds that I create in the future. Writing poetry is emerging in our own way of thinking with an unconscious realization that we have something behind which trying to chasing ourselves to get to the word or to satisfied the feeling by our own word. They’re the context of our characters, our ways of speaking, our past patterns or the complexity of the present. All are connected in one ultimate moment that cannot be upwards or downwards (in relations with “object” definition in OOO), grasp each other to break the distinction and conjunction, in an intimacy woven to be one-new-single-reality.
“If the poet chooses to write of an apple, he does not say, I love, he says, here it is, and his love is consumed without residue in the act of creation. He sees himself as one who loses his life by making things, “objects, realities which he has to abandon to make another, and another, perfectly blank to him as soon as they are completed”.
— A Poetry of Things: Williams, Rilke, Ponge
By saying this, Williams perhaps refuses to perceive language as a literal interpretation even in the most significant cases. The act represent for his love with the word is nothing more than a method of an implicit expression. If so do speaking have their own complexity of patterns in which word interpret the whole and versa. An apple cannot be an apple itself without an apple tree, an apple cannot be alive in the poem without the image of the apple tree in reader mind, an apple cannot be the lover of the writer without its present by word. By saying so, it must be realized that apple as an object cannot be changed its reality in that moment of “inter-intimacy”.
“He turns away from himself and from the various ideas and sentiments which human beings lay upon things and examines the things themselves. For he sees that trees and flowers do not change, regardless of the ways we talk about them”
— A Poetry of Things: Williams, Rilke, Ponge
And even considering all the factors that seem to be logical here, we cannot deny the fact that we are laying our own perception on the objects, in this case, the writer put his indication in the trees, the flowers, and the apple. We are going beyond the capability of understanding nature as they are existed in their own world (OOO), and we do not affect them in a sense that they are things merely exist with our own ecology system. We cannot know how they feel or what they interact except perceiving their vibrant living.
“Poetry evokes the “mereness” of things. Poetry brings us to the realization that things merely are, an experience that provokes a mood of calm, a calm that allows the imagination to press back against the pressure of reality.”
— Things merely are, Simon Critchley
After all, “Life from death and death from life”. As a magnetization process to embrace the order from disorders, the “inter-intimacy” can shorten the gaps of misunderstanding and raise the compassion amongst living or non-living creatures, human of non-human objects. That’s when we all could involve in the process of self-organization that necessary for a sustainable future. We hold uncertainty with on-going woven pieces, evolves with our profound weapons that competitors cannot predict. As all the mess becomes a consistent big trunk that cannot defeated, with humanity, the openness and welcomeness to be the hero of our own reality. In that way life are born from death, in our language, our poetry, our embrace of objects in themselves.
“The mere fact of complexity and largeness does not make something less real than its component parts”
Considering objects in the relation with poetry, we see the repeat pattern of “inter-intimacy” in a sense that objects not only be contained in the reality of poetry but also create their own realities with multi-systems. What if we do not say flower, apple and tree? What if we say “flower apple tree”? Does it different to choose to extract objects in this relation or it could be “apple flower tree”, “apple of flower tree” or “apple of apple flower tree”? Does this complex thought holding some vague conception of understand the objects or simply add on another layers of thinking that needed to deal with uncertain context? As the feedback loops that mentioned in complexity theory, this relationship between poetry and things never can be a linear loop. It’s just happen and happen as it be. The poem would continue to live and the object itself. We would continue to try to put our foot equal to these non-human objects, an attempt of being part of the ecology system.
“There is the same difference between a pain that someone tells me and a pain that I feel as there is between the red that I see and the being red of this red leather box. Being red is for it what hurting is for me. Just as there is an I-Jone Doe, there is also an I-red, I-water, and an I-star. Everything, from a point of view within itself, is an I”. (OOO)
As an intriguing point to summarize the concept of the “inter-intimacy”, I’m admitting the limitation of this concept in itself where we could not and never find an exact answer for “What is actually the point of inter-intimacy” amongst our way of making decisions, our pain toward someone, our compassion over time or our way of loving a cat. Instead of thinking in that precise way, we perhaps should open the edge of our inner-self to absorb the weirdness of thing, the possibilities of serendipity in this complex world. As being ourselves and acknowledges our place in multi-systems, we are our own autonomy boss leading ourselves to the new places, brave to touch the “inter-intimacy” and connect with others living creatures, understand them from our own true existence.
For my “inter-intimacy”
“I have no interest in flowers, I only wanted
To touch the grass in emptiness, up and down
Imagine how close the dead is, finally
Staring at your red violet, like an awful stranger
My body brings me numbness, my wildest sea
Floating water
Warm and salt
To be free, marry an angel.”
— Things merely are, Simon Critchley
After all, “Life from death and death from life”. As a magnetization process to embrace the order from disorders, the “inter-intimacy” can shorten the gaps of misunderstanding and raise the compassion amongst living or non-living creatures, human of non-human objects. That’s when we all could involve in the process of self-organization that necessary for a sustainable future. We hold uncertainty with on-going woven pieces, evolves with our profound weapons that competitors cannot predict. As all the mess becomes a consistent big trunk that cannot defeated, with humanity, the openness and welcomeness to be the hero of our own reality. In that way life are born from death, in our language, our poetry, our embrace of objects in themselves.
“The mere fact of complexity and largeness does not make something less real than its component parts”
Considering objects in the relation with poetry, we see the repeat pattern of “inter-intimacy” in a sense that objects not only be contained in the reality of poetry but also create their own realities with multi-systems. What if we do not say flower, apple and tree? What if we say “flower apple tree”? Does it different to choose to extract objects in this relation or it could be “apple flower tree”, “apple of flower tree” or “apple of apple flower tree”? Does this complex thought holding some vague conception of understand the objects or simply add on another layers of thinking that needed to deal with uncertain context? As the feedback loops that mentioned in complexity theory, this relationship between poetry and things never can be a linear loop. It’s just happen and happen as it be. The poem would continue to live and the object itself. We would continue to try to put our foot equal to these non-human objects, an attempt of being part of the ecology system.
“There is the same difference between a pain that someone tells me and a pain that I feel as there is between the red that I see and the being red of this red leather box. Being red is for it what hurting is for me. Just as there is an I-Jone Doe, there is also an I-red, I-water, and an I-star. Everything, from a point of view within itself, is an I”. (OOO)
As an intriguing point to summarize the concept of the “inter-intimacy”, I’m admitting the limitation of this concept in itself where we could not and never find an exact answer for “What is actually the point of inter-intimacy” amongst our way of making decisions, our pain toward someone, our compassion over time or our way of loving a cat. Instead of thinking in that precise way, we perhaps should open the edge of our inner-self to absorb the weirdness of thing, the possibilities of serendipity in this complex world. As being ourselves and acknowledges our place in multi-systems, we are our own autonomy boss leading ourselves to the new places, brave to touch the “inter-intimacy” and connect with others living creatures, understand them from our own true existence.
For my “inter-intimacy”
“I have no interest in flowers, I only wanted
To touch the grass in emptiness, up and down
Imagine how close the dead is, finally
Staring at your red violet, like an awful stranger
My body brings me numbness, my wildest sea
Floating water
Warm and salt
To be free, marry an angel.”