Creating the Possible


  1. Joseph Hutchison
    Joseph Hutchison September 27, 2010 at 2:23 pm .

    Thanks for the comments, Lyle. I really don&#39;t read much philosophy, though for some reason I feel drawn to try now and then. Often enough it leads outside the book at hand to something more productive. I tried <i>Being and Nothingness</i> when I was trying to be a coffeehouse poet, which is a ridiculous book (at least the first 80 pages are—all I managed to get through), but it led me to

  2. Lyle Daggett
    Lyle Daggett September 27, 2010 at 3:38 am .

    I tend to have a rough time reading philosophy, generally speaking (there are exceptions), and I haven&#39;t threaded my way through what you&#39;ve quoted of Bergson here well enough to know if I agree or disagree or otherwise.<br /><br />I do like your comment that &quot;there is more to poetry and the history of poetry than the internecine conflicts we are treated to these days, in the

  3. Joseph Hutchison
    Joseph Hutchison September 24, 2010 at 2:02 pm .

    You caught me, Vassilis. I came to Bergson through Kazantzakis! Nikos and Helen both, if you count her biography of him. My first attempt was <i>Time and Free Will</i>, but it defeated me. <i>Creative Evolution</i> is friendlier to limited intellects like mine.<br /><br />And Conrad, there is a side to Bergson that does seem mystical, but I don&#39;t think it is. It&#39;s really his devotion to

  4. vazambam
    vazambam September 24, 2010 at 6:07 am .

    Thanks for this one! I have Bergson&#39;s <i>Creative Evolution</i> somewhere but have never really given it enough of my time–not like Kazantzakis, who was an ardent follower of Bergson and attended his lectures when he was in Paris, as I&#39;m sure you know.

  5. Conrad DiDiodato
    Conrad DiDiodato September 23, 2010 at 10:41 pm .

    &quot;in the shrinking pond that is American poetry in the age of climate change&quot;<br /><br />I like that!<br /><br />Bergson&#39;s always seemed a little mystical to me: but your account of his notion of &quot;unforeseeable novelty&quot; makes him and that retrospective dimension of Time more intelligible to me.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Verified by ExactMetrics
Verified by MonsterInsights