FruitFly

A Blog about Poetry, Bikes, and Video Games.

A Slumber did my spirit seal…

Posted by Eckhart's Dog Woof! Woof! on February 8, 2010

Pome of the day. The poem below is by William Wordsworth. I’m not a big fan. He is often categorised as a Nature Poet and Romantic. However, compared to Ted Hughes and DH Lawrence, for example, he tends to describe nature in the abstract, and under philosophical headings. This poem is one of his smaller pieces, and though we do not know who She was, the poem is insistant on emphasising the fact that she has ceased to be. What is significant is the vocabulary he uses: Motion, Force. These are terms taken from Physics. The Romantic movement was in some respects a reaction to the rise of science and it’s triumphant consolidation into a theory unifying the mundane and the celestial, the Newtonian synthesis. No matter how much he may laud his own sensibilities and muse on the mystical face of Nature, somewhere in the recesses of his mind must have lurked a fear, born of the implications of the success of science: it’s obliterating impersonality that cared not a fig for his delicate imaginings. In this little poem he tests himself, his nerve: for eight lines he peeks at the machine as it processes a figure of romantic longing into an object with the same status as ‘rocks, and stones, and trees’. The implication by the end is that the machine just keeps going….

A slumber did my spirit seal;
I had no human fears:
She seemed a thing that could not feel
The touch of earthly years.

No motion has she now, no force;
She neither hears nor sees;
Rolled round in earth’s diurnal course,
With rocks, and stone, and trees.

Posted in Poetry Anthology | Leave a Comment »

New Sonnet

Posted by Eckhart's Dog Woof! Woof! on February 2, 2010

Look what I’ve made: an eternity box
Engineered from viral glycoprotein
and Book 11, Chapter 13
Of Augustine’s Confessions, it’s dox
ology of Time’s deciphered locks!
What I put in here will stay evergreen,
Myself at six, angels in quarantine:
My children off school with Chicken Pox!
It sends out signals in it’s search for love
Scans the sky for signs from above
Picks out from the static a…….snowflake:
It’s microtext of frost
A hallmark that Reality is not fake,
This reading is not lost.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Ted Hughes on Dylan Thomas

Posted by Eckhart's Dog Woof! Woof! on January 30, 2010

Ted Hughes on Dylan Thomas

I was rummaging around in some of my old notebooks and came across a passage I had copied from an essay Ted Hughes had written on Dylan Thomas. Dylan Thomas is my original poetic obsession, pre-dating even Plath. I read him over and over again, understanding very little. Those poems that I did understand I didn’t particularly like; they seemed to miss the point, a point his more enigmatic and ineffably greater pieces seemed to converge upon. Ted Hughe’s observation about Thomas’ poetry is the single greatest critical insight I know of regarding his work. It reclaims Thomas from those who criticised him for lack of a social dimension and the examination of ideas, which was characteristic of his contemporary Auden, and those who claim he bombastically magnified the trivial and everyday. The second criticism is valid when applied to those poems that were topical, those that I understood. But his true greatness lay in a patient, lapidary attempt to use language in an attempt to see. He worked very, very slowly, with great concentration, sometimes only producing one line, or even half a line, per day. When I read this quote by Hughes on Thomas, it instantly clarified the grounds of my fascination with poems such as the sonnet sequence Altarwise by Owlight. Read, and be illumined! Or not.

“It was a vision of the total creation. He had no comments or interpretations or philosophisings to add to it. His poetry was exclusively an attempt to present it. Each poem is an attempt to sign up the whole heavenly vision, from one point of vantage or other, in a static constellation of verbal prisms. It is this fixed intent, and not a rhetorical inflation of ordinary ideas, that gives his language it’s exaltation and reach.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Nietszche and Heidegger

Posted by Eckhart's Dog Woof! Woof! on December 19, 2009

I’ve just finished watching a documentary on Nietszche, followed by one on Heidegger. My estimation of Nietszche has diminshed the older I get. When I was a teenager, I found his works exhilarating. He is a rapid, compact, aphoristic writer who never fails to strike a pose. Strangely, for one who claimed to be in the vanguard of a new era, he is very much a Romantic. He glorifies ‘Great Men’, and is always preoccupied with his own emotional responses. He rejected Morality as a universal: it is alright for the masses, but for the exceptional and great it is a hindrance that should be dispensed with in favour of pursuing the working out of an ‘inner law’ unique to each exceptional great man (Nietszche despised women: he conceived of them as weak and frivolous, if not downright cunning and devious). There is no attempt in Nietszche to seek foundational justification for morality: with the ‘Death of God’ the absolute basis of morality is gone. What we are left with is a relativity that may even extend beyond morality, and go so far as to uproot and destabilize truth itself, though that is a matter of interpretation. In it’s place we have the utility value of truth and morality: how life enhancing is an idea or point of view? I am unsure about Nietszche’s position on the ‘truths’ propounded by science. Not many scientists, I think, would be happy to characterise their results as true relative to their utility in increasing our sense of power and mastery over life. I suspect that most scientists hold absolutist, foundational presuppositions on the nature of truth within their respective fields of inquiry. Like I said: the older I get, the less sympathy I have for Nietszche…and more for the horse. On 3rd January 1889, Nietszche collapsed in a street in Turin after causing a disturbance by his attempts to shield a mistreated cart horse from the whippings being inflicted on it by it’s owner. After years of decrying pity as part of ‘slave morality’, his last public act as a sane human being was to display pity for a poor dumb animal. He swiftly descended into insanity, followed by dementia. He died eleven years later, in 1900. The documentary went on to detail some of the misinterpretations and distortions of his philosophy foisted by the Nazis. Will Self makes some comments: his early ones are banal, but those towards the end of the program show a deep grasp of Nietszche’s work. I should really make time to read some of Will Self’s books. Even his name is cool.

The documentary on Heidegger focussed on his activities as a Nazi, which have only come clearly into the light over the past two decades. I was aware that Heidegger had joined the Nazi party and had sympathies in that direction, but I was not prepared to hear just how culpable he was. I came to Heidegger via Paul Celan. Celan was a German-Jewish poet whose family was exterminated in the Holocaust. While he and his family were forced into a walled ghetto in Czernowitz, Celan translated the Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and continued to write poetry. He wrote in German, his native language, but also the language of the Nazis, the murderers responsible for destroying the East European Jewish culture which had nurtured him. This placed tremendous pressures of ambivalence on Celan’s relationship with the German language. And his attraction to Heidegger is partly explained by this: Heidegger was fascinated by language and attributed great ontological power to it. It is Heidegger that said that man only speaks insofar as he concurs with language, and that great writers such as Holderlin transcended their own meager resources by a profound engagement with language and it’s powers of calling into being. Celan knew of Heidegger’s culpability with respect to Nazism, and after the war visitted Heidegger in his hut ‘Todtnauberg’, situated in the Black Forest. Celan went there seeking some kind of acknowledgement from Heidegger, that he should apologise, or say “the word in the heart”. He never got it. In fact, it never came: Heidegger died without having said a public (or private?) word in repentance. I’ll include Celan’s poem on that visit, in Michael Hamburger’s translation:

Todtnauberg

Arnica, eyebright, the
draft from the well with the
starred die above it,

in the
hut,

the line
-whose name did the book
register before mine?-
the line inscribed
in that book about
a hope, today,
of a thinking man’s
coming
word
in the heart,

woodland sward, unlevelled,
orchid and orchid, single,

coarse stuff, later, clear
in passing,

he who drives us, the man,
who listens in,

the half-
trodden wretched
tracks through the high moors,

dampness,
much.

The documentary also included information on Hannah Arendt, who was once a pupil of Heidegger’s, and with whom he had an affair. Arendt was Jewish, and is most widely known for her reportage on the trial of Eichmann, in Jerusalem. Originally written as pieces for The New Yorker, it was compiled and issued in book form in 1963. Heidegger’s influence on Arendt is apparent in her diagnosis of a form of aphasia in Eichmann who, she says, was able only to think in ‘officialese’, government underwritten jargon that insulated him from the reality and evil consequences of his acts. He was unable to properly relate to language. Now, if we pause here and think about this, what are we to make of Heidegger? This point is interesting, because there are those (mostly within the Anglo American philosophical tradition of epistemic and language philosophy) who maintain that Heidegger’s use of language is obscurantist and conceptually vacant. Heidegger’s reputation is diminishing the more we learn about his Nazi activities, but it is an ironic justice that his greatest pupil, a Jew, should have written an epitaph that may one day become applicable not only to Eichmann, but Heidegger himself. It certainly indicates the complexity of any final assessment of his position within the tradition of western philosophy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Texts, Partially Transmitted

Posted by Eckhart's Dog Woof! Woof! on November 21, 2009

Texts, Partially Transmitted.

I am quite interested in texts or works that have a quality of inscape, of interior encoding. As if their ultimate justification is not contingent upon my ability to comprehend them. Poetry is not all about communication. Meaning is more complex than that, and somehow bound up with being. I understand hardly anything In Vallejo, yet the poems in Trilce are very precise in meaning in a way that an object is precise in the hands of someone blindfolded. Or maybe such a pseudo-incarnational take on meaning is simply proof of my being a Residual Catholic…I became interested in writing texts, not necessarily poems, where communication was difficult. This difficulty is more superficial, I think, than the difficulty presented by a poem by Celan or Vallejo, but it’s deliberate enactment, as if forcing the reader to strenously eavesdrop, became a strange fascination. The idea of an infected text, and the impact of a Reverse Transcriptase process, was also relevant as a governing idea.

1.

CD4i LTRam persuaded that neither death nor life nor anGAGels nor princiPOLalities nor powers VIFnor things presentVPR nor things to come nor height nor deVPUpth nor any other creaTATure shall beREV able to seperate us from the love ENVof god which NEFis in chLTRist jesus our lordP24 GP41
ST CODON

tick tick
tick

2.

HIV Text

Dear Craig, this is a letter and gift from your Grannie and Grandpa for your 1st birthday which we hope you have a very nice one hope you enjoy the chocolate tell mummy and daddy we are asking for them your new house sounds very nice hope that your mother is looking after you I hope that yoU-G-Cur suit fits you xand keeps you nice and warm xx I waC-G-As speaking to your other Grannie she is yxy dying to see you telA-C-Gl your mummyxx I will write I hope yoA-C-Uu have xxayx very nice birthday you are yx xx gettU-C-Aing a big boy now xyxx love GrC-U-Gnnie and Grandpaxxx U-G-C xx y x A-G-C yyxxxC-G-A yxxx y C-G-A xxx y y G-U-C xxxx yyy xyx A-U-C yyxxy C-U-A yxyxyy U-U-A yyxxxx yy x C-C-A y xx A-G-U xxxxy xx y A-C-G xx y y PAO 46 xxy A-U-C P MCA 174 xy [P WAT 540] yy GOVT PD = FAX WASHINGTON DC 10 835 P EDT = MR x ANDREW COYLE STOP [DO NOT DLR BTWN 10PM & 6AM] 101 ELA STREET BLOOMFIELD NJER RTE MONTCLAIR STOP I REGRET TO INFORM YOU THAT STAFF SERGEANT HUGH COYLE DIED IN VIETNAM ON 1JULY 1968 STOP INVESTIGATION IS IN PROGRESS STOP PLEASE ACCEPT MY DEEPEST SYMPATHY STOP KENNETH G WICKHAM MAJOR GEBERAL USA F35 THE ADJUTANT GENERAL STOP
STOP STOP
STOP
STOP

Three Idiotexts

1.

Ze teticîn-scri’ ‘pt.
ssssshhHhnnn
nnnhHhhsssssss
_. nnwrdlyspîrllinngM
an dlbrot I
an slfi’ nquireeeee!

1. whu am î?
2. owt ov wwatt dü î èèèmerdge?
??
îî
oo?
oo!
Now mon’stränss of newcle’
ar iblînks
ri’mmd wîdh daze!

2.

rr blagdî vai, ?
mu’ jo jî bakü!
Zu’ gz-wangxzu’ gz
wa’ nn. g.
nn.
zzczcnffglnvchrlp!nn!ng!
gg.ît’zHèll!
oo?
oouueeoo? ooiioo.

ooeeiiiyuee.
uHh?s ‘ndHlp! sHnd
hlp! pleeeEEèèzzzz!
ng.
nn. !!

3.

fsshMoo Oowth’’zz
prö’ to’a nn. uncîa
ti’ng, eggzz’zz
zzzzzzzzzziller’ratîonzöv

Spîroch’eeta Pallîda!
Tîz’a’g Tdöv
pîn’pr î ‘cköntologeezz
& rèèèmoatsî’ nalz.

u whooz wallzöv
psy’ len?e?
off.f’tèn ekko wîdh rr
shreeeEEîîKK!!inng! Fa?e?,

re’ kölle ‘ct a’ nd hëël
dhîs Prodîg’ al Son.

The last text, below, is different: I had been reading The Holocaust, by Martin Gilbert, as part of an attempt to read up on, and understand, the Problem of Evil, not in a simply philosophical way, but in a practical and historic way. The Text conflates two quotes, one from Eichmann, the other regarding a Jewish Historian, Emmanuel Ringelblum, who attempted to document the rise of anti-Semitism in Warsaw. He, his wife Yehudit and his thirteen year old son Uri were taken to Pawiak prison, where a man called Julien Hirszhaut encountered them and recorded these words of Ringelblum’s. I felt the need to respond in language to what I read, but did not know how. The final words are those of Hirszhaut.

I REMEMBER, ADOLF EICHMANN LATER RECALLED [what is this little boy guilty of?] THAT AT THE END OF THE WANNSEE CONFERENCE, HEYDRICH, MULLER, AND MYSELF [and again he pointed his finger at his son] SAT VERY COSILY NEAR THE STOVE. WE ALL SAT TOGETHER LIKE COMRADES [it breaks my heart to think of him] NOT TO TALK SHOP, BUT TO REST AFTER LONG HOURS OF EFFORT.

I stood helpless before Ringelblum, I did not know what to answer, and a wave of sorrow swept over my heart.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

New Work

Posted by Eckhart's Dog Woof! Woof! on November 21, 2009

New Work

It’s been a while since I posted here, and a while since I have wrote anything, for various reasons. But I’ve picked up again on an old idea I had about infected texts. The basic idea is to take a Sonnet, and have it become infected by a retrovirus. Why a retrovirus? Because, in common with all viruses, they need to hijack the machinary of their host cell in order to replicate more of themselves. Retroviruses do this by using something called Reverse Transcriptase to rewrite their RNA as DNA which is then inserted into the host cell’s DNA, with the instruction to produce copies of the virus. The Sonnet is very traditional, and irrespective of it’s many variants has remained stable over time. It would be interesting to write a Sonnet sequence on idealised topics treated naively, from a realist or Platonic standpoint: The Soul, The Good, The Beautiful, infected by a retrovirus: reductionist neurobiology, moral relativism, the failure to establish objective aesthetic laws. Being a retrovirus, the infection could take the form of a radical undermining of the Host poem’s original meaning, or an ironic gloss on it.

I wrote other notes for this project, on the back pages of a works notebook: Sonnet debris: exploded Sonnet with scattered cellular debris, as after retroviral assemblage and outbreak. A Sequence. The Sonnet hijacked, used, by something it cannot contain, and which leaves behind traces of itself, not only in the evident disruption and breakage, but fragments of it’s own idiom. What is it that the Sonnet cannot contain, master, formalise? Integrate into it’s tradition?

In the meantime, I wrote a couple of Sonnets using the genetic code for a retrovirus to partially determine the vocabulary.

Retroviral Sonnets

1.

lecithTRopic monologue, reflexive,
as if i was dissected by a blade
not occams: in what manner should iiii live?
the voice again revising what is said
like an experimental GuineA piG,
or catologuing each alternative
like a POLynologist. VIF
VPR VPU TranslATe, irruptive!
in a small clear quietude i sat still
and listened to those REVenant voices
like fresh emergant fruitflies swarming towards a mirroring hereafter.
i tried to ENerVate my will
and simplify my NEwFangled choices.
i touched the one! and it broke down into LaughTeR.
2.
articulate, like a LobsTeR marching
forward GrAspinG at infitesimals,
my PanOpLy maneouvering!
i attuned my senses to decimals
and less, and tensed. verify this: something
rewrit me from the inside out! VPR
VPU a drill bit script, a strange unzipping.
my thermopylae was interior.
a hothouse flower, an unsubstantial
epiphenomenon, my roots more real
than i, i was in constant REnerVation
but always growing older: i ENVied
what i was that would outlive me, the real
real, that launches fruitflies on their brief inflection rrrrrrrrr

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Kafka Notes

Posted by Eckhart's Dog Woof! Woof! on November 21, 2009

Kafka Notes

I’ve been re-reading The Trial, and making notes as I go, marginalia. Paradoxically, I find that if I’m totally immersed in a book/text, I can make little of it, the experience is too complete. A little critical distance needs to be maintained in order to have something to say about what you have just read. It’s a lower order of reading. Proper engagement is a lived experience. Some texts I refuse to comment on, because I read them over and over in order to live in them, and they in me. Moby Dick I read annually, and I look forward to it the way one looks forward to going abroad on holiday. I go live there for a while, and come back changed. I think The Trial is one of those books that displaces you outside of itself, in jolts of estrangement. It generates commentary as an attempt to assimilate it’s strangeness. I think it is a primary text in the way The Book of Job is a primary text. There’s no way I would want to live inside the Book of Job, or allow it to interiorise itself in me without critical examination. Likewise The Trial. Always read such books with a pencil handy, a sharp one.
  1. People watching in silence – witnesses. e.g. The old woman neighbour in the opening pages.
  2. Eavesdroppers not within direct line of vision.
  3. Does K acquiesce voluntarily in his own arrest and trial?
  4. The Law. This appears to be something different from the civic laws and customs of his country as K is familiar with them.
  5. On two occasions at the time of his arrest K considers action that would be decisive in denying it’s actuality, but on both occasions is stopped by considerations relating to his ‘advantage’ and ‘superiority’ over the warders. Is K being decoyed into some kind of game theory or scenario? Is it a maze of his own construction deriving out of self-considerations and ploys designed by him to preserve and bolster his self?
  6. An abstract arrest?
  7. 1st interrogation – the audience Rabbinical, exegetical?
  8. Why is the interrogation chamber located in a suburban street, accessed, once there, through a room in a tenement block?
  9. Leni – K’s kiss to her fingers: Leni’s response! Things we only half-mean or intend given back with the full force of their meaning as if we had fully intended them?
  10. Is the sense of dislocated meaning, of the imbalance between intention and response, indicative of K’s guilt, symptomatic of it, or the thing which he is guilty of?
  11. Where to locate meaning in Kafka?
  12. “remote, inaccessible courts”, inward structures of exegesis. Fractal.
  13. Imbalance between intention and response, between cause and effect, the most lucid, economical and rational description, and that which it describes. Strategies of rationality applied to the enigmatic, bestial and grotesque. The whole machinery of exegesis, of commentary and explication, running at full tilt to correct the imbalance.
  14. Distant valedictory gestures: signals inviting but resisting decipherment.
  15. The Law. Admittance to The Law. A man seeks admittance, why? Is The Law structure and meaning? Is The Law in it’s purity, The Law itself, as opposed to it’s interpretations and exegesis, the answer to the imbalance noted above?
  16. At the end, K and his executioners form a Triptych, on their way to K’s execution. Then as if a painting of St Stephen with a tiny urban landscape in the distance grossly intruded upon at the moment of his death by the brutal faces of two clowns, his executioners.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Rubber

Posted by Eckhart's Dog Woof! Woof! on November 21, 2009

Rubber!   

I’m an enthusiastic but wildly incompetent mountain biker. I cycle locally across Forestry Commission land, which is the site of a wind farm. My normal route is a 30 mile loop, and is not technically demanding. Nevertheless, I fall off regularly. On one occasion, I simply fell over when the cumulative rattle of cycling over frozen tyre tread indentations left there by the local farmer’s tractor gradually and gently robbed me of control. Still clipped in, and holding the handlebars with a rigor mortis grip, I lay tipped onto my side. More spectacularly, I frequently get launched head first over the handlebars on steep descents. This incompetence has led to an immoderate fascination with off road tyres. They are the point of contact between me on the bike, and the ground. Their choice has a bearing on how successfully I maintain that contact. I generally cycle singlespeed. I enjoy the simplicity of it, having, so to speak, only two gears: sitting down, and standing up. When I come to a steep hill, I stand up. When on the flat, or descending a not-too-bumpy hill, I sit down. Foolproof. Gears, 21 of them on my ‘geared’ mountain bike, can be confusing and distracting. So long as the terrain is not to hilly, or the route too long, I default to my On-One Inbred. This bike is also fully rigid: it has no suspension at all. This is also a preference, as a rigid fork steers and tracks more accurately. A suspension fork has lateral ‘flutter’. It also has the unnerving habit of altering the bike’s geometry as it compresses or rebounds through it’s travel, and shifts your body weight forward and back over the bike. I find a bike without suspension more predictable, and as I am not a freerider or downhiller, my riding rarely exceeds the capabilities of such a simple bike. 

On my singlespeed I use a WTB Weirwolf 2.1 up front, and a 1.9 Nano Raptor on the rear. This size of Nano Raptor is no longer available, I bought 10 of them as new old stock. They are very light, 380g on my scales, and have a low rolling resistance due to the raised centre line. Their lightness is ideal for singlespeeding because it reduces the rotating mass of the wheel. The difference tyre weight makes to the effort it requires to pedal is masked on a geared bike, on a singlespeed it is readily felt. Hills I can climb on this bike with these tyres are insurmountable if I swap to heavier tyres.    


What I also like about these tyres is the flexibility of the carcass. I run them at 30psi, and this allows them to conform to the terrain. Their low profile tread has many working edges, and these provide a surprising amount of grip as the tyre moulds to the ground 

Up front, I use the 2.1 WeirWolf because of it’s aggressive array of teeth along the shoulder of the tyre. If your rear wheel slips, it generally isn’t disastrous: you can catch the slide, or, at worst, you find yourself having to put a foot down or crashing onto your bum. If your front wheel slides from under you, the resultant crash tends to be much heavier and head forward. The Nano Raptor wouldn’t work up front because it’s shoulder tread is puny. The WeirWolf is designed to rail into corners and actually increases grip when tilted.    

    

I have these in a massive 2.5 downhill version, and out of interest fitted them to my singlespeed to see what difference they would make to the effort needed to get up my local hills. I washed out on most of them.  

I generally prefer tyres with low profile tread, and run them at low pressure, 30psi rear, 25psi on the front, thinking that the amount of deformation a tyre undergoes as it moulds itself to the contours of the ground is the best source of grip. [Unless, of course, you are dealing with mud.] Tread patterns that consist of knobs can sometimes feel fidgety over loose terrain, especially if the lugs are weak. They tend to rebound and deflect off stones and other loose rubbish, making handling unpredictable. There is also the issue of lugs folding suddenly if you lean into a corner, which is more likely to happen if you run tyres at low pressure as I do. My two favourite tyres with knobs are the WTB Stout, which avoids some of the above criticisms by having it’s lugs squat and well spaced out, and Panaracer’s Cinder, which has a stepped lug pattern and an especially grippy compound. The side knobs on both tyres are well supported at their base and unlikely to fold.                                                                                                                                    

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Dostoyevsky Notes

Posted by Eckhart's Dog Woof! Woof! on November 21, 2009

Dostoyevsky Notes

Marmeladov. Man’s capacity for suffering being far greater than what is required by evolutionary adaptation, surely it must be of metaphysical import? How do we find out? How do we react to being the captive, tortured insects of such a capacity for suffering? You push it to it’s limit, like Marmeladov, you search it’s depths for some form of illumination. You refuse to be an unwilling victim, and, instead, will it’s intensification. But only, of course, if you are Marmeladov, cradled in the benign providence of Dostoyevsky.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Boxing Notes

Posted by Eckhart's Dog Woof! Woof! on November 21, 2009

Boxing Notes

Flicking through Charles Hoff’s work, I remembered I had jotted down miscellaneous notes on the subject of Boxing, some years ago when I was intrigued by it’s history and by the nature of the fascination it held for me. One of the reasons I became interested in boxing was that it presents itself as a lineage, a tradition, and that this tradition has it’s own ‘reading list’, the library of fight movies that are available from collectors. Times, places, protagonists, all captured on film, and part of a chronological order. I could set this reading list of fighters alongside and in parallel to the list of great 20th century poets. Both provide windows onto their times, particular points of entry into the strangeness of history. I had also been reading about the practical application of Zen to various arts, and was being made aware of the fact that there are many different kinds of intelligence, not simply the literary and philosophical, or mathematical and scientific. Takuan Soho [1573-1645] is particularly instructive on the application of Zen to fight strategy, the integration of bodily knowledge to the point where it’s execution is unselfconscious, where mind is no longer hindered and does not ‘stop’ anywhere, but responds instantly and appropriately to each situation. It seemed to me that the best boxers embodied principles similar to this. I’ve posted some of my jottings below. Does anyone remember Naseem Hamed? I wrote these before Barrera defeated him. It turned out that loss in the ring was something he could not rebound from, unlike Ali.

Boxing Notes

 

Boxing is a language, a physical language. It appears as a glissando of violence, but it has a depth of inscape equal to that of birdsong. What we hear of birdsong is the surface elision, not the vertical structure that playback at slower speeds reveals. The photographs of Charles Hoff read boxing vertically, as a composition of discrete moments. We have difficulty reading boxing in real times because of the sovereignty of it’s own means of expression, and the sheer speed of it’s utterance.

Boxing is primarily about biography, character, what it is that shapes a man, ands his training, his forging himself into an instrument.

Much of a boxer’s training and preparation has to do with an inward psychological bolstering against anticipated opponents. Note Ali’s love of the mirror. Joe Frazier shadow boxing: fractional movements, completed inwardly. A form of mental visualisation and interior rehearsal,. Joe Frazier: burrows forward under the surface of an opponents defence, like a mole, or man in the trenches. He undermines the walls of his opponents defense. Joe Louis: stalks his opponent, his cautious and remorselessly incremental crabwise approach.

Boxers invest so heavily in their self belief, and encourage others to do so, that when they say ‘I cannot be beaten’, they mean it, as an abbreviated form of ‘I cannot afford to be beaten’. This applies with particular relevance to Hamed. How will he react to his inevitable first defeat?

Naseem Hamed: ‘ticks over’as a way of maintaining reaction times, his entry to music and constant bravado, wiggling and posturing are a way of keeping the gap between will and act, conception and execution, closed.

For the boxer, reflexive analyses constitutes a hiatus.

Boxers must eliminate the gap between will and act, conception and execution. To do this, they first of all invest in their physicality through an act of will so that the body obeys the will. But what they are attempting to attain is a point in this process of investment at which the body repays with a surfeit of energy and response, when it blossoms with an embodied inspiration.

Boxers then think in the body, and reflexive analyses is replaced by interpretative action.

This constitutes the formalisation of instinct, it’s gardening, and is part of the grace of violence which is the attraction of boxing: the way training and discipline elevate a man above raw instinct in just a situation in which raw instinct is at it’s most insistent.

Raw instinct, untrained, is a weakness in a fighter. And there is a way in which each fight can be interpreted as a process of sounding out between opponents of each others’ depth of training. A fighter will attempt to elicit and map involuntary reactions in his opponent, in order to exploit these. He will attempt to attack up to, and past, the limits of his opponents defense, and then augment his attack manoeuvres with additional moves, in response to the blindspots and weaknesses thus revealed. The better a boxer is, the more disciplined, the more difficult it is for his opponent to force him to reveal his involuntary reactions, his raw, untrained instincts.

The space between two fighters…What is going on in that space? Ali: constant motion, circling his opponent. This charges the space between him and his opponent with a field of potential angles. As he moves, he is mapping these, examining their viability.

A ‘tight’ boxer, such as Ernie Terrel, or the Welsh boxer Steve Robinson from whom Naseem Hamed won the WBO title, operates wit thin a narrow cone of potential angles. When confronted with Hamed, Robinson was unable to focus him within the diameter of this cone. In addition, Hamed’s 360 degrees field of attack meant that Robinson was alternately blind to his approaches, or had his attention dispersed beyond the mechanics of his own counterattack. He couldn’t see to hit him, and when he could see him, he couldn’t hit him.

Muhammed Ali boxed on a bow wave of constant surprise, buoyed up and carried forward by a physical intelligence more spontaneous than incremental problem solving, which is a slave to terms dictated.

In the opening rounds a man is bright with fear. He is made of breath, a pulse, and powerful elastics. He bounces from foot to foot in a small, severe kingdom of vertical light, where details are registered with a micro-chisel and time has a paved, expansive feel to it.

He sharpens to acuity in his Cerebellum, reaches crisis by a process of radical deletion. He has his spine, and it’s pathways.

He faces a man as instrumental as himself. Who will try to beat him into pieces of thinking. The segments breaking off will destabilise his poise, and begin to wobble him toward total disintegration.

To avoid this, he periodically tests his body in the free spaces available to it, dipping, bobbing, dancing, healing it’s integrity between flurries of blows, or by armouring his advance, detaching himself from peripheral pain as if it were a bombardment on the distant horizon.

As the rounds advance, weariness begins to deposit it’s minerals.

His shoulder sockets begin to manifest themselves as iron, as do his ribs. The arch of each eye socket begins to heat into prominence, and a hot, ragged tar rises up in his lungs. He is lathed in veneers of sweat. Now the man is wearing a coat of meat, heavy, and the cables at the back of his heels are beginning to whine in distress. His consciousness begins to fog up like a bar room mirror.

Boxing is a form of self knowledge, a physical examination of conscience. Floyd Patterson knew this. Hence his provisional manner, the hesitancy of his character outside the ring, and the monastic, contemplative fervour of his training.

A man only knows himself in extremis, when he pushes, or is pushed, past his armchair conceptions of himself, to how he is revealed in the last analyses of his acts. The thing itself. Bathed in a Sui Generis light.

Each fight is an X-ray.

Each fight is a densely worded text, like a page of runes. It invites and resists decipherment. It attracts and appals, like barbarian metalwork, embryonic, animalmorphic, bubbling with chimeras struggling to get loose, and recycled under in the thrash of muscle.

A great fight demands total self-absorption in it’s riddle, and a solution to a problem with the same magnitude as life and death. The magnitudes are equal because the fighter has sacrificed everything to the riddle. He has invested his total psychic energy in it, it encapsulates his value system, is the absolute yardstick by which he will be judged. Everything else outside the ring floats free in a zero gravity, until that time the riddle is solved, temporarily.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »