Di Prima Vs. Ginsberg

Both di Prima and Ginsberg write about America in their poetry, Ginsberg in his poem "America" and di Prima in her "Revolutionary Letter #16," both targeting consumerism and capitalist culture.

Ginsberg's poem is obviously sarcastic in tone, shown in the lines "That no good. Ugh. Him make indians read/ Him need big black niggers. Hah. Her make us/ all work sixteen hours a day. Help." His use of this primitive voice is a mockery that presents America as ignorant and brainwashed from modern societal capitalism. The brainwashing is also prevalent in the repetition of "them Russians" and the obsession with communism during the Cold War era. Ginsberg's poem is very personal and uses "I" throughout because he does not want to be included in the masses of capitalism and seeks to maintain his individuality.

Di Prima presents America as an image having diverted from a more primitive state and being more closely associated with nature. She states that the overflow of consumerism has damaged the integrity of our relationship with nature by saying "every large factory is an infringement/ of our god-given right to light and air/ to clean and flowing rivers stocked with fish." Di Prima, in contrast to Ginsberg, speaks with a collective voice by using "we" throughout her poem. By including everyone in her statements, she is making a sort of call-to-arms motion that beckons people to make a change in their actions.

--John Prichard

Full Circle

As we near closer and closer to the end of the quarter, I want to re-share one of the very first pieces we read for the class: Lawrence Ferlinghetti's "Challenges To Young Poets." Very similar to Kerouac's 30 essentials for writing, Ferlinghetti's advice exemplifies many of the aims of beat literature. Hopefully we can use these words as inspiration, to carry on the legacy of beatitude and make our own beautiful bop prosody.

Lawrence Ferlinghetti "Challenges To Young Poets":

Invent a new language anyone can understand.

Climb the Statue of Liberty.

Reach for the unattainable.

Kiss the mirror and write what you see and hear.

Dance with wolves and count the stars, including the unseen.

Be naive, innocent, non-cynical, as if you had just landed on earth (as indeed you have, as indeed we all have), astonished by what you have fallen upon.

Write living newspapers. Be a reporter from outer space, filing dispatches to some supreme managing editor who believes in full disclosure and has a low tolerance level for hot air.

Write an endless poem about your life on earth or elsewhere.

Read between the lines of human discourse.

Avoid the provincial, go for the universal.

Think subjectively, write objectively.

Think long thoughts in short sentences.

Don't attend poetry workshops, but if you do, don't go to learn 'how to" but to learn "what" (What's important to write about).

Don't bow down to critics who have not themselves written great masterpieces.

Resist much, obey less.

Secretly liberate any being you see in a cage.

Write short poems in the voice of birds. Make your lyrics truly lyrical. Birdsong is not made by machines. Give your poems wings to fly to the treetops.

The much-quoted dictum from William Carlos Williams, "No ideas but in things," is OK for prose, but it lays a dead hand on lyricism, since "things" are dead.

Don't contemplate your navel in poetry and think the rest of the world is going to think it's important.

Remember everything, forget nothing.

Work on a frontier, if you can find one.

Go to sea, or work near water, and paddle your own boat.

Associate with thinking poets. They're hard to find.

Cultivate dissidence and critical thinking. "First thought, best thought" may not make for the greatest poetry. First thought may be worst thought.

What's on your mind? What do you have in mind? Open your mouth and stop mumbling.

Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

Question everything and everyone. Be subversive, constantly questioning reality and the status quo.

Be a poet, not a huckster. Don't cater, don't pander, especially not to possible audiences, readers, editors, or publishers.

Come out of your closet. It's dark in there.

Raise the blinds, throw open your shuttered windows, raise the roof, unscrew the locks from the doors, but don't throw away the screws.

Be committed to something outside yourself. Be militant about it. Or ecstatic.

To be a poet at sixteen is to be sixteen, to be a poet at 40 is to be a poet. Be both.

Wake up and pee, the world's on fire.

Have a nice day.

What "Really" Happened at UC Davis

Here's a video posted earlier this week regarding the pepper spray incident at UC Davis. The 15 minute long video (I encourage you to watch it in its entirety) shows in chronological order the events leading up to the moment where police sprayed students.

In the video, officers give the students warnings before making any arrests. Once arrests had been made, protesters gathered around them and demanded that the detained be released. Again police warn students that they must move when the squad car comes or they will have to "use force." Students refuse to budge and continue their chanting, at one point the phrase "from Davis to Greece, fuck the police." The standoff resulted in the use of pepper spray.

I found this video to be helpful in showing the events leading up to the incident to help provide a different side of the story. However, I disagree with some of the biased commentary that the author of the video put over the footage.

The comment section on this video has erupted with controversy. It seems to be narrowed down to two groups:

1. Supporters of the policemen for having warned the students. Some posts say that officers were patient and properly warned protesters of what would happen if they did not clear a path. Others say that the students antagonized the police by not allowing them to leave and chanting disrespectful "fuck you's."

2. Supporters of the students for occupying peacefully and for their rights to free speech. Posts claim that there was not just cause for the use of pepper spray and that it was an attack on the student body, and that police should not have harmed students when it wasn't necessary.

Comments? Opinions?

-John Prichard

a post from many moons ago

                                                  

               In chapter 5 of Dharma Bums, Kerouac introduces the concept of yab-yum and the bodhisattva. Yab-yum literally translates to mother-father. This union consists of two components, the male and female, symbolizing the means necessary to reach enlightenment. The male form is active and is meant to achieve compassion and mastery through this interaction. The female form is passive and represents wisdom. Ultimately, this union is meant to expedite the process of buddhahood via ecstasy, non-duality and bliss. 

After engaging in yab-yum, Ray begins discussing Princess’ role in the activity. She explains, “‘But I’m the old mother of earth. I’m a Bodhisattva.’ She was just a little off her nut but when I heard her say ‘Bodhisattva’ I realized she wanted to be a big Buddhist like Japhy and being a girl the only way she could express it was this way, which its traditional roots in the yab-yum ceremony of Tibetan Buddhism, so everything was fine (Kerouac, 30).” Kerouac claims that a girl’s only means of achieving buddhahood is through this medium. But, why is it any different for the male? Looking more closely, one finds that Tibetan Buddhism declares the most essential component of becoming a bodhisattva is bodhicitta, the union between wisdom and compassion that dissolves duality. In this action of yab-yum, individuals attempt to achieve bodhicitta through this unity. 

The male and female need one another equally in this action. In my opinion, it seems illogical that a male can achieve bodhicitta while still maintaining a belief in duality considering the previously mentioned definition. Japhy continues to explain that “the Bodhisattva women of Tibet and parts of ancient India were taken and used as holy concubines (Kerouac, 31).” The term concubine connotes an inferior female typically used for sex and/or birth. This view of the female does not support the quest for bodhicitta. Japhy references ancient India in the time of the Buddha when ideologies were still taking form. Prince Gotama, of this time, used concubines and males lived with little to no restraint. As Buddhist teachings developed, this perspective branched off into several forms. Japhy conveniently alludes to this specific time in order to defend his character. These males pick and choose ideologies that suit their desires in order to maintain the facade of a spiritual being. This is highlighted with Japhy’s reaction to a woman asking to tag along mountain climbing. He mockingly states, “Shore, come on with us and we’ll all screw ya at ten thousand feet (Kerouac, 27).” This statement suggests that her purpose on the journey would be providing sexual pleasure to the males. His mocking laugh assumes she possesses false interest in the activity and to let her join would be a privilege.

The lack of equality and strong tones of duality between the male and female suggest false intentions. To claim that their sexual interactions are that of yab-yum seems hyperbolic considering the inequality being practiced. Bodhicitta can not be found without realizing non-duality. Bodhisattva can not be found without bodhicitta. In my opinion, the issue is not these natural acts of sexuality but, instead, the labels that are slapped upon them. 

-cassandra

boundless transcendence

       An empty bank in downtown santa cruz has been occupied. Approximately 30 individuals are inside & help is needed on the outside. The bank is located on river & water street. Head down after class if you can.

heres a link to the occupyca post:
http://occupyca.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/empty-bank-occupied-in-santa-cruz/

& heres a link to keep updated with the livestream:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/radicaltimes

(ironic how an advertisement precedes the livestream, huh?)

Mainstream media is, as usual, supplying information they find convenient to maintain business as usual. According to a recent broadcast of an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, only 28% of americans approve of the OWS movement.

But wait, the broadcasted poll overlooked that 60% of americans agree with the following statement:

“The current economic structure of the country is out of balance and favors a very small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country. America needs to reduce the power of major banks and corporations and demand greater accountability and transparency. The government should not provide financial aid to corporations and should not provide tax breaks to the rich.”

Another 16% of the population mildly agree with the above statement. That produces a sum of 76% of americans. 

Now, lets take into account how many people have voted in the previous elections.

In the 2008 election, about 56.8% of americans voted.

In the 2004 election, about 55.3% voted.

While statistics are not always trustworthy, we find that a higher percentage of americans can get behind the ideals of this movement than they can a presidential candidate. What does that say about our current social structure?

-cassandra

di Prima and OccupyLA

Going back to what section A was discussing tonight...what’s currently happening at this exact moment at OccupyLA seems to be completely relevant to Diane di Prima’s Revolutionary Letter #65 (specifically the first half of this Letter). “Let everything private be made public!”

Those who have access to their phones, camera, etc. are keeping us connected to what is happening at OccupyLA (just as others have throughout the country). I’m currently watching the live feed of the raid. Nearly everyone there is willing to get arrested.

We discussed tonight that technology/faceless media can alienate us from each other. It seems to (at least) be uniting us tonight.

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupylacivicengagement

-Monica

di Prima and /

When I'm reading di Prima's poems, the way she uses slashes really jumps out at me. A lot of the time she just uses them for contractions, like w/out, which gives he poems an instruction-manual sense of straightforwardness and urgency. Other times she, uses it as a conjunction whose literal meaning isn't as clear. In "Revolutionary Letter # 75," for example, it seems at first to stand in for "and," like when she writes "every man / every woman carries the firmament inside." Later in the poem, we read "and no one can fight it but you / & no one can fight it for you." The forward slash is followed immediately by an ampersand, so it can be assumed that "and" is not the intended meaning. Similarly, "or" does not fit syntactically. "And" and "or" are the conjunctions most commonly replaced by a forward slash, so the reader has to wonder if the symbol represents a transition that cannot be adequately expressed by an english word. Personally, the slash reminds me of a line break in a transcription of a poem, which is funny because it occurs in a poem itself. The extra space on either side of the slash, a feature that is absent whenever di Prima uses "w/out," contributes to this effect.

In #75, the slash surrounded by space occurs mostly between man and woman. To me, this creates the impression of a widening gulf between genders, which seems almost out of place in a poem whose content does not seem particularly gendered, especially compared to some of her other work. It seems as if the words on the page play down the difference between genders at the same time that the typography reinforces it.

-John Griffoul