People with opinions just go around bothering one another
— The Buddha
Well, gosh, that's the foundation of the blogosphere. If Jonathan Mayhew and Mike Snider didn't have very different opinions about poetry, they'd hardly have anything to write about. If I didn't foam at the mouth everytime I even think about our Fearless & Handsome Leader, I might be speechless.
There are certain religious issues that I have come to consider as "matters of opinion" which have helped me be less up-tight about them. For example, I think the question of whether the resurrection was a historical event is a matter of opinion. Most people who call themselves Christian would consider the resurrection a historical event; I'm aware my agnosticism on the issue is a minority opinion. But, since I recognize my view is an opinion, I don't feel compelled to argue for its facuality.
In the same manner, I think Jonathan and Mike are expression opinions about poetry. I hope to someday write more on this, but I don't suppose there to be a Platonic ideal which absolutely defines poetry. Right now, today, I'm more interested in doing my best to write a poem. My goal is to communicate - first with myself, and in accord with my variable aesthetic; then with as wide a society as possible.
I have a relatively liberal definition of poetry, which I suspect would annoy both Jonathan and Michael.
Maybe what the Buddha was getting at is the notion many people have that they must defend their opinions. The view is common that one's perception of the world, and the solution to the world's problems, is the only accurate perception. So one will defend that perception when someone offers an alternate, or conflicting, perception. This defense comes out of the sense that the other person is just plain wrong. Or, perhaps we have wrapped so much of our self-worth and identity in this "world view" that we feel attacked when someone disagrees.
As is so often the case with Buddhism, it all comes down to ego run rampant.
No comments:
Post a Comment