Poetry, language, cultural dichotomies

If I can make any comparisons between math and poetry, it would be that they both use some version of language to represent abstractions of reality. In class, we had listed some dichotomies on the board, one of which was rational/irrational. First of all, I don’t think “irrational” is quite the right word. It has a bit of a negative connotation, and doesn’t quite convey an accurate counterpoint to rational thinking. I would say “rationality vs. intuition” is maybe a slightly more complete version of that dichotomy. It doesn’t matter too much, especially since this dichotomy exists in many different forms anyway. You could also pitch it as mind vs. soul, or right brain vs left brain, or science vs spirituality, or logic vs. emotion, or maybe even male vs female (if you’re thinking about cultural stereotypes). Getting back to math and poetry however… The standard (narrow minded) way of thinking is that math is more cold and rational, while something like poetry is more expressive and emotional. By the way, I think you could basically substitute poetry for any other fine art and still have a similar discussion. At the end of the day, poetry, music, painting, and even math, are all just modes of self expression. I won’t deny that math is more successful at expressing rational thinking, and poetry is more effective at expressing emotional thinking. My point would be that it’s much more of a yin and yang situation than people give it credit for. There’s a substantial intuitive component to maths, and similarly, there’s a substantial rational component to any of the fine arts. For example, a lot of the super fundamental ideas in mathematics are born out of intuition. You will hear some people say that math is all just “made up.” You also hear people talk more along the lines of math having been “discovered.” In either case, and whether or not folks admit to it, I believe these are essentially tacit admissions of the fact that mathematics really does appeal to our intuition. It just makes “sense.” On the other hand, I think truly excellent poetry is only truly excellent because it has a really well thought-out structure and careful formulation, mindful of the multitude of connotations which would be inferred from in-depth analysis. 

 A final point I want to raise here, would be in reference to Kimmerer’s introductory chapter, Standing Stones. People are so obsessed with names and labels. Don’t get me wrong, I do get it. There’s a lot of cultural context associated with the names of people/animals/plants/what-have-you. But as Kimmerer points out, scientific names of mosses for example, really don’t capture their entire essence. And I don’t think that indigenous names of those mosses fully capture their spirit either. A name is not an identity. Names, labels, dichotomies, and language in general, only have as much power and meaning as we all collectively decide. I’m not smart enough to dissect that whole can of worms, but I do want to tie it back to the labels and dichotomies we associate with math and poetry. We connect these with so much else, both positive and negative connotations, based solely on the language surrounding them. But much like Kimmerer in her circle of standing stones, I think we would all be much better off trying to experience these subjects for what they are, tuning in to their essence, without all of the confused dichotomous associations we’ve made over the course of a mess of human history.