from Poetry and Possibility: An Interview with Paul
* * *
MR: Do you think that's the actual
dynamic of it, that's the way it happens? The movement is toward
language and the referential comes as a bonus?
PR: This would be my deep conviction.
This is why I am not at odds with structuralists and all those who
say, but poetic language is not referential or sui-referential.
I say you are right and more right than you think, because it's
precisely the blessing and the reward of this renunciation that
may be a new link, a new bond withI should even say with nature
or with creation.
At the beginning, you said but why do you speak of poetics. I gave
only one half of the answer, because Aristotle speaks of poetics
for all kinds of making in terms of language, both in fiction and
poetry. But also because through this recovery of the capability
of language to create and recreate, we discover reality itself in
the process of being created.
So we are connected with this dimension of reality which is itself
unfinished, which is . . . and then, once more, I should like to
use the vocabulary of Aristotle when he speaks of the entelecheia,
the potentiality to see things in terms of potentialities and not
only in terms of actualities.
There is a place in my book on metaphor when I say that when language
is itself in the process of becoming once more potential it is attuned
to this dimension of reality which itself is unfinished and in the
Language in the making celebrates reality in the making.
MR: So the only reality we know is
the reality that we reach in this way?
PR: And the rest of our language
in ordinary speech and so on has to do with reality as it is already
done, as it is finished, as it is there in the sense of the closedness
of what is, with its meaning which is already asserted by the consensus
of wise people.