![]() For what it’s worth, there’s nothing else quite like it. The question I’m now addressing is whether or not recent work in machine learning gives me any tools I can use in investigating “Kubla Khan.” It’s a tricky question.īut first, one might ask: Why spend so much time thinking about that one poem? For one thing it’s an important poem, one of the best known and most anthologized in the English language, and arguably one of the greatest. In addition to those major pieces, I’ve written many blog posts either centered on “Kubla Khan” or somehow commenting on it. Those two papers are my only formal academic publications on “Kubla Khan,” but I’ve done two unpublished working papers since then, Calculating meaning in “Kubla Khan” – a rough cut (2017), and most recently, Symbols and Nets: Calculating Meaning in “Kubla Khan” (2022). I regard these as significant advances, 1985 over 1972, and 2003 over 1985. That version has many more diagrams than the 1985 version, and they were in color, something that’s trivially easy for online publication, but expensive in print publication. Almost 20 years later, in 2003, I published a long essay, “Kubla Khan” and the Embodied Mind, in PsyArts: A Hyperlink Journal for the Psychological Study of the Arts. I published a somewhat revised version of that in 1985, Articulate Vision: A Structuralist Reading of ”Kubla Khan.” I jettisoned most of the philosophical setting of the MA thesis and added some diagrams derived from my work on computational semantics with David Hays. I then went on to write a 1972 master’s thesis on it, THE ARTICULATED VISION: Coleridge's “Kubla Khan.” I first read the poem in my senior year in college, in a course taught by Earl Wasserman. Whatever else I have been interested over a long and varied intellectual career, I have always been interested in Coleridge’s “Kubla Khan.” I have been interested in the mind and culture, and “Kubla Khan” is my touchstone – as the title of an early autobiographical essay has it – on where things stand.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |