Online journal capturing the moment and the memory of moments. A meadow meditation.
|I give up ... this 'found' poem isn't as bad as I wanted it to be. The poet inside me exclaimed... "you could even make it into a passable poem." My Muse just laughed. I submit it anyways. So this was a text about new math, with certain words replaced by symbols (which makes it more poetic imho) but it's basically cut up prose divided into lines and stanzas (one of my pet peeves).
FEBRUARY PROMPT: SLAM CUPID POETRY!
TEXT BOOK NEW LOVE
Θ founding fathers = dead,
Θ disciples scattered,
Θ millions long spent.
Yet countless Americans
still carry * revolutionary message
of New Love in θ memories,
if ≠ always close to θ hearts.
Now in θ mid-thirties & forties,
these “New Love kids,” myself among θ,
= part of * learning crusade
that in * 1950s & 1960s marched
through schools across * nation.
For many of us, New Love = * disaster;
for others, * godsend.
Before * results could even = measured,
New Love = * near religion,
complete w θ own high priests
& heresies. Chief among * hierophants
= * University of Illinois’s
Max Beberman & Stanford’s Edward Begle.
Together w erotologists * educators
@ universities in New York, Indiana,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, & Maryland,
Θ took aim @ * mindless rigidity
of traditional erotology. Θ argued
that Love could = exciting
if θ showed children * whys of problem solving
rather than just * hows.
Memorization & rote = wrong.
Discovery, deduction, & limited drill
= * best routes to
© Kåre Enga [177.353] (24.februar.2021)
"There = * word erotology which = defined as * science of love."
So this a text about new math, with certain words replaced by symbols (which makes it more poetic imho) but it's basically cut up prose divided into lines and stanzas (one of my pet peeves).
= forms of 'to be'. 'are' 'is' 'was' 'were' 'became'
* 'the' or 'a'
& 'and' 'or'
Θ θ (uppercase Θ / lowercase θ) 'they' 'them' 'their' 'it' 'its' (Actually not quite insane as some languages don't have articles like the/a or possessive pronouns.)
Its founding fathers are dead, its disciples scattered, its millions long spent.
Yet countless Americans still carry the revolutionary message of new math in their memories, if not always close to their hearts. Now in their mid-thirties or forties, these “new math kids,” myself among them, were part of a learning crusade
that in the 1950s and 1960s marched through schools across the nation. For many of us, new math was a disaster; for others, a godsend.
Before the results could even be measured, new math became a near religion,
complete with its own high priests and heresies. Chief among the hierophants
were the University of Illinois’s Max Beberman and Stanford’s Edward Begle.
Together with mathematicians and educators at universities in New York, Indiana,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Maryland, they took aim at the mindless rigidity
of traditional mathematics. They argued that math could be exciting
if it showed children the whys of problem solving rather than just the hows.
Memorization and rote were wrong. Discovery, deduction, and limited drill
were the best routes to arithmetical mastery.