Feeling-thinking : embodiment and knowledge in the poetry of Rozalie Hirs and Anne Carson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This doctoral dissertation probes a feeling-thinking impulse in the poetry of the Dutch poet-composer Rozalie Hirs (b. 1965) and Canadian poet and classicist Anne Carson (b. 1950). In more precise terms, it studies how an embodied cognition is expressed in their writings on a formal, material, and discursive level, while also considering the effects of these configurations in terms of the kind of poetic epistemology or knowledge world that is solicited. Situated in the framework of a new materialism, this dissertation mainly draws on insights from cognitive literary studies to this end, with the aim of stimulating a conversation between contemporary poetry studies and areas of scholarship (including philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science) that are interested in the many facets of embodied cognition. It first analyses Carson’s and Hirs’s hybrid poetic writings as examples of an interaction between a lyric (or ‘feeling’) and conceptual (or ‘thinking’) mode from a cognitive prototypical perspective. It then considers how the words and the background of the page constitute a field of vision or ‘screen’ that needs to be visually and haptically activated by the reader in their interpretation of the literary work. Finally, the experience of discourses in their poetry, particularly those about women, is approached as an act of cognitive world building prompted by references to the body. The analysis thus demonstrates that Carson’s and Hirs’s works of poetry enable knowledge worlds that are fully embodied: their writings are not only about the poetic subject’s embodied cognition, but this feeling-thinking is also formally structured, materially bodied forth, and discursively encouraged. As a result, Hirs’s and Carson’s poetry invites readers to approach meaning and knowing as exploratory and delayed, thus encouraging them to make full use of the brain’s plasticity in its form-generating capacity. By developing the notion of a knowledge world for poetry studies, this dissertation ultimately questions the widespread belief that poetry is above all emotive and hence little concerned with questions of knowledge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".