One explanation re: Mina Loy.

On Friday someone asked me how I made sense of Mina Loy. Instead of being a jerk, I replied that I just got her, and I didn't quite know why. (The real reason is that I have decent knowledge of the English language and also philosophy, poetry, and logical theory, probably.) But to offer an example, I wrote this:

Peculiar Machinery

In “Human Cylinders,” Mina Loy charts a sexual encounter seemingly void of sentimentality and tenderness. This Futurist affirmation of men as machines begins by lauding a mechanical, structured approach to human sexuality, reducing sexual experience to an intellectual correspondence. Loy acknowledges the stereotypical dichotomy between a masculine desire for intellectual transcendence and a feminine tendency toward emotionality. In the Futurist model, the masculine volition strikes out into infinity, as the feminine delves inside itself and wallows in the depths of sentimentality. While Loy may have intended this to be an argument for a Futuristic rejection of the irrationality of emotion, a closer reading suggests the opposite. Loy offers, at most, a wavering assertion that humans should emulate machines when faced with the potential for romance. More likely, though, Loy seems unconvinced that the kind of emotional detachment described is either possible or rewarding. Subtle rejections of the “simplification of men” permeate the text, so Loy’s argument seems either pregnant with contradictions or cleverly crafted to crack itself open. In a poem that finally champions complexity over certitude, Loy seems to assert that neither extreme is ideal and that no human relationship can be governed by such strict rules.
The central image of the poem, the cylinder, immediately sexualizes the poem by evoking the image of a pumping piston moving under fluid pressure. The human cylinders, powerful machines, meet in the first stanza to establish their relationship. The “enervating dust” surrounds them, weakening their vitality and clouding their vision. It encases the cylinders, yet keeps them separate, as “each” is wrapped closer. They float among the “litter” of dreariness on a “sunless afternoon,” in a flavorless, dull landscape. These first lines reduce human experience to an existence of unfeeling automatons, each separate and alone. Usually a poetic sexual encounter begins with graceful intimations of adoration, while this couple lacks any semblance of feeling. In startling opposition to romantic conventions, these lovers begin as sexualized machines looking for mechanical connection.
The “mystery of singularity” adds curious complexity, as “singularity” has multiple meanings that muddle the point. At first, Loy may just be musing upon the “mystery” of being a solitary, separate being. The connotations of physics, however, should not be ignored, especially given the plethora of scientific language and imagery in the poem. In this scientific context, singularity refers to the point at which matter becomes infinite and space and time become infinitely distorted. Similarly, singularity in mathematics becomes a situation in which a function takes on every complex value infinitely often. The introduction of such complicated phenomena could not have been coincidental, as the poem thrives on a tension between the simple and the complex. The contradictory meanings of this word mirror the “mystery” Loy herself plays with in this poem. The concepts of oneness and the infinite build upon one another as the lines become distorted.
The final lines of the stanza introduce the problematic into the simplified sexual relationship, as the words make a claim they fail to prove:
And at least two of us
Loved a very little
Without seeking
To Know if our two miseries
In the lucid rush-together of automatons
Could form one opulent well-being
If the “two” loved only “a very little” and “without seeking” that “opulent well-being,” there would be no reason for the romanticized description of mutual love. The possibility of their union elicits particularly rich description for a mere afterthought. As Loy introduces this overly protesting image, one is still left with the possibility that the “automatons” form that richly abundant state of comfort.
The “simplifications of men” consummate their physicality in a “frenzied” joining of “intellect,” “leaning brow to brow” rather than heart to heart. However, the space after “brow to brow” begs the question of what was omitted. Perhaps the space allows these simple machines to forge past that “abyss of the potential” that surely must be the trap of emotional attachment. Maybe they believe that if they don’t acknowledge emotional attachment, it will cease to exist. The “abyss” of the awfulness of human emotion holds that aforementioned “potential” of the formation of the one “opulent well-being” from their “two.” They cannot even allow their breath to combine because the “concordance in respiration” would encourage a kind of agreement in spirit. They fight to remain separate, as that “concordance” causes shame. The “absence of corresponding” connotes a lack of harmony between the sense organs: neither responds to the other’s needs. “Reciprocity,” a word also used to describe trade agreements between nations, brings a no-nonsense approach to “conception” and “expression.” The “two” may literally conceive a child in their union, but it remains abstract and detached from sentimentality.
As the machines separate, the product of their physicality is remote and strange. “Each” of the two “extrudes” beyond the realm of the “tangible” and insignificant “trail of speculation” a separate being. The female becomes the “whining beast” who desires to “slink” inward to return to the past. She seeks refuge in a snug, womb-like “burrow,” for pure physicality proves painful and unfulfilling for her. The male, on the other hand, sends out a “tentacle of intuition” into the infiniteness of space. He appears to shoot out unharmed, “elastic” and vital, but is left to “quiver” alone in space. He only looks invincible; he allows his fear to show far away from human judgment. Both machines express a vulnerable being, and both end up alone in their “miseries.”
The final stanza offers a resolution of sorts to the dueling ideologies of the poem. The resolution, however, leaves no certain answer. The “absolute,” the final, decisive basis of all thought or being, is impartial and “Routs” that which aims to simplify. The “problematic” must remain so. The “solution” would “destroy the universe” because no easy solution exists. The “polemic,” who displays blind certitude and stubbornness, simplifies any situation to strengthen his argument. This simplification renders the world a false construct, helping “each” to make sense of the confusion only in the short run. The simplification strips experience of its richness, and can “destroy” the beauty it exudes. Loy likens the infinite complexity of the universe to the infiniteness within the human experience, and embraces this complexity without attempting to understand it. The abstract nature of the text only heightens this argument. As she illustrates the beautiful ambiguity of language, she encourages her reader to accept the ambiguous. Her poem exemplifies a clear advocacy of the difficult, because the perfection of the universe lies in its boundlessness.