This is an interweaving of arguments variously developed previously, initially in relation to the challenges of governance (Poetry-making and Policy-making: arranging a Marriage between Beauty and the Beast<\/em><\/a>, 1993). These were given a particular focus with respect to the role of poetry in cultures which are currently a focus of strategic concern (Poetic Engagement with Afghanistan, Caucasus and Iran: an unexplored strategic opportunity?<\/em><\/a> 2009) — especially given the various traditions of improvisation in “poetic wrestling” (Strategic Jousting through Poetic Wrestling: aesthetic reframing of the clash of civilizations<\/em><\/a>, 2009; Strategic Dialogue through Poetic Improvisation: Web resources and bibliography<\/em><\/a>, 2009).<\/p>\n More generally and more fundamentally, emphasis was subsequently placed on the transformation of conversation (Transforming the Art of Conversation: conversing as the transformative science of development<\/em><\/a>, 2012) — most notably in the light of the inspiration offered by physicists to poets regarding the nature of a “multiverse” (Being a Poem in the Making: engendering a multiverse through musing<\/em><\/a>, 2012). In particular this drew attention to conventional understandings of objectivity and subjectivity and the challenge to those whose experientially reality was necessarily “in between” (\u00a1\u00bf Defining the objective \u221e Refining the subjective ?! Explaining reality \u221e Embodying realization<\/a><\/em>, 2011; Living as an Imaginal Bridge between Worlds: global implications of “betwixt and between” and liminality<\/em><\/a>, 2011).<\/p>\n These considerations can be related to the current concerns of critical pedagogy as framed by Joe L. Kincheloe<\/a> (Critical Pedagogy and the Knowledge Wars of the Twenty-First Century<\/em><\/a>, International Journal of Critical Pedagogy<\/em>, 2008) regarding the “the dire need for different perspectives, for multiple forms of knowledge” — which he terms diversality — as a means of engaging effectively with the “nasty and perilous times” in which we live and with those who seek to derive exclusive advantage from them.<\/p>\n The question developed further here is the possibility of “multiversal community” — in the light of previous consideration of “multivocal” possibilities (Multivocal Poetic Discourse Emphasizing Improvisation: clarification of possibilities for the future<\/em><\/a>, 2012; Enabling a 12-fold Pattern of Systemic Dialogue for Governance<\/em><\/a>, 2011). Imaginative notions of such community have recently become evident in blogs. “Multivocal” could well be considered the essence of democratic governance.<\/p>\n Through citation of multiple “voices”, here the purpose is to “talk up” that possibility — following the manner in which governments “talk up” possibilities, most notably in relation to those with financial implications for which it is sought to elicit confidence (now seemingly with the intention to betray that confidence when convenient, as in “talking up liquidity<\/a>“). In aesthetic terms “talking up” through poetry and song may have been the intention of what was achieved by the troubadours<\/a> and trobairitz<\/a>, during the High Middle Ages, with respect to chivalry<\/a> and courtly love<\/a>.<\/p>\n The integrative role of poetry in a period of chaos has been usefully articulated by Noel Stock<\/a> (A Call to Order<\/em>, 1976):<\/p>\n Poetry survives disaster, the decay of civilizations and cultural breakdowns because it is linked indissolubly to knowledge — to the ” discovering, clarifying and handing down of knowledge”. Or, in other words, worthwhile poetry is not airy stuff which deals with nothing in particular, a vague entertaining thing for our lesiure hours. The bigots of all ages have held it to be nothing more than idle entertainment, but the traditional sane view has ever been that poetry is somehow basic, located in things, in planes of reality, in modes of being, feeling and so on.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Aspirations to “global sensemaking<\/a>” may then be fruitfully understood as a cognitive challenge calling upon a variety of senses (Strategic Challenge of Polysensorial Knowledge: bringing the “elephant” into “focus”<\/em><\/a>, 2008). The question raised here can be succinctly expressed by how to engage meaningfully with the poetry of “otherness”. This is exemplified by that of the Taliban (cf. Alex Strick van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn, Poetry of the Taliban<\/em><\/a>, 2012) — as insightfully reviewed by Charles Cameron<\/a>, developer of a web variant of The Glass Bead Game<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n Contents:<\/strong><\/p>\n Introduction<\/a>
\nContrasting understandings of poetic discourse and dialogue between poets<\/a>
\nBeyond complacency regarding existing modes of discourse? <\/a>
\nTranscending the boundaries of conventional poetic discourse<\/a>
\nPoetic improvisation in the moment vs. Prescripted unresponsive discourse<\/a>
\nMultivocal poetic improvisation as an elusive phenomenon<\/a>
\nRelevance of poetic debate to other arenas of discourse<\/a>
\nBeyond diversality towards multiversality?<\/a>
\nEmbodying challenge and surprise into multivocal poetic improvisation<\/a>
\nRelevant insights from the Poetist Manifesto<\/a>
\nEmergent techniques in enactivating multiversal community<\/a>
\nPoetry-making as a template for policy-making<\/a>
\nEngaging imagination multiversally<\/a>
\nConclusion<\/a>
\nReferences<\/a><\/p>\n