Some of the recent discussions you-know-where about you-know-what have been inflected by interpretations of philosophy and economics, and some of the poetics of the movement(s) being debated arise from various scientific principles. Much of this comes off sounding poorly digested and ill-understood. Science, philosophy, and economics are problematical enough in the hands of scientists, philosophers, and economists, let alone in the grasping digits of poets. Usually, this is harmless enough, in the sense that poets don't necessarily do or believe what they say they do, and their best work only uses these very raw materials as a starting point (or, to use a perfect example of the risk, Eliot's word: "catalyst").
I've just been reading a diligently researched new book that documents in amazing detail how fashionable scientific and economic theory can get entangled in the politics and poetics of writers, who are quite vulnerable, as history has proved since Plato, to ideology. The book is Michael Golston's Rhythm and Race in Modernist Poetry and Science. No matter how much one thinks one knows about the culture and prosody of Modernism, it's a revelation that much of Modernist prosody and even subject matter is owed to long-forgotten ideologies of rhythm and race. The book, which focuses on Pound, Yeats, and Williams, grew from the author's dissertation, directed by Marjorie Perloff.
The epigraph is this, from Lyn Hejinian's The Cell:
All the mortalities merge in
the definition of "rhythm."