Re: Heaven Help Me by cyan9	Ranger 81.156.73.86	7-Apr-06/12:59 PM
Good descriptions, would personally get rid of the 'and' between anxiety and longing. Stanza 2 = superb. Will hopefully have more intelligent suggestions to make tomorrow. Till then, have an 8.
Re: The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	zodiac 66.230.117.21	7-Apr-06/1:00 PM
In the philosophy of religion Occam's Razor is sometimes used to challenge arguments for the existence of God: if there is no need for a "God" (to explain the universe), then the God construct is subject to elimination via Occam's Razor. An example of such an argument would take this form: we have a set of models which does a good job of predicting various aspects of our experience (theories from physics, biology, psychology, etc.). Taken together these constitute a larger model of our overall experience, call it a World model. Elements (sub-models) of this World model which do not contribute to the precision or improve the accuracy of the model should be "cut away" with Occam's Razor. Given this foundation it can be seen that World models including God have an extra element that does not improve accuracy or precision. A common response is that God can "simplify" the world model, for instance by providing a less complex explanation of the origin of species via creationism (i.e. even though we are adding the God-submodel we are removing a more complicated "evolution" model achieving a simpler theory). Concurrently, some over-simplify Ockham's principles as meaning "the easiest explanation must be correct" and argue that given the complexity of the Universe and the extremely small chance that it would have developed this way simply by a series of accidents, there must be a driving force that built the universe to be so complex. However, such arguments are problematic on at least two counts (aside from describing natural processes as "accidents"). First, the "evolution model" is simply a way of describing the emergent properties of simpler theories of biochemistry (DNA replication and control of biological systems), probability theory (inevitable errors in complex systems such as DNA replication, the differential replication rates of traits and genes with differing effects on survival and reproduction). Evolutionary biology introduces nothing (no new entities or hypothetical constructs) that are not already present in these more basic sciences/processes. It simply produces a theoretical system that enables us to perceive the patterns that these basic processes produce. Just as the notion of an ocean wave is not a phenomenon/concept requiring any new, hypothesized elements other than the behavior of many water molecules, wave theories enable us to see patterns and make predictions about the aggregate behavior of many molecules. The God model, unlike evolution theory, introduces a truly new, unrelated element to the explanatory system. Occam's Razor can shave away the God concept without affecting any of the basic concepts of science. If we try to cut away evolution theory, we have to shave away an enormous amount of knowledge about the world, as evolution theory is just a name for the patterns basic processes produce. Second, the evolution model and the patterns it enables us to see has produced countless accurate predictions that would not be possible without the theory. Critics who claim the two models are equal do not take into account that the evolution sub-model is necessary for accuracy and precision (for instance the evolution models makes many good predictions about where we will find various kinds of fossils). Since removing the evolution sub-model reduces the accuracy and precision of the World model, unlike the God model that produces no novel predictions, it must be kept (in some form). Another proposed justification for including the God sub-model has been that it improves accuracy or precision around certain specific subsets of data, and thus is a better fit when we consider all the data. An example of this would be the claim that "religious experience," such as visions, voices, and other sorts of personal experience are not explained/predicted by the other sub-models, in this case sub-models of human psychology without the God concept. In examining this question, the principle of Occam's Razor would direct us to remove the God sub-model if it did not provide better predictions about those sorts of experiences than alternative sub-models about human psychology, and to keep it if it did. Some people thus argue that Occam's Razor puts the question of the existence of God squarely within the realm of testable science. I.e. the idea of "God" is no different from any other idea, and can be evaluated with the same criteria we use for other models. While arguments taking the above form are common, they are not accepted among most psychologists or philosophers of science. No experiment or observation has produced any data of religious experience that cannot be at least equally well explained by psychological theories without the traditional God concept. And, possibly more important, is that the psychological theories employed in the explanation of such experience—precisely like evolutionary theory, as described above—have no new elements introduced just to explain this specific data set. The psychological theories of religious experience are simply ways of organizing more basic scientific concepts and explanations of human perception and experience. They are thus based on elements necessary to produce general accurate predictions of human experience and they produce accurate predictions of religious experience that can then be tested. The God model produces no testable predictions of even religious experience that cannot be produced without it, and it can be "shaved away" without affecting basic theories needed for more general explanations. On the other hand, Kierkegaard argued that there were no testable predictions of the existence of God and further argued that the concept of faith made any testable observations self-defeating. It is difficult to explain humankind's unique understanding of good and evil and its ability to love and hate -- relative to the rest of the animal kingdom -- from a purely evolutionary standpoint. In this sense, it is not reasonable to simply combine all of the material observations of our universe and apply Occam's Razor to justify the non-existence of God. Indeed, William of Ockham himself did not make this leap, being himself very well educated in religion. The principle is only a guide to the best theory based on current knowledge, not to the "truth". It is argued that Ockham was an intellectual forefather of the scientific method because he argued for a degree of intellectual freedom in a time of dogmatic belief, similarly to Roger Bacon. He can also, however, be seen as an apologist for Divine Omnipotence, since he was concerned with demonstrating that creation is contingent and the Creator is free to change the rules at will. Thus, if God is free to make an infinity of worlds with completely different rules from those which prevail in our world, then we are free to imagine such worlds and their logical and practical consequences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
regarding some deleted poem...	Dovina 12.72.34.49	7-Apr-06/3:31 PM
A nice walk through some of the history of this often beseiged city. It's a home of survivors, no more sadly shown than during the oredal of WWII. I think such nostalgic walks are better with detail, and without reliance on the reader's prior knowledge of folks like Pushkin and Tchaikovsky, although knowing them increases the nostalgia.
Re: A Salute to Vile by MacFrantic	Dovina 12.72.34.49	7-Apr-06/3:40 PM
Maybe I'm not getting this (and I think the funky spacing contributes to that) but I see a diatribe against the poluters of a river, and know you might not mean that at all. I'll hold off voting for now.
Re: Inbetween Lovers/Blueprint by Ranger	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	7-Apr-06/4:49 PM
I sensed a tinge of angst in this but it wasn't corny like those teeny-bopper poems, it was just enough to make the reader feel the youthfulness in the love poem. She'll like it I think. It's like a modern Romeo and Juliet minus the suicidal crazy love stuff.
Re: Shy, quiet by Ranger	Jack Diamond 71.103.98.44	7-Apr-06/8:51 PM
In many great poems I have read I have noticed one word, or words that are elaborated on within the poem I am reading. The word is either in the middle, at the end, or in your case, to me, at the begining. All the elements of a cagier lightning that strikes with care are all described in different forms throughout this poem and I like this. First you have something unusual that happens, a cagier lightning which strikes with care, then the images to accompany the subject which are very swift, sly, elusive, tricky, etc... Very good stuff. This poem is well crafted. It kind of gives me the feeling I am reading a script in a way. The words "Pause-" "Turns-" seem like stage directions.
Re: Or Outward by MacFrantic	Dovina 17.255.240.6	8-Apr-06/11:49 AM
I'd personally prefer that when you edit a poem, you do not delete the comments. This falls flat for me. Too vague.
Re: James The Dashing Pirate(Rewrite) by Luzr	Dovina 17.255.240.6	8-Apr-06/11:52 AM
Some good descriptive language. But to make it compelling it needs a stting and specific story or event, otherwise it kind of sies there without life.
Re: James The Dashing Pirate(Rewrite) by Luzr	zodiac 209.193.18.201	8-Apr-06/11:56 AM
You could improve this poem by voting yourself a bunch of tens.
Re: Random Design by thepinkbunnyofdoom	Dovina 17.255.240.6	8-Apr-06/12:03 PM
Some good lines and some good images. But it lacks the cohesiveness that a compelling poem needs. Specifics are mostly lacking, which makes it sound second-hand.
regarding some deleted poem...	INTRANSIT 152.163.100.6	9-Apr-06/7:48 AM
Look? Listen? of course. that's what we do. drop 'em. Majestical bugs me. after- and we- could use a comma 9.5
Re: Happy Birthday Satou by raven_the_poet	Ranger 86.131.55.210	9-Apr-06/9:07 AM
Nice, I hope it was appreciated.
regarding some deleted poem...	Ranger 86.131.55.210	9-Apr-06/9:13 AM
I was going to suggest putting a comma after 'we', but INTRANSIT got there first. This is astonishing! You have an unbelievable talent for entwining images while losing none of the vividness of either; it is a rare gift to be able turn images into more than the sum of their parts. I forget the last time I gave a ten...in actual fact it may have been on your 'Espana'. I have a great amount of admiration for your ability and the consistency you show in writing fantastic poetry.
Re: Or Outward by MacFrantic	Ranger 86.131.55.210	9-Apr-06/9:20 AM
"furies'", is this "fury's" or are furies a type of creature? That's the only grammatical crit I have with this, it reads well and, yes, is vague but it really did leave me desperate to find a meaning to it. It feels as though there is a message, or something like that, hidden just beneath the words. In all honesty, the whole thing sounds like it's a code or a series of anagrams for something. I'll have to return to this if I'm going to find a meaning. My brain is fried right now.
Re: James The Dashing Pirate(Rewrite) by Luzr	Ranger 86.131.55.210	9-Apr-06/9:26 AM
Great words, I felt as though the metaphor could be taken further; I don't see quite enough of the swashbuckling, buccaneering nature, hunting for treasure and adventure. And although the Casanova line is good, I didn't think it managed to fit well with the pirate theme. Aside from that, well written and enjoyable!
Re: Random Design by thepinkbunnyofdoom	Ranger 86.131.55.210	9-Apr-06/9:33 AM
Aha, theeasterbunnyofdoom strikes again! There's some good stuff in here, although as Dovina said, it does lack cohesion. I wasn't sure if that was intentional though, given the title. If it is, all I can suggest is being a little more vivid with the imagery. If each stanza is more or less a standalone section, they need to have plenty of colour to give them some sort of individuality and character. The first line set the standard for that, but the rest mostly didn't live up to the imagery. I wasn't sure about stanza 3, it seems a little overused, although the 'journeying companions' could be used to save it. There are a few grammatical glitches, but I'm tired and will let someone else pick them. This comment probably sounds like I didn't enjoy the poem; I actually did, but I think that with an edit or two it will be far more striking.
Re: A Salute to Vile by MacFrantic	Ranger 86.131.55.210	9-Apr-06/9:36 AM
Love the fragmentary form of this, as usual your imagery and description is bold and still demands a lot of work from the reader to interpret this. Dovina's guess sounds as good as anything I could muster up, but to be honest I actually enjoyed reading this without trying to find a meaning.
Re: Feelings for a Lost Love by denisebar2006	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 84.66.23.150	9-Apr-06/12:40 PM
Memories of a Lost Love by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. August 2002 ----------------------- It's three years since I bid her goodbye. She adored me, and so her did I. Life then was bliss, Though I surely won't miss The taste of her skank cherry pie.
Re: The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	cyan9 213.208.113.137	9-Apr-06/2:10 PM
I am curious to see whether making verses 2-5 rhyme in a plodding, marching kind of way would add to the piece
Re: A Fool's Errand by ALChemy	Dovina 12.72.34.87	9-Apr-06/3:21 PM
"Bleed . . . for levity" is funny in the way that laughing at myself is funny. And the search for information about God is rather like a donkey chasing a carrot. Good.