I shall make a plaque and hang it above my computer to ever remind of the wisdom I’ve learned this enlightening evening: There is no anything without words, so saying there is no philosophy without them is crap. The words of zodiac

Yes, in "Solitude" I rhymed foe with abode whch stands to this day as one of poemranker's finest and most unusual iambic vowel chimes.

I omitted a few items from the transcript.

Only if you decide to interpret it that way.

Jesus. I just found this message and evacuated into my pants. For one thing, no one on this site credits you with too much reason. We credit the human race in general with a capacity for reason - most of which, we're well aware, is regularly and somewhat disgustingly pissed upon by aspiring poetes such as yourself. For another thing, "find fascination" is not a real English construction; rather, it's what I've come to identify as "typically Dovina" - an ignominious category chockfull of such gems as "realized its reciprocal" and "discover all that I've made quite pleasing". For yet another thing, your bumming on about "strictly philosophical" anything, including that bum bum-filled bum of a "strangled verse" above is totally nuts. You'd have done much better to answer -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I.'s comment something like: "Almost any poem I, Dovina, can think of (except my own) is philosophically sound, meaning roughly that it can be regarded using the tools or language of philosophers without being found totally bum," instead of just proving his point. Frost's "The Road not Taken," for example, is more-than-adequately philosophical, proposing as it does that the profit from blindly picking only one of two more-or-less equivalent options (and without later knowing the result of picking the other option) is pretty much unknowable and only in the mind of the chooser, who thinks, man I'm sure lucky I picked this option, I'm a great chooser. And I bet you thought the road less travelled by really does make all the difference. And for another thing, there is no anything without words, so saying there's no philosophy without them is crap and a cheap dis. And for another thing, "the only things we can talk about logically are words and numbers" is simply wrongheaded. We can only talk about anything with words and numbers, so obviously thinking logically about them is pretty important. And for another thing, saying "if so, there is no fun, and without fun, what good is logic." is bum twice-over and mispunctuated. This is essentially equivalent to saying both, "without harnesses and polo horses, there is no fun" AND "without fun, what good is sewage-treatment?" Bum and bum.

I misspelled blurred.

Dear Doctor Science, Last night, in a fit of drunken pique, I went into my laboratory and constructed a robot which could feel (approximately) all the same things humans do. Unfortunately, being drunk, I neglected to program it with any words describing any state of being except "good" and "bad". Then I flipped the switch and immediately ordered it to spin around until it fell down. "So, relate to me exactly how you feel now," I commanded, after it had fallen. "I can't say," the robot answered. "Neither 'good' nor 'bad', really. And those are the only two words I have for expressing states of being. I can tell you half of my cybernetic units are malfunctioning, and my gyrometer is ten degrees out of whack -" "Unsatisfactory!" I thundered, threatening it with a large salami I happened to be holding. (If there's anything robots are afraid of, it's the touch of luncheon meat.) "I don't have cybernetic units or a gyrometer, so how am I supposed to understand how you feel?!" "Well," said the robot, shrinking a little from the frantically waggling salami, "I guess I feel bad." "Bad?" I repeated, a little dubiously. "Okay, fine then. Good." "Unsatisfactory!" I said again. I suppose now that if it had had more experience of the world, it could have answered, "I feel drunk," or "I feel like I've stood up too suddenly." Maybe later, it would be able to say, "Drinking alcohol makes me feel something like when I've spun around alot." But who knows? Maybe it would have just used the word 'good' for all those future situations. Anyway, I didn't have the chance to find out, as, with the salami-brandishing and the sticky philosophical dilemma confronting it, its cybertronics suddenly fused into a mass of kind of disgusting jelly. Undaunted, I've constructed another robot and programmed it to answer only 'dizzy' or in terms of dizziness to any state-of-being question it faces. This second robot seems to be doing okay, but only as long as I keep it spinning. Otherwise, it tends to describe things like producing robo-stools or watching one of those sentimental home-appliance-company commercials as either "dizzying" or "not quite dizzy". My question for you, Doctor, is, which of my two robots would win an all-out no-holds-barred steel-deathcage grudge-match? And: Which, if any of us, was really wrong?!??!?!? Yours, as always, zodiac in Islamica