Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	Dovina 12.72.36.250	8-Apr-06/8:31 AM
Is that your own wording for that frustrating aspect of God? If so, Bravo! Or, more appropriatly, Hee Haw! Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up.” When the disciples asked him why he speaks to the masses mostly in parables, he said, "The secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear.” Understanding God is not a simplistic thing, as zodiac implies. I wish it were.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	8-Apr-06/4:44 AM
I don't think he's really talking about God either. Maybe somebody's version of God but not mine. My version of God is the carrot that eternally dangles in front of the noses of us donkeys.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	zodiac 216.67.6.85	7-Apr-06/9:03 PM
That's not what Occam or wikipedia is talking about at all. It's certainly not what I'm talking about.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	zodiac 216.67.6.85	7-Apr-06/9:02 PM
1. It's a gift. 2. AlChemy was asking awhile ago about logical approaches to God's existence. 3. It will always be relevant to you. I think it's because you find the universe so simple and comprehensible you feel you need to "spice it up" some.
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: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	7-Apr-06/5:37 PM
Most believers agree that God is something that exists beyond our comprehension. Are you to say that nothing exists beyond our comprehension. You may have a diffrent word for it, you may choose not to attach symbolism but I'm sure you haven't ruled out the possibility of such a thing as the incomprehensible. Could there not be something greater that our universe exists in that we haven't found yet? Maybe there are beings that govern that greater than the universe place and maybe they like to be called God by the little people in the universes the beings have created.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	7-Apr-06/5:12 PM
p.s. The simplest solution is not always the best one. You should know that.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	7-Apr-06/5:07 PM
To a microscopic organism we are the world, the world is it's solar system, the solar system it's galaxy the galaxy it's universe, and the universe it's God.
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: 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: a comment on Good old days by amanda_dcosta	Dovina 12.72.34.49	7-Apr-06/3:17 PM
A better and more concise saying of all that's been said, I cannot imagine.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	Dovina 12.72.34.49	7-Apr-06/3:13 PM
Nicely copied, and excellently pasted. For whatever reason, I cannot imagine.
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
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: a comment on Morning City by Jack Diamond	Ranger 81.156.73.86	7-Apr-06/12:50 PM
Aha, I guess I missed that bit. Perhaps for the sake of clarity you might want to work in a line just hinting a little more that it's your cat waking you...I only say this because stanza 1 is a great description of dawn, but I've never known dawn to arrive that early. It is a very peaceful poem though.
Re: Inbetween Lovers/Blueprint by Ranger	INTRANSIT 205.188.117.10	7-Apr-06/12:41 PM
Salute!
Re: a comment on Old River Sherbourne by Caducus	Ranger 81.156.73.86	7-Apr-06/12:40 PM
M6 = motorway
Re: a comment on Inbetween Lovers/Blueprint by Ranger	Ranger 81.156.73.86	7-Apr-06/12:38 PM
Good to see it works! I feel it needs more work on the rhythm, but I'm working nights at the moment and as such my brain isn't operational between the hours of 7am and 10pm. Therefore edits will wait. Anyway, how are things going these days?
Re: a comment on Morning City by Jack Diamond	Jack Diamond 71.103.98.44	7-Apr-06/11:42 AM
Thank you for the comment. I thought I'd give mind to an edit just for reaction value. I was in that sort of mood this morning although I am the type to just let it slide too. I really prefer first reactions to last. I can also be a sucker for rewording what I can't completely explain anyway. I'm glad you've enjoyed the ride.
Re: a comment on Morning City by Jack Diamond	Jack Diamond 71.103.98.44	7-Apr-06/11:29 AM
Thank you for your comment. You are right about lays, so I changed it. As far as the three A.M. bit goes, I woke up at three A.M. every morning for over a year when I was single, secluded, and starving to create. If I didn't get up, my cat would attack me. The reason I believe is because we lived in the middle of the city in what one would call a shoe box single, and the only time he went outside was when I accompanied him. I guess I will leave the line "though a peaceful drift at three A.M." vague in that sense. Hoping the reader could imagine how peacful life can be at three in the morning when you live in the middle of a big city. I felt as though I was taking control of my time without distraction.