Re: a comment on Indiscrete by ecargo	ecargo 63.22.19.179	18-Mar-06/10:35 AM
You're dead on. Although I had a hotel room in mind with "brocade." I spelled the title this way deliberately, to imply a lack of separateness, doing things out of a need for connection, connectedness (my ancient Webster's has one meaning as "not separated"). Whether it works is another matter! (I think it does for the first verse; for the second, it's more of a stretch.) I've no dibs on the word, so feel free! ;)
Re: a comment on Mid-July by Ranger	Niphredil 132.69.238.221	18-Mar-06/10:31 AM
ohhh... now I get it. I had the impression that the girl was your daughter because of "But tonight a daughter dies", but I guess you were talking about 'a daughter', in a general sort of way, not your own.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	Ranger 62.252.32.15	18-Mar-06/10:11 AM
So? Make of it what you wish. Maybe it shows a supremely creative designer, maybe it shows that all our inclinations are entirely deterministic, maybe it shows that God set up a working system of nature, and this is the result. I wouldn't presume to say. I was merely making an observation. Don't forget, ALChemy, that I believe in God. I'm on your side! However, the notion that God could make people want to sing 'It's Raining Men' puts a serious dent in my belief of supreme intelligence...or at least, supreme taste...
Re: a comment on Mid-July by Ranger	Ranger 62.252.32.15	18-Mar-06/9:59 AM
*beams roundly* You've picked up on the major points that I was (and still am) concerned about (I did notice 'lay' was wrong, why I didn't change it is beyond me...) I wasn't sure whether or not I could get away with 'reprise'...I thought maybe I could twist the meaning a little for it (renewal of life, perhaps) but I don't think it works. With the Cerberus part, I was talking about the girl (not my daughter, if I have one I'm certainly not aware of her!) The initial draft was 'For it seemed that Hell assembled/Cerberus, her eyes resembled', as if I were seeing the underworld in her dying stare, but I felt that 'Hell' was a little too...well, pimply for this piece. As ALChemy said; this piece will probably take about a million more edits to get right. Thanks for all the feedback so far!
Re: Indiscrete by ecargo	Niphredil 132.69.238.221	18-Mar-06/9:47 AM
I wonder if your title is a spelling error of 'indiscreet'? Because if so, it sounds like you're giving a terrific description of waking up in a strange apartment, after a one-night stand. (jeez, I wonder if I'm waay off the mark here). Assuming it ain't a mistake, the title means, loosely, 'continuous' or 'not individually distinct', and I'm having trouble associating it with the rest of the poem which is very individualistic. I actually like this meaning better; it's unconventional and interesting, and I might just consider blatant plagiarism... *blushes*
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	Ranger 62.252.32.15	18-Mar-06/9:46 AM
Have to continue my reply in a new box...it's too long for one post. 'Why bother with art if it's impractical?' - Because it's nice. Because it's a luxury. What's the point in an existence that has no niceties? Without the creative nuances, life would be extremely monotonous and boring. But there's no logical connection between wanting to amuse ourselves and believing that art comes from God directly. I probably sound like an uber-sceptic here; I'm actually not and I place a certain amount of stock in spirituality. I think that God set this all up, and set down rules by which we should abide. I just don't think He is the direct cause of absolutely everything. Like natural disasters being 'evil'. What's that all about? Earthquakes, tsunamis etc. can have tragic consequences, but they aren't inherently evil. In fact, I take a pretty zodiac-esque view of life; I see no reason why God should get me out of a situation that I can't deal with myself. Sermon over; hit me with anything that I didn't answer properly.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	Ranger 62.252.32.15	18-Mar-06/9:44 AM
Sorry if I seem like I'm dodging, I'm not great at answering 'big' questions directly. This time tomorrow I'll probably be struck by a brilliant response. Morality - I don't doubt that my upbringing contributed plenty to how I act, but I honestly don't believe it could have made me as determined to be 'moral' as I actually am. And why is God necessary? Well without an ultimate arbitrator, why on earth shouldn't I go round eliminating all the people I don't like? Or on a more practical level, if we really were stuck in an existential hole, why should I even be nice to people? Yes, if I never had wings and saw a play where people were flying I probably would think it was awesome. But never in my life have I actually believed it could happen. I used to think it would be awesome to be a scorpion, but I never believed I could become one. And I stick by what I said: if someone had never - and I mean never - experienced love, they might well be amazed at the idea of it and want to go and find out if it was real, but they wouldn't believe with absolute certainty that it did exist. Belief in the possibility of X doesn't equate to belief in X. Indeed there are truly gifted people. I know a few. And with those gifts seems to come a drawback. The most intellectually, musically and physically gifted person I know also happens to be suicidally depressed. Now to me that makes no sense. If God took an active hand in dealing out gifts, I'm pretty sure that He wouldn't be so wasteful as to put such contradictory traits together. It would make more sense if an average person like myself, who probably won't make any impact on the world, were to have to contend with the darker psychological issues, while those who will make a difference were free to actually make that difference. So I don't think that genius comes directly from God. And as for the individuals you named 'transcending us mere mortals'...well Jordan could kick my ass at basketball (to be fair, that's not saying much) and probably at every other physical activity. But - and I really don't want to sound arrogant here - I'm prepared to bet that I'm better at creative writing than him. And da Vinci...intellectually I'm less than microscopic in comparison, but if we were living at the same time, I'd love to take him on at football. There is no such thing as a person who is universally better than everyone else, so no - they don't transcend us. In a similar vein, their abilities didn't just appear overnight. They had to work for them. The potential might have been innate to them, but if Jordan had never worked out, would he have been able to stun the basketball world? No, I doubt it.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	18-Mar-06/9:38 AM
So really God is just a focal point for you to point your morality at. Godliness is your goal. It's what motivates you to be good, to better yourself. Love also motivates us to be greater, as does art. These types of things are very important to human evolution and probably have more to do than anything else with the huge and incredibly quick leaps we've taken in increasing our abilities since we first stood up straight.
Re: Mid-July by Ranger	Niphredil 132.69.238.221	18-Mar-06/9:31 AM
Well, I *was* going to begin this post with "Quoth the Raven: nevermore", but after reading other comments it seems a bit redundant... The poem is terrific! A little polish, perhaps, would be in order to earn this a round 10, but as it is, the flow is excellent (and I have no doubt that was tough...) , it reads well and is quite beautiful to top it off. Little critique with "Cerberus, her eyes resembled". The 'her' is unclear. If you're talking about your daughter (as it seems, since you continue to use 'her' in following sentences) then 'steel and gore' sounds way out of place. If you're talking about Cerberus, well... it ain't female! "Must she lay in darkness fading" - change 'lay' to 'lie'. I also think that 'reprise' in line 7 is misplaced. It means the recurrence or renewal of an action, not an amnesty or pardon. I think. That aside, it really is a lovely piece of work.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	18-Mar-06/9:13 AM
There is also allegedly a gene, which increases the likelihood of the individual jumping off the Statue of Liberty's head holding a Strawberry Shortcake umbrella and singing "It's Raining Men" on the way down. Yes, genes play a part in the things that we do. So?
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	18-Mar-06/9:06 AM
You're kinda dodging now. Where did you learn morality? From others and experience maybe? Why does God need to be connected to morality as if morality can't exist without God? You do bad, you get punished, you learn to know better. No god is needed. So why believe in God? If you never grew wings and flew but you saw people who did fly and Shakespeare wrote a great play about it that you saw also wouldn't you think growing wings and flying would be awesome and wouldn't you believe it existed. So those who haven't felt love can still believe it exists and think it's awesome. Would you say DaVinci and Michael Jordan are gifted? If so, where did the gift come from? Aren't they both divine in that they seem at times to transcend us mere mortals. Why bother with art if it's so impractical? When people ask me why do I believe in God and more specifically Jesus my answer at this point is for the same reason you might believe in the wonderment and magic of love or the importance of art.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	Ranger 62.252.32.15	18-Mar-06/8:15 AM
R.E. 'propensities for believing in God' - there is allegedly a 'God gene', which increases the likelihood of the individual believing in God, but whether or not this is fact, I don't know.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	Ranger 62.252.32.15	18-Mar-06/8:11 AM
"Are you saying that those who believe in God don't somehow feel his presence, that they believe in him because someone else said so and why not believe, it all seems so logical?" - I wouldn't know whether or not other believers genuinely feel Him. I know that I don't, I never went to Church, I never had someone teach me biblical narrative, yet I believe. Why? Through a lot of thought, and because I just have this innate feeling that I ought to lead a 'good' life. If God doesn't exist then I find no reason to believe that there is any form of morality. Make of that what you will. "Someone who hasn't been in love...Romeo and Juliet...'Yes, love is a mysterious and wonderous thing that certainly exists'" - Yes, I am saying precisely that. If someone had lived their entire life devoid of 'love', I sincerely doubt that they would be compelled to believe just through seeing a play. They might be curious enough to find out, but they wouldn't suddenly believe. What do I believe love is? That's difficult to answer. Some form of emotional and social bond through prolonged contact with a certain person, maybe? But then, I also think there's a difference between parental love, friendship love and romantic love. When I know what romantic love is, I'll let you know. And do I believe it exists? No. I believe it might exist, but again there's a difference. Art - that's trickier. Fundamentally it's the appreciation of mastery of a skill - same with sport. Metaphysically though? I'm not convinced. Seeing a painting might trigger a memory associated with a certain emotion, or might cause a train of imaginative thought...but as a connection with God? No. Similarly, when you see someone demonstrate exceptional talent at, say, football, do you think 'That is divinely inspired'? The actual quote was 'I would rather know remorse...', but I suppose your version works as well. I think I missed something out in this post...if so I'll rectify things.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	Dovina 12.72.25.224	18-Mar-06/7:58 AM
Given all the religions in the world’s history, and all the art, and possibly all the love (though love seems lacking compared to the other two), it seems empirically evident that we are built (created perhaps) with strong propensities for believing in God, creating art, and loving. And we seem to like mixing the three - “God is love,” for example, and the artistically fabricated parables of Jesus. Yes, I think it’s a good observation that the three are probably wrapped up together, or maybe they are three approaches to the same reality. I feel that by loving, I know an aspect of God. But that’s an unprovable feeling. I also feel that when, on rare occasion, I create art, that too is an extension of God. My God, I’ve left a lot of logical holes in this statement. Lambaste me!
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	18-Mar-06/7:51 AM
If by mystical you mean beyond ordinary understanding then absolutely.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	18-Mar-06/7:48 AM
Are you saying that those who believe in God don't somehow feel his presence, that they believe in him because someone else said so and why not believe, it all seems so logical? Are you saying that someone who hasn't been in love couldn't see Romeo and Juliet and think "Yes, love is a mysterious and wonderous thing that certainly exists"? Tell me please, briefly what and why do you believe in love or art? In reply to Kempis' quote: Why not say I would rather know God than know how to define him? Love is to faith as art is to God.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	Ranger 62.252.32.15	18-Mar-06/7:28 AM
Umm...I suppose you could see it that way. But then, does that not mean that everything beyond direct empirical experience is mysticism to an extent? Quantum physics, for example.
Re: a comment on Mid-July by Ranger	Ranger 62.252.32.15	18-Mar-06/7:22 AM
Too true. You cannot imagine the amount of changes I've made to this, and there is still a substantial amount I want to alter.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	Ranger 62.252.32.15	18-Mar-06/7:20 AM
The thing is, if 'love' is something more than a chemical reaction, if 'art' is something more than applying geometric shapes etc. (which is even more doubtful), I still think that those concepts are too abstract, too metaphysical to ever have a believable definition. Also, believing in them requires direct experience of them, does it not? Whereas I don't think that belief in God requires first-hand experience. It doesn't for me. That being said, to (sort of) paraphrase Kempis, I would rather know love than know how to define it. I'm not sure that's a good answer to your question, but I'll keep trying.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	18-Mar-06/7:18 AM
It's all mysticism. Just done to different degrees.