Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	Dovina 69.175.32.104	13-Mar-06/6:11 PM
Oh, now I see what you're saying in an achemist's way: "All numbers are junk. Only as a number represents a quantity of something or the nth something, is the number unique." And of course that's the post-Russell view. But I'm using the concept of "numbers as intrinsic entities" as a metaphor and also because they're cute little buggers. 183 even has personality, feminity and gall. I think you take as a position-paper something I intend to be about human nature. And admittedly, I've poured in some numerical mystique into this gold-making experament.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	13-Mar-06/5:54 PM
How is 183 any different than say 69 when you already stated any odd number will due. Are there other only slightly different Dovina clones running around with different odd numbered names? 183 is only unique in it's abstract form as a meaningless number. Once you attach it to something, let's say 183 apples, then it becomes a statement of how many of the same thing are in a group. Apple 183 must have something in common with apple 182 and so on, otherwise they wouldn't be grouped and numbered. Sure you could say each apple is different but you can say that about any two things at least at a quantum level. The point is you count things based on simularities. If 183 is you it's not unique because there's at least 184 of you according to your poem. If 183 is just a number then it has no reason to be in this poem so it's junk.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	zodiac 204.238.24.4	13-Mar-06/5:37 PM
In short, you are a prize loon. You can't even say what part of numbers you find so exciting and eternal, so I'm going to help you. Here are the possibilities: 1) The symbols and sounds themselves. That is, first you make a w, then a schwa, then a n, and you have 'one'. Or you make a straight vertical line, possibly with a little cap - 1. Well, that's just clodly. Obviously, if every English speaker died or forgot English, there would be no "one" or "1". There would just be "uno", "waHad", ")" or any of a million things. You can't be talking about that. 2) The values themselves. How, in a universe with no intelligent life, you could have a plum and another plum, and you, Dovina, showing up from our universe can say, "Look, a plum and a plum - two plums!", just like in our universe. So then you're not really talking about the independent existence of numbers or number-symbols; you're just talking about the independent existence of OBJECTS: the plums continue to exist even if no one's there to see them. So why don't you just say that? Oh, because numbers are magic. And you're a clod. If you're not, you can't possibly be talking about that. 3) How numbers, the things we call 1, 2, 3, and so on, perfectly correspond to whole objects. Well, obviously. and we have names for all the things that don't correspond to whole objects, like pi, e, or 9.126923683427. For obvious reasons, we've used the shorter symbols to refer to whole things, since we're more likely to be talking about whole eggs or goats. Is that what's so magical? That we made up a short symbol for something we talk about regularly? Then you are a loon. 4) Plato was actually talking about how circles and spheres not only EXIST outside human consciousness, but that they're BEAUTIFUL and PERFECT outside human consciousness. Like, if all humans died and another intelligent species came along millennia later and made a sphere, it would think spheres are the acest shape, too. And gold. They'd think gold was the best substance, because it's, like, God's substance, and God's not going to let anyone forget about it. Do you see how this can't possibly be what you're talking about, rambling about perfect 183? Do you see how, if it is, you're the not-brightest person ever?
Re: a comment on Stella 130 by BenRice	BenRice 64.207.32.154	13-Mar-06/5:27 PM
For both Ranger and Dovina: This was more something to amuse my wife. We had been looking at Shakespeare's sonnets to be read at our wedding. I thought I'd amuse her one day with my take on Sonnet 130. Some of it is hardly "poetic", but then, neither is my dog. So, you're right, it's something that could be more than an amusement if I spent some time on it. But really, any promise it shows is probably because I ripped it off from Bill. (Yes I just called him Bill. Is that super-pretentious?)
Re: a comment on Stella 130 by BenRice	BenRice 64.207.32.154	13-Mar-06/5:21 PM
Yay, someone recognized it for what it is, just a fun little take on 130. You're right about the more original language. I need to sit with this one a lot longer to make it into something that isn't so trite. The execution of the iambic pentameter., or lack thereof, irks me. And the apostrophe... well, that was just stupidity. Btw, thanks. I didn't know I had been missed. :)
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	zodiac 204.238.24.4	13-Mar-06/5:14 PM
I mean, every symbol or word we use for describing quantity describes one unique real-world value? Yes. So? If it didn't, if the word "seven", say, applied to two different values, that would be kind of stupid, wouldn't it? You'd tell your wife or husband to pick up seven eggs and he wouldn't know how many to get. People would probably start referring to the lower "seven" as "little seven" and the higher seven as "big seven". And people like you would stupidly think "little seven" was a magical eternal thing. bow'ls.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	zodiac 204.238.24.4	13-Mar-06/4:59 PM
If I remember correctly, you don't believe in the intrinsic values of THINGS (ie, gold), only numbers. How odd. Or dumb. I'm sure I don't care which.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	zodiac 204.238.24.4	13-Mar-06/4:54 PM
If you had never existed, would there still be a Platonic, eternal Dovina floating around somewhere? Where?
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	zodiac 204.238.24.4	13-Mar-06/4:52 PM
Reality doesn't shift. Say we've got gravity, and we've got a formula that calculates the gravity to masses exert on each other. Suppose we find out that, um, at really large masses (or on the infamous quantum level) the formula doesn't work. Something different happens. That doesn't mean reality's changed, or even gravity; just that the formula was wrong under certain circumstances. Gravity (and quantum mechanics) have probably always worked the same, we just didn't know. No right-minded mathematician has a problem with that.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	Dovina 69.175.32.104	13-Mar-06/4:06 PM
What could you possibly mean? This is bunk! Every number is unique - that's obvious. and I KNOW what I am talking about, because I am 183 and proud.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	13-Mar-06/3:58 PM
183 is junk too. You stated 183 could be an odd number for all that it matters. So how can you expect us to think it's unique? Oh let's see, maybe 183 is just a name lik Bob. Well then why is Bob nestled between 2 evens? Of course the number 183 is nestled between 2 evens and presumably will be eternally. That's the statement you made in your poem and let's admit it's quite an obvious statement. So you didn't need to tell us that, hence it's junk. I actually thought 183 was a star at first. That metaphor would have worked great but then 183 wouldn't be eternal. Maybe you should take some advice from faithmairee and write a little more about what you know. I still think it's a great idea but I think you took the metaphor a little too far.
Re: a comment on Desolation by Beyond_Dreams	Ranger 62.252.32.15	13-Mar-06/3:45 PM
Having never hailed Green Day or U2 I think I get away with my lambasting...besides, I was polite, wasn't I?
Re: a comment on Desolation by Beyond_Dreams	Dark Angle 68.96.87.234	13-Mar-06/3:42 PM
what always bothers me is that when Green Day or U2 does it they are hailed as prolific artists with vision and great depth but when some Joe Everybody does it they are lamblasted as charlatans of the world of words.
Re: =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	Dark Angle 68.96.87.234	13-Mar-06/3:35 PM
i would vote this a ~`&* but that option isnt available so a 7 will have to suffice.
Re: Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	Dark Angle 68.96.87.234	13-Mar-06/3:34 PM
were you a math major in college?
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	Ranger 62.252.32.15	13-Mar-06/3:18 PM
Oh, I doubt it's the 'new thing'...but as I said, it reminded me of The Island (minus Ewan MacGregor's dubious accent...there's none of that in here, fortunately). Have a watch sometime and see if what I said makes sense. If it doesn't, well I don't even know what I'm typing sometimes, so don't worry about it.
Re: Settling in by INTRANSIT	Dark Angle 68.96.87.234	13-Mar-06/3:16 PM
consider yourself part of the furniture
Re: By Request by thepinkbunnyofdoom	Dark Angle 68.96.87.234	13-Mar-06/3:12 PM
very self referencial of this poem to self reference as it does so.
Re: Settling in by INTRANSIT	Dovina 69.175.32.104	13-Mar-06/3:11 PM
A good bed-time read until I come to emotional responses in your fixtures, "in approval" or "adoringly." I'm not sure I like a snooping floor.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	INTRANSIT 64.12.116.10	13-Mar-06/3:05 PM
I've got no college or formal training in these things and it makes me think I'm missing out on something really important. Then comes a small woman in a bonnet with a gentle smile, and all is right again. Poems (topics) waiting to be written by me: Amish Buffalo Wind generators