Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	19-Mar-06/12:09 PM
You see, the preconception I've acquired is that love, if it exists, is entirely infallible - and so it's difficult for me to think of love as being terrible. It's equally difficult for me to accept that a relationship which fails can have truly been love. Relationships which last to the grave are the closest to proof I can find. But these don't define love. I disagree with the idea that feeling love doesn't equate to defining it. I think that love (if it exists) cannot be defined linguistically, but experience is in itself a non-linguistic definition. The problem is that it can only be a definition to the recipient of that experience. Similarly, I believe that an experience - again, if such an occurrence happens - of God (particularly an ecstatic revelation) is a definition of God (or a part of God). Again, this is something which language cannot capture, nor can it be used to ferry proof to another individual. I think I do understand what you mean, but it's a proper bugger to express. And yes, God is a great comfort at times.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	19-Mar-06/11:09 AM
'Does not love ask for your faith?' - I don't know; the nearest I've got is college romance which I sincerely doubt was love (and if it was, well then love really isn't all it's cracked up to be...) I was sort of hoping that love would be pretty much evident and not need too much faith for certainty. 'Does not art need that at least for the moment a little part of you believes in what you're seeing?' - I'm not sure I get your drift here. I assume you mean that, for example, when you see a tragic play you believe that the play was reality, that the events actually happened. In which case...yes and no. It requires that you forget the realities of this world, forget who you are, forget that you're in a theatre etc. It requires imagination - the mental creation of another world (this could veer off into modal logic which I'm not one hundred percent up to scratch with...) in which the characters are real people, the setting is a real setting, and the history is a real history. But I don't think this is faith - at least, not in a religious sense. If the play's crap, no amount of faith will make it seem real because it just won't fire up the imagination enough to create the necessary world. I still think this is different from religious faith though. Spot on with the quote though.
Re: a comment on REM Sleep by mystic enoch	19-Mar-06/10:43 AM
Life would be so much more boring without you, ALChemy!
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	19-Mar-06/10:40 AM
Certainly your parallel with love and lions is to an extent accurate, although I'd contest that you wouldn't have to actually be a lion to know what it is (if you are only going to count introspective knowledge as certain knowledge, then the parallel only works if you accept that to know love, I'd actually have to be love). There's a difference, though, between seeing something solid, tactile, like a lion and encountering something 'mystical' like love. You can stand on a savannah and see the lions, you can hear them, you can smell them, if you're brave/foolish you can touch them and if you were really that determined, you could taste them. This is knowledge not coming from introspection. The nearest you can get to non-introspective knowledge of love, however, is seeing couples together. But what can you actually say you experience in this situation? This is not conclusive proof that such a thing as 'love' exists. I'm more than willing to accept that you can say 'Love almost certainly exists, from what I've seen' - but not 'Love definitely exists, from what I've seen'. And no, I don't think I've ever directly experienced God. I've experienced what is probably the work of God (the beauty of nature), but while I think that it almost certainly is the creation of a higher being, I can't say that it definitely is.
Re: REM Sleep by mystic enoch	19-Mar-06/9:58 AM
Interesting concept, and not as maudlin as many 'dream' poems.
Re: LIFELINE by outofdarkness138	19-Mar-06/4:30 AM
This one's better than your other lyric, but I definitely agree with D. - leave out 'thee'. This isn't a Cohen masterpiece, so it doesn't fit the mood of the piece. 'A river inside breaks free' is a damn good line.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	19-Mar-06/4:21 AM
Art isn't frivolous, it is necessary for a fulfulling life. As I said - without indulging our creative impulses life would get incredibly tedious and a little pointless. Even on a personal level we are surrounded by art, even in the way we decorate our houses, the way we dress, the way we react to the natural world. I just don't see a direct link with God in art, nor do I personally find one necessary for an appreciation of the artist's skills. It's true that art makes the world a brighter place - and if you want to say that the propensity for creativity is something given to us by God (as a race) then I'm perfectly happy to go along with that. It makes good sense to me. But on an individual level I don't find the ordinary arts to be divinely inspired. And this is where I go off on a rant about how art - and music - has become too technical, too abstract...and is, in my opinion, bordering on becoming frivolous. Art no longer even stirs any emotions - what am I supposed to think when confronted by half a cow? Or by a room with a light that constantly turns on and off? Or a canvas with a small blob of blue and nothing else? These say nothing to me. And whereas I'm not hyper-intellectual, I'm not stupid either - and if they're too abstract for me to appreciate after a bit of thought, then they aren't entertaining.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	19-Mar-06/4:08 AM
The thing with a definition is that it can be one hundred percent correct...and still have no correlation to reality. For instance, I can define a unicorn - despite the fact that no unicorns actually exist. What I'm saying here is that 'love' can be defined, can be explained and can be advocated all day long, but without direct experience of it, it cannot be believed in. Again I say, it's possible to believe that it *might* exist without having belief (i.e. certainty, conviction) that it absolutely *does* exist.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	19-Mar-06/4:01 AM
From the genetic point of view, the big question is what the initial purpose of said gene was (assuming the research is correct and not just a load of rubbish). I think - I could well be mistaken though - that the gene has another function as well. Now this means that there are three possibilities: 1) that belief in God was the primary mechanism, 2) that belief in God was a by-product, or 3) that both resulting features were intentional. Is it likely to ever be possible to resolve this question through scientific methods?
Re: a comment on Martijn by Chasz Misleading	19-Mar-06/3:52 AM
Could be the Dutch version. Agreed about the length though.
Re: Dashboard Jesus by wilco	19-Mar-06/3:50 AM
Cool, very sad but not overdramatic. I do like the last line, the double possibility of you talking to her or to Jesus, and the mirroring of the first two lines of stanzas 1 and 3. Good to have you back!
Re: The Cracks in my Wall by Richard	19-Mar-06/3:48 AM
Ugh, I don't like this kid, but I do like the poem. Particularly the spice in the sunset, very vividly done. A couple of suggestions - there are a few typos in here, 'viciousness', 'was' (line 15), 'neighbo(u)r's'. Also, I would have added one more violent-themed activity just to complete the distasteful character. I love 'Today there was no change...I was just supposed to be evil'.
Re: My Resuscitating Love by Silverjackel	19-Mar-06/3:43 AM
Interesting concept, and very linguistically impressive. 'Miracle/Satirical' is one of the more innovative rhymes in recent posts!
Re: Louwanda by Jeremi B. Handrinos	19-Mar-06/3:40 AM
Loving the title - it suits the poem perfectly (and it is, by the way, a top poem!) Good to see you back!
Re: Returning Home by Niphredil	18-Mar-06/2:55 PM
Reminds me of Christmas Eve when I was about eleven...a beautiful night, one that felt more enchanted than usual...one of my favourite memories...that's put a smile on my face =D so for that, thank you
Re: Waking at night by Niphredil	18-Mar-06/2:50 PM
Hmm...wasn't sure about 'bat-wings beat spastically' - it seemed a bit cumbersome, and bats are generally very graceful, in an odd sort of way - the same way that swifts are.
Re: I don't rhyme enough, eh? by Niphredil	18-Mar-06/2:47 PM
"I'm sure that a poem is oft viewed as neater/When properly rhymed and according to meter"...this made me chuckle! And yes...rhyming isn't the easiest thing in the world, well, good rhyming, that is.
Re: Forgiveness by Niphredil	18-Mar-06/2:41 PM
This is great! The sort of anti-Pimple...I like the alternative viewpoint - unexpected, certainly.
Re: I sat beside the night by Niphredil	18-Mar-06/2:36 PM
Great metre! Very classical in feel, meets with approval here. I like the idea of the night kissing someone's upturned face - some nicely original ideas in this one.
Re: Shades by Niphredil	18-Mar-06/2:31 PM
For the context, I thought the first line was stunning. Good parallels between living and dead. I felt like I wanted an image after line two - something in keeping with the 'barren timbers'/'rotten floorboards' theme perhaps. Other than that, no quarrel.