Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	5-May-04/10:32 AM
Verifiability is important in the context of the verifiability of theories of existence. Not in theories of existence per se.
Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	5-May-04/10:20 AM
boll'cks
Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	5-May-04/8:52 AM
The scientific proof is that one can measure changes at the information processing level of the brain before the consciousness's corollary is reported. Source of the poets vision: Language, one can never hope to use language to (literally!) match the physical. One can make representations, study relationships.
Re: a comment on The Conqueror Worm by zodiac	4-May-04/2:55 PM
Could it be possible that zodiac was not on drugs when he wrote this but rather you were on drugs when you read it?
Re: Vodka kisses & the final sigh. by SupremeDreamer	4-May-04/2:49 PM
very good, your best vilanelle yet
Re: The Influence of Anxiety by Nicholas Jones	4-May-04/11:26 AM
where’s the imagery? The metaphors? There’s no similes, No use of poetic devices, no alliteration. The writer doesn’t even appear depressed or suicidal, So what the hell kind of poem is this anyway?
Re: I Find Myself Standing by Aetius	4-May-04/11:00 AM
the linebreaks seem to make no sense.
Re: a comment on Natural Remedy by richa	3-May-04/1:40 PM
yep might change the bit about tall. I meant to its height really, not absolute tallness.
Re: Call of the Marine by ggawrysi	3-May-04/1:12 PM
Second and third verses are good. The enjambment of the first seems a bit forced.
Re: Samurai by SupremeDreamer	3-May-04/1:11 PM
Succinctly put. 'pon for a samurai though? Is he an Englishe gentleman samurai.
Re: Black Belt by etherealmaiden	3-May-04/1:01 PM
I agree with nowhereman. This poeme shouts anorexia nervosa. I get a sense of anorexogenic environment (the expectations) and an anorexic mindset (the repetition of tighten the belt and the disordered nature of the poem as it draws in all its threads).
Re: the beale street mud festival. by wilco	3-May-04/12:52 PM
Cute, the inversion in the second verse is a little baffling (lightly breaking the rain rather than the rain lightly breaking).
Re: Go Figure by MacFrantic	3-May-04/12:50 PM
Alright, not mad keen on the first verses, I can't work myself out sentiment. Tire should be tyre I think. Like the final verse.
Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	3-May-04/12:11 PM
Man is purely a interaction between his environment and genetics. To be cowardly, to accept challenge, suggests that you believe in a thing called a soul as something directing behaviour rather than what it is an epiphenomenon of our ability to communicate and use tools.
Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	3-May-04/7:05 AM
Verifiability is what makes science special not what gives science primacy. It is like saying fish have primacy for they have fins or women have primacy for they have breasts.
Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	3-May-04/3:43 AM
You are making an argument about the development of a model of the soul because of the people involved in its development. Many believers in the soul may do as you say. However the roles could be reversed. The vagueists could be interested in atoms and hold atoms as fixed and unmovable. And the scientists could be building a model of the soul which may be thrown away. Would you then hold that investigations into the soul are valid and investigations into atoms are buncombe?
Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	3-May-04/3:10 AM
The conclusion of such an argument being that although conceptions of the soul are vague, there are limitations to science. Therefore it is wrong to hold conceptions of atoms and conceptions of the soul as entirely discrete. Rather they both fit on a continuum of vagueness. With continuums it is absurd to draw a point whereby one side philosophical investigations are valid and the other side they are not.
Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	2-May-04/8:06 AM
'I think it's artificial because there are no verification or falsification conditions for it' you can not conceive of the existence of anything that can not be verified/ falsified. But all scientific theory is predicated on assumptions that can not be validated. The basic unit of matter is the atom. Can that be proved to exist. Nope what can be tested is that accepting the presence of an atom relationships between atoms will create certain outcomes.
Re: a comment on Shame by Joe-joe	1-May-04/2:51 PM
There is this girl in class, and every time we pick partners for study noeone picks her. But she says she likes that because she can work with me (who also has no mates). She could have just picked me in the first place rather than wait for the dark shadow of non selection couldn't she?
Re: a comment on Shame by Joe-joe	1-May-04/2:46 PM
so we must sin just a little bit to renew our relationship with God? Unless you are feeling shame at simply contemplating a bad action. Which would mean to get close to god you had to contemplate bad things. But what if contemplating bad things was a deliberate ploy to get close to god.