Free verse № 122164
Reasonably Good
Before my birth
myself flourished
and will again
past my pseudo death
Beauty and Good demand it so
for they are bastions
strong as reason
Easy to honor the dove
hard to extol the rat
Easy to admire DNA
and hate uranium 238
Beautiful and Good
Ugly and Bad
I believe I know the difference
For I live not alone by reason
but by knowledge of Beauty and Good
Thus I surpass the waypointsâ
birth and death
with God who creates
Beauty and Good demand it
115 comments
Again, you're trifuling with some petty point and ignoring the poem.
1) Would you say that whether you love or hate something - specifically, to cite the poem, uranium 238 - is a petty point?
2) Would you say the poem could possibly succeed even if it failed on that point?
And way to answer my questions!
however, it could, by some stretch of logic, be concluded that you have no clue what you're talking about and only the symbollic God could ever truly judge these things; in which case, i applaud your philosophy and the poem as a whole...for now you get your magnificent 7 to go with your magnificent ego.
Good work overall as a poem...maybe add a dash of love to spice it up or something...
Peace,
Sean
Iâm sorry you have a worldview. It holds a person back from receiving truth, like blinders on a horse steady it in the masterâs chosen direction. Having a worldview, you will applaud my response if it conforms and reject it otherwise, no matter what insights it contains. For that you have my sympathy.
God, or a symbolic god as you say, cannot even be perceived without an underlying belief in the concepts of Beauty and Good. If all we have with which to evaluate the world is reason, then life does not extend beyond birth and death. The poemâs message is to look at Good and Beauty (Verse 3) and to say with tongue in cheek that I know the difference between good and bad, beautiful and ugly (Verse 4) Then having assured myself of what is good and beautiful, or at least the methods I will use to determine them, I surpass the waypoints of birth and death.
beauty and good do NOT demand that we form structures of judgment, quite the contrary, if we are to perceive anything as good or beautiful, that perception cannot be weighted down by some outside force which confines, else your world be constrained and the full beauty of that around you lost to some restricted definition that you BELIEVE you know due to your presumption that the truth has found its way to you...
my point, perhaps miscommunicated, is that you cannot achieve the ends you seek, at least within the context of human interaction and behavior, by judging those human variables...
ANY judgment made without ALL KNOWLEDGE, is prejuidace and false...you are NOT God....nor are you anywhere near the greatest scholar of all of history, therefore, you have not nearly enough KNOWLEDGE to judge anything...
your words, like nearly all words, are subjective, and in no way assert some profound truth that has been passed over by more able minds.
peace,
sean
p.s. sympathy is useless, save your sympathy for me and my non-judgmental worldview and use it on a dieing child in ethiopia
thanx for the reply and best of luck
peace,
sean
what seems to you, simply is not. the only magical property that truth contains is that it is not able to be misinterpreted. truth is only truth when properly communicated lest we seek for our meaning to be lost.
it is definitely not a prerequisite to discovery that we have preconception of discovery at all; such a conclusion is the perfect examply of warping language so as to justify false reality - your practical example of antithesis? -adam and eve having no knowledge walk around an unfamiliar world having no idea of a thing called fruit and stumble upon (discover) a thing called an apple tree.
they were not looking for any thing in particular, in fact, they weren't seeking out any individual thing at all, yet, they made a discovery with absolutely no preconception of anything at all except for maybe the fact that they might exist in reality...and even that, even today, is not a total truth; whether you accept that or not.
in reality, i would define truth as more of a marble in a pitch black room; those who slip and fall on it usually can't find where it rolled to after they get back up...I see you're still on the ground assuming that you can describe the thing that made you fall. at any rate, i'd love to sit down over coffee and let you discover the reality of what i think, but it appears you already have some preconception of what i am, so, despite the fact (in your reality) that you are seeking me through your preconception of what i am, i doubt you'll discover what's inside because you've already deflected me off your closed mind.
peace,
sean
1) Language can't be misused to justify reality. For one reality doesn't require justification. For another, language can be defined as "a system of sounds or characters designed for representing reality", so anything language does in the area of reality is pretty much right. For another, what the fuck are you talking about? Certainly not richa's comment. I propose it's you who are clothesminded. End of story.
2) Truth is misinterpreted all the time. For example: 'The sky is blue' is true. 'The sky is blue because God painted it blue' is a misinterpretation.
3) Truth is probably never really communicated (or if it is - ie, 'God exists' - it's pretty much totally at random). Ergo, being properly communicated has nothing to do with it.
4) Oh, you're talking about justifying false reality! Well, that's a bow'ls argument isn't it, and tantamount to saying well it doesn't justify MY reality. Judging from your comments, your reality is bunk.
5) Um, God told Adam first thing not to eat the fruit of the apple tree, without their having seen it prior. So you just failed big time.
6) And so on and so on. This is such crap it makes my eyes water. Please don't ever try to argue here ever again.
cheers,
zodiac
I do, as you say, attribute a magical property to truth that separates it from falsehood, but thatâs not the same as saying I know how to distinguish truth from falsehood. I donât think that to discover truth, I must first know what I am looking for. That would be saying that I know a truth â how to discover truth â before I discover truth. You can see the inconsistency in that.
The important thing here is to be receptive to truth, even if comes through an unlikely source like the words of Dovina. Wouldnât you agree?
To hold truth and believe it to be wrong makes the "truth" non-truth.
To hold truth and believe it to be wrong makes the "truth" non-truth in that person's mind. That's only a word twiddle.
Robert Graves - In Broken Images
He is quick, thinking in clear images;
I am slow, thinking in broken images.
He becomes dull, trusting to his clear images;
I become sharp, mistrusting my broken images.
Trusting his images, he assumes their relevance;
Mistrusting my images, I question their relevance.
Assuming their relevance, he assumes the fact;
Questioning their relevance, I question their fact.
When the fact fails him, he questions his senses;
when the fact fails me, I approve my senses.
He continues quick and dull in his clear images;
I continue slow and sharp in my broken images.
He in a new confusion of his understanding;
I in a new understanding of my confusion.
That's a good poem 10
Def. A closed mind of domain D is a mind that deflects all propostions that are not in D, regardless of whether or not said propositions are true.
Def. An open mind is a mind that accepts a proposition if and only if it can convince itself that the proposition is true.
Dovina's Theorem. There exist true propositions that are picked up by an open mind and deflected by a closed one.
Proof. Let C be the closed mind with the empty domain. C therefore deflects all propositions, so in particular it deflects the true proposition "Dovina has a woman's brain."
Let O be the open mind that thinks Dovina has a woman's brain. By definition, O accepts the proposition "Dovina has a woman's brain" and we have the theorem. QED
-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.'s Important Theorem. For every open mind, there is an equivalent closed mind that accepts and rejects the same propositions.
Proof. Let O be an arbitrary open mind. Let D be the collection of all propositions that O can convince itself are true. O is clearly equivalent to the closed mind with domain D. QED.
Corollary. All Dovina has said is that different minds can disagree about the validity of a proposition. :(
Corollary: Dovina has said that minds have the ability to open themselves to the possibility of truthful input and they have the ability to close themselves to it.
Trivial example: I replicate my uncle in an Uncle-replicator. Uncle and Uncle-2 are both open to exactly the same propositions, at least for a short while after replication. Therefore Uncle and Uncle-2's minds are equivalent with respect to openness. But Uncle and Uncle-2 are separate people. QED.
Is this really beyond you, or are you deliberately being dim?
Let M be any mind. Then the Theorem states: There is a closed mind C, which accepts and rejects exactly the same propositions as M.
Corollary: For any open mind O which does not "inhibit the entrance of truth", there is a closed mind C which accepts and rejects exactly the same propositions as O, and therefore also does not "inhibit the entrance of truth".
Corollary: The set of closed minds is exactly as accepting of the truth as the set of open minds.
Corollary: Closed-mindedness does not inhibit the entrance of truth.
Corollary: You're a dim.
Premiss: For any possible open valve O, there is a possible closed but leaky valve L, which lets through exactly as much water as O.
Premiss: For any possible closed valve C, there is a possible open but blocked valve B, which lets through exactly as much water as C.
Therefore: The set of open valves lets through, collectively, exactly as much water as the set of closed valves.
Corollary: Closed-valvedness does not inhibit the flow of water.
Your confused because your thinking of the set of *actual* valves, and mistakenly inferring things about closed-valvedness in general.
Zodiac is a dim.
Things you've failed at since joining this site:
* Arithmetic
* Science
* Programming
* Elementary set theory
* Not being unbelievably thick
This time it is basic first order logic you have failed at.
"For every possible open valve, there is a possible closed valve that permits as much water." That is the premiss.
"Any valve lets through as much water closed as it does open." That is your thicky misunderstanding of the premiss.
You fail. Good Christ, you fail.
"For every possible open valve, there is a possible closed valve that permits as much water." That is the premiss.
"Any valve lets through as much water closed as it does open." That is your thicky misunderstanding of the premiss.
There it is. Have you spotted it now? Do you understand the response? Do you understand how it relates to what you said? Do you understand how it relates to the discussion as a whole? Do you understand how it is a defense of my original theorem? Do you even have any idea what this thread is about?
Every time I think I've finally understood how thick you are, you absolutely blow my estimate out of the water. You have an unbounded capacity for failure.
Trying to explain something to you is like trying to feed a worm tablet to a cat.
You want to talk about a valve that allows water to pass when it is closed, even as much water as when it is open.
I donât want to.
Impass.
Happens every day.
No reason to get upset.
You call me obstinate, wet, feminine, a failure, closed minded (you forgot dimtard)
Fine. Discuss it with someone who cares.
I'm not talking about a "valve that allows water to pass when it is closed, even as much water as when it is open".
For all I care, that valve doesn't exist. It's irrelevant.
(Look at the words I am writing, and use your brain to understand them.)
I am talking about two SETS of valves. One is the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE OPEN VALVES, and the other is the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE CLOSED VALVES.
Here is what I am saying. This is what my IMPORTANT THEOREM is saying:
Take any OPEN VALVE in the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE OPEN VALVES. Call this valve Ted. Then there is some CLOSED VALVE in the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE CLOSED VALVES, called Roger, who is leaky -- and therefore lets through exactly as much water as Ted.
Ted and Roger are not the same valve. Clearly they aren't, because Ted is OPEN and Roger is CLOSED.
I am also saying the following. Take any CLOSED VALVE in the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE CLOSED VALVES. Call him Gretchen. Now there is an OPEN VALVE in the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE OPEN VALVES, called Nancy, who is blocked, and therefore only lets through as much water as Gretchen.
Clearly, Nancy and Gretchen are not the same valve, because Gretchen is closed, and Nancy is open.
Do you understand? Do you understand how this is utterly different to talking about a SINGLE VALVE which lets through as much water open as it does closed?
Here is a COROLLARY: to the theorem: There is a one-to-one correspondence between the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE OPEN VALVES, and the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE CLOSED VALVES. Take any valve, open or closed. Then there is a valve in the other set that lets through just as much water.
THEREFORE: The set of all possible open valves, collectively, lets through exactly the same amount of water as the set of all possible closed valves.
THEREFORE: Closed-valvedness in itself is not a determinant of how much water a valve lets through.
THEREFORE: Closed-valvedness does not inhibit the flow of water.
Do you understand now? You haven't understood before, although you've repeatedly claimed to. Do you get it now? I don't care if you agree or disagree. I just want to know if you understand what I am saying.
I did not say the valves are "of the same kind." That's something you just invented.
Stop imagining that I am talking about a single valve, or a single type of valve, that is identical open and closed. That seems to be the main source of your confusion.
I am simply saying that there is a one-to-one correspondence between two sets. You can't seem to fit that into your head. Do you know what a one-to-one correspondence is?
Think about the set of positive numbers, and the set of negative numbers. For every positive number, there is a negative number with the same absoulte value. For every negative number, there is a positive number with the same absolute value. Therefore there is a one-to-one correspondence between the two sets.
Do you accept that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the set of all possible open valves and the set of all possible closed valves?
a) Redundant comments e.g. "end hunger" are "good practice".
b) Vertically lining up brackets is "good practice".
I suppose you didn't actually read the guide, or if you did, that it just fell out of your ear.
You, young lady, have no knowing smirk.
zodiac: Two people who agree on something are the same person.
Dovina: That's not what I actually said.
zodiac: Whatever, I was exaggerating. What you actually said is wrong, too.
Log in to add a comment.