| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
Numbers In Heaven (Free verse) by Dovina My name is 183,
one of myriad,
born in heaven,
nestled eternally
between two evens,
and called, with affection,
odd.
Some of us are prime,
numbers so perfect
they were flung
to distant worlds,
if maybe there, their beauty
too might be beheld.
I take delight in knowing
I am certain,
fixed and real,
never to be forsaken
or replaced,
unique, useful,
unmatched and unmatchable.
Pregnant with potential
in Platonic minds,
we odds alone,
save the chosen 2,
titillate their senses.
Sometimes in anxious moments,
Senses failing,
in the wonder of it all,
I feel an urgent sadness,
imagine myself a figment
of their god-like minds,
a bipolar disturbance,
perhaps a mere conveyance,
no more than an assertion,
a useful word.
Then I feel contrived by them
for pleasure and convenience,
lovely only in their minds.
But as the notion passes,
I rest in heavenly peace,
unequaled and real,
fixed and founded,
uniquely placed
by God.
Up the ladder:
When I Was Eight
Down the ladder:
Facing Goodbye
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 6.75
Posted: March 13, 2006 7:47 AM PST; Last modified: March 13, 2006 7:47 AM PSTWeighted score: 6.2793527 Overall Rank: 893 Comments:
You're doing it again and you know it. And you know I know it. There is nothing eternal about 183. Nor is there any point thinking so. In short, you fail in the most eternal possible respect.
1 + 8 + 3 = 12
12 = 3 times 4 3 = the number of God 4 = the number of the universe Therefore 12 = the number of everything So if you were writing a gospel of revelations, 183 could indeed be highly symbolic. Or it could be a number plucked purely at random off a number tree. I really don't know.
There is nothing eternal about numerology.
PS-I can produce 3, 4, or 12 with almost any number.
So any number you pick will be 'one of a myriad'. Now, I don't know if that featured in Dovina's thoughts when she wrote this, but it's not such a bad idea.
He was once a master at playing "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" I'm guessing.
Test me.
I'll start off easy.
King Kong
Very easy. From the remake:
1. King Kong to Naomi Watts 2. Watts to Sean Penn in 21 Grams 3. Penn to Kevin Bacon in Mystic River. From the original: 1. King Kong to Bruce Cabot (the orig. Jack Driscoll) 2. Cabot to John Wayne in Chisum 3. John Wayne to Robert Duvall in True Grit 4. Duvall to Tom Cruise in Days of Thunder 5. Cruise to Kevin Bacon in Top Gun.
Damn good. I had:
1.Bacon w/Gary Oldman in JFK 2. Oldman w/Monica Bellucci in Dracula 3. Bellucci w/Agent Smith guy in The Matrix trilogy 4. Agent Smith guy in Lord of the Rings Directed by Peter Jackson 5. Peter Jackson directed King Kong.
OK now for one of the one's considered unlinkable.
Fred Ott. (hint)-Fred Ott was a lab technician for Thomas Edison.
I had to cheat and google. Here's what I got:
1. Ott to Edison (director) in "Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze" 2. Edison (producer) to Vivian Reed in The Patchwork Girl of Oz 3. Reed to Jimmy Stewart in Vivacious Lady 4. Stewart to Kathleen Quinlan in Airport '77 5. Quinlan (Tom Hanks' wife) to Kevin Bacon in Apollo 13.
Wow--that's impressive. Maybe you should e-mail it to UVA's Oracle of Bacon, which says:
"fred ott has a Kevin Bacon number of infinity. fred ott cannot be linked to Kevin Bacon using only feature films. About 12% of all actors cannot be linked to the rest of the movie universe, either because they have appeared only in TV features or straight-to-video releases that the Oracle doesn't count, or because they have not appeared in any features with actors from the Hollywood mainstream." On second thought, I doubt "Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze" would fit their criteria.
For one, "Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze", in which Fred Ott sneezes, is one of Ott's two acting credits. The other one involves doing something on one of Edison's test recordings, too. If you can't count those, you can't rightly call Ott an actor. Ergo, the question's bunk.
For two, the man friggin' sneezes on, like, the first film ever. Give him some credit. I'd like to run it by UVA and see what they think. When I actually did this full-time, OOB was my Bible. I bet they're looking for actor-actor connections, and not actor-director or actor-producer. Considering Ott's alone in the films he's in, that would make things kind of difficult.
Oh, I give him credit all right. UVA/OoB has the problem with it.
IMDB has three Fred Ott acting credits (he plays himself in two): The Kiss (1900) .... Himself Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze (1894) .... Sneezing Man ... aka Fred Ott's Sneeze Fred Ott Holding a Bird (1894) .... Himself Full time?
If you except Fred Ott as an actor then you have to except The Sneeze. With that part approved let's proceed. You must allow Edison in as a factor in the linkage as Ott appeared alone in the films he did. With that said, here's what I got:
1.Ott to Edison in The Sneeze 2.Edison to Bronco Billy Anderson in The Great Train Robbery 3.Anderson to Chaplin in The Champ 4.Chaplin to Sophia Loren in The Countess of Hong Kong 5.Sophia Loren to William Devane in La Mortadella 6.Devane to Bacon in Hollow Man
-and yes, I googled my ass off on this one.
See, I thought she meant 183 is always between 182 and 184. How profound is that? I think "eternally" is just a junk word she thought would sound good. I think it's already understood where 183 lies. Apperantly she came before the devil did because he's way up there at 666.
See, over here we have to be really careful when phoning the emergency services, because if we're not looking when we dial we run a serious risk of getting through to Hell's call centre by mistake.
Why the fuck did I just start that comment with 'See' as well? You're sending subliminal messages again, aren't you?
S = 19th letter of the alphabet
E = 5th E = 5th 1 + 9 + 5 + 5 = 20 = 4 + 4 x 4
Ironic, yet I suspect universal.
Shouldn't it be 4 + (4 x 4)?
No. Order of operations means you do times first.
Out of curiosity, are you a teacher?
Not today.
No, she's referencing Plato. Plato's bunk.
Give her a couple years maybe she'll work her way up to Nietzsche by then.
Besides if any Greek philosopher is going to make it into a Christain heaven it's Plato.
Tell me zodiac, is a -5- for her lacking in poetic form or her ability to fail miserably in eternity? ' Besides there's nothing eternal about 183', then maybe there's something eternal about 138?
Both. In equal proportions.
As counting is used to collect things into groups based on there simularities how can you talk about yourself as being unique? My guess is the same way you talk about things you don't know. Nice idea though.
Haven't we had this conversation? Say, here?
http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.j (scroll about one-third-way down.)
That was epic...
That one was just a novella compared to some of the marathons we've had.
Oh Christ. Like the Liar-Confuser discussion. Or "Middle Aged White Woman."
Do you think she really thinks she won all of those?
That's your downfall with her. You still hold out hope that you can change her mind with scientific logic. If you ever did sway her opinion it wouldn't be fun anymore would it?
It is fun to agree with people, occasionally. The way things are is pretty close to not being fun, in my opinion.
I agree. At least for now.
Yep, but for some reason I'm still trying to get her to be practical with numbers.
My ex is a mathematician, and though I didn't come away from our relationship with much real knowledge or understanding of mathematics, I did come away with some appreciation of mathematical aesthetics (in part from long hours spent struggling with _Godel, Escher, Bach_ and the like). He had a knack for making me understand, if only superficially and mostly by analogy (not being math brained), why he saw such beauty in numbers (even if, as Erdos said, ". . . you don't see why [numbers are beautiful], someone can't tell you. I know numbers are beautiful. If they aren't beautiful, nothing is.")
Your treatments, frankly, don't make me see that beauty. I'm not saying that to be a jerk. Maybe it's that you don't give enough information or make the necessary connections. Or maybe it's that your observations seem, I don't know, somewhat contradictory or superficial. For example--what's the significance of 183? It's not a prime (though you go on to extol primes). It's odd, true, but so? Maybe the problem is that I just don't bring the necessary math chops to the table, but I don't think it's that alone. You tap into a long tradition of seeing numbers as divinely inspired (I think that's part of what you're saying), from Gallileo to Erdos (not a believer, but he liked the divine analogy well enough) and beyond. And the reference to the the Platonic--abstract, unchanging truths--gives this some context it might otherwise lack. But some of it doesn't seem to hang together or perhaps just isn't fleshed out enough. I do think your subject choices are often unusual and ambitious, which is commendable. And you do have a knack for inspiring reaction!
I believe trying to describe the devine with math is like trying to paint a perfect replica of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel using monkeys throwing poop at it. Actually I think monkeys throwing poop would be a lot more fun to watch. If she can make it beautiful then she's one hell of a poop slinger.
Ah, now, Mr. Provacateur, how is using math to interpret the divine (if that's what D was doing here--I took it as the reverse, in a sense) analogous to monkeys throwing poop at the Sistine Chapel? Is the medium not sufficient or insufficiently beautiful (as opposed to, say, paint or words)?
Because math is hardly ever inspired or sublime. Before someone goes nuts about genius mathematicians making wild, sublime deductive leaps, let me explain: Math even at its best is only be a description of what already exists. Art actually brings new things into existence. If you disagree, you don't understand math or art.
New "things"--such as? How is art any less interpretive of what already exists than math?
The better math is at replicating (or whatever the word is) reality, the better it's considered, right? But I can make art about nothing that's ever happened, art that actually contradicts reality, and it can still be considered great art. Closeness to reality is not the main factor in art's greatness, like it is for math.
Well at least art is the attempt at imitating god. I guess you could say art is when logic is at a loss for words and something else like emotion is left to interpret things.
Well, this starts to get a little beyond my comfort level in terms of what math actually "does" vis-a-vis reality. But "reality"--our understanding of what that means--shifts at any given point in time, doesn't it? And some of those shifts resulted from mathematics. So--is that bringing something 'new' (in terms of our understanding of reality) into being, as art does? Or is it just discovering what already exists? I honestly don't know. It's certainly an debate that's been going on (among much keener minds than mine) for a long time. Platonism or Formalism or something else entirely? Godel talked quite a bit about math being interpretive of abstract reality rather than empirical reality. Maybe that's not such a bad place to start thinking about this stuff.
My head hurts.
Refering back to your original comment in this thread: I was impressed with the almost erotic delight Hobbs and Russell took in learning Euclidâs geometry. âAs dazzling as first love!â So I took it one step further in giving life and emotion to numbers. Nothing special about 183; any odd number would do. Then it struck me that any high significance one attaches to oneâs self eventually draws attention to the possibility of it not being true.
If you had never existed, would there still be a Platonic, eternal Dovina floating around somewhere? Where?
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?
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.
All very well and good and obvious and only tangentially related to what was actually said. Ace! You win again.
Divine as in beyond our ability to form a definition within our own logic. Anything we come up with mathematically will only explain a god that's bound by mathematics. Far short of divine by this definition.
Fair enough. I guess that's why I see it as "interpret"--to render it in such a way as to be capable of a limited understanding.
Of course, to me, it's academic anyway (given that I don't actually buy the concept of "divine").
Sure, you can make statements like God is that guy mentioned in the bible but that doesn't really say anything definitive about god it only says things that people think about god. The real god if there is one may not be that guy mentioned in the bible. Basically your guess is as good as mine. So that's why using math is as silly as throwing poop. Niether one of them will define god unless you decide that's what you want god to be. So one person might say god is E=mc2 and another might say god is poop art. Whose to say which definition's closer.
re: âI think âeternallyâ is just a junk word she thought would sound good.â
For Number 183, who believes she was created in heaven, unique and useful to her creator, âeternityâ is not a junk word. She will live forever, usefully serving her master and receiving pleasure from those who recognize her beauty and adore her. But at times, she feels that perhaps none of it is true, and just maybe sheâs no more than a concoction, a useful idea. In those moments, she fears that âeternityâ is a lie and a junk word. I suppose that given a couple years, maybe Iâll work my way up to Nietzsche and the modern philosophers who debunk the intrinsic value of numbers. For now I rather enjoy winning some of these disputes, as evidenced by no answer being given to my argument, but cries of âBlatherer!â, âMoron!â, like shrill barks of a small dog. But without this freedom in anonymity, it wouldn't be fun anymore would it?
Don't bother with Nietzsche. Plato's much more interesting.
I still like the concept of this poem, although it does feel very film-esque.
Yes, I admit a kind of love for old Plato. And don't quite see how this is the new thing "film-esque."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
183 does have feminity and gall. Mostly because it looks like it has tits and a pair of balls.;)
That reminds me. I used to attribute personalities to the numbers 1 through 10 when I was a little kid(kinda like with The Letter People). For example 5 was the hero, 6 was the bad guy and 2 was the girl they'd often fight over. I kinda wish you'd have gone that way more now that I think of it.
Too bad you grew up.
You are full of beans. Even Russell would be ashamed.
You could say I'm unique because I'm the 183rd soul in heaven and not 182 or 184 but then God walks in and decides today to start counting from the other end of the line. Now you're 665 and you're standing behind the devil.
Well this is a beautiful thread. Dovina, you should have made 140785 the number which your poem refers to because then, not only is it an odd number, it is also the number of this poem. Therefore all this highly mathematical logic would be meaningless because the poem would be about itself rather than a number selected at random. Reminds me of a definition of 'analysis' that Scott Adams gave - 'analysis' coming (according to him) from the Greek 'anal' and 'ysis' ('to pluck numbers from'). Which is all very relevant to this post.
ALChemy - what about a group of hypothetical concepts/objects that are grouped together solely because they're totally different? Then 'Article #183' would be unique. Imagine the irony if it was also a eunuch.
They're still all hypothetical concepts/objects. pretty much everything is unique if you go by the view that no two things are exactly the same but what things can you think of that have absolutely nothing in common with any part of anything else?
183 is a number as is 184 and 182. At least you applied 183 to something. She's using it like it was one of The Letter People except it's a number and it's in heaven. Sure it's cute and all but it's also kinda naive.
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.
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.
In the amount of time it has taken me to read this funny , though useless, thread, an amish community has raised a barn. And. The youngsters built a 1/8 scale exact replica of the statue of liberty, then knocked it over, set it ablaze and had a
"cookout".
Heh--a much more productive use of time.
Though this did make an uneventful Monday fly by. So much for not getting sucked into the 'ranker comments feature again. Sigh.
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
were you a math major in college?
The poem has a certain music to it, but the discussion---don't any of you people have anything else to do?
What kind of critique is "The poem has a certain music to it" supposed to be? That's a bigger waste of time then saying 183 is eternal. Do we have anything better to do? Sure, but are you finding a cure for cancer right at this moment? No? So I guess we're both wasting our time. Besides If I REALLY wanted to waste time I'd be reading commenting on one of your poems.
I take it that zodiac gets very jittery when he hears anything about religion,or heaven or angels or 183 divine creatures....... or maybe he just can't stand the thought of Dovina born in heaven and nestled eternally there.
I'd love Dovina to be born in heaven and nested eternally there. Seriously. But 183 isn't proof, demonstration, model or symbol of that, and even Dovina doesn't think so. I'm not nervous about religion, heaven, creatures, or 183. I am nervous when my belief that the human race is on the whole intelligent and capable of working out its problems is so shaken by willful ignorance such as Dovina's. So sue me.
Seriously, anybody who thinks that all things/problems can be solved by humans is a big fool.
'Put no trust in princes, in mortal man in whom there is no help. Take their breath, they return to clay, and their plans that day come to NOTHING.'
For one, that's not what I said. For two, I don't really believe everything in the Bible, so posting a passage to support your argument doesn't really help me.
What I'm trying to point out is that your belief that 'the human race is on the whole intellegent and capable of solving its problems' is absurd and abstract. Very theoritical and hypothetical...but not practical. Hence my statement. It's not about the bible, but about the fact that man cannot depend on his intellect alone. He needs his divine sustenance and you know it!
As for Dovina being 183, what's the odds that she isn't an angel in your company?
For the sake of argument, let's say I DID say "the human race is on the whole intelligent and capable of solving its problems WITHOUT GOD'S HELP". I didn't, but let's say I did.
Wouldn't it be a really cool thing for God to make human beings well enough that they could solve problems? I think it would. It would be better than him making us just awful. And do you really believe God sitting up in his workshop says, I'm going to make humans utterly incompetent! That'll show 'em! And making good people would be a good way of helping the world without being obvious. Like say He sees India is having a lot of trouble under British Rule and says, "Hey, I'll make a really great guy named Gandhi who's able to help out the country." Don't you agree it's possible that God works like that? Sure, God also makes bad people, the way I see it. But I believe on the whole He makes more good people than bad people, if He does exist. Yes, that's very hypothetical. Because it's my BELIEF. My BELIEF is also that Dovina isn't an actual angel because, one, I don't think angels exist, and two, her ignorance is beyond beyond.
Go girl! You amaze me sometimes!
Zodiac, man is just the product of God's handiwork. God has not made man God. But in creating man, He was merely being adventurous in giving 'man' freedom to think and act (i'm not saying 'act wisely'). So man begins his quest to dominate the world thinking that everything is his own and can be done on his own, yet he doesn't realize that he is only a very very minor part of the divine jigsaw puzzle which will in time wrap up together beautifully. Yet 'man' thinks that he is the only piece in the puzzle and that he is in control of it all.
As for God amking good people and bad..... he doesn't. He gives you the choice to be good or bad, to believe in him or not. When it please you, you will say I did so and so to achieve this or that, ie. when good things come your way and you succeed in your life or profession, .... But when it's bad.... it's ' God made bad things happen. How else could it come about?' He doesn't make good or bad. we make it good or bad. And Gandhiji chose to do good rather than 'bad'. So can you.
The only God anyone here knows is the God they think they know for if God is beyond even the laws of nature and our own comprehension then there is no way to truly know him at this point in our existence. There is only what we think we know, what others think and tell us about God and what we feel is true in our hearts. If you're looking to prove or for proof of God then you're missing the whole point of faith. So please understand me when I say that whenever you tell someone about God, chances are you have no idea what you're talking about. So maybe you should start refering to him as "My holy father" as he defined by you and if you find a bunch of people who agree with everything you say about him, you and those people can refer to him as "Our father, who art in heaven". Even Jesus realized that.
Itâs heartening to hear you say, âGod is beyond even the laws of nature and our own comprehension.â In saying that, you have removed Him from the walls of rules and logic and allowed Him to be God. (Perhaps He thanks you for your generosity.) Iâm often called a heretic for doing the same thing.
The strange thing about people who say that a good god would not allow suffering is that they usually also say, âthe human race is, on the whole, intelligent and capable of solving its problems.â They take credit for the good and blame God for the bad, or they say there is no god because of the bad. Amanda is saying that God controls both good and bad. I say that God has left Himself many holes in the apparent order of nature through which to act, and act unreceptively, if He wants to. Like you say, its something I feel, beyond proof. I fully agree that my ignorance is beyond beyond.
I'm perfectly fine with me being the only follower of my beliefs, how 'bout you?
Iâm fine with you being the only follower of your beliefs, and with me being the only follower of mine. Itâs kind of silly to say somebody else is, or should be, the follower of my beliefs. The trouble with my beliefs is that they can change and make the old ones look silly to me sometimes.
One of the wisest things I've heard you say.
Considering that your comprehension doesn't include rules and logic, Dovina, it seems perfectly possible that God could be logical and, therefore, incomprehensible to you.
re: "The strange thing about people who say that a good god would not allow suffering is that they usually also say, 'the human race is, on the whole, intelligent and capable of solving its problems.'" Who says both of those things? Certainly not me. In fact, in my experience, people seem to say either one or the other. In short, you are so full of beans you make my eyes hurt. You seem incapable of making sense except by accident.
Also I have not removed God from rules and logic. God is governed by being God and whatever that might entail. If you throw that logic out the window then nothing makes any sense. See, logic and rules applied to God. I'm only saying it's probably way beyond our comprehension at this time what God is, does, isn't or doesn't do.
Yes. To say otherwise is to build walls around God, or try to.
If God exist the walls are already set for he by his own existence is confined to being God.
Yes, but that's His choice.
Nope.
Then who built the walls? If you say God did, I say, "That's His choice."
Obviously, AlChemy means your conception of God, not whatever God there is or isn't who is or isn't affected by what you think about him. While we're on the topic, Real God probably wouldn't allow himself to be put into or removed from rules and logic like some kind of, I don't know, giant tiddlywink.
Well that's quite a paradox ain't it. Oh I see Dovina's talking about the infamous paradox God where everything he is contradicts everything he is. How did I not see that that must be the ideal God for her?
No they're not built at all. They're there by definition. Something that is something has to be what it is. If it changes to something else it's still what it is but what it is, is something else than what it was. If god is god and then he changes into something else then he's no longer god. So by being god he must be god and if he "chooses" to not be god then he won't be god. He's still governed by this logic as a rule. I'm guessing maybe this is what god means when he describes himself as "I am that I am".
Of course you can say that somehow he's beyond all that but then if that's the case the idea of even thinking of God at all is utterly ridiculous.
And then there's Einstein's marvellous take on it all:
âThe fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery â even if mixed with fear â that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.â Works for me.
I am one who says that God seems to exist beyond all that. I cannot imagine god coming into existance within an already established framework of walls or rules or logic. Such a god would be like a satrap in ancient Persia, over whom another king rules, the King of kings. It's probably the source of the Biblical image "King of kings."
You cannot imagine a god that exist beyond the rules I stated either, you can only pretend like you can.
I forgot to say before that your previous post was very good. This one, too.
From my perspective, everything I know about makes perfect sense without including God in my explanations for things. I've spent a lot of time thinking about how to run my life, and I have to say I do pretty well. I'm a very good person. I have no problems in my life. Seriously. When I have had problems in the past, I've taken care of them the best I could by myself, and they've worked out. I don't feel any lack. I don't feel like anything doesn't make sense. I don't feel displeased by life or the usual explanations for things. Why would I include God in things? Really, without already believing, what'll make me interested in believing?
Yes, you are able to handle things on your own. But God forbid, if anything was to happen to you or lets say, your wife....something drastic... irreversible, probably like an accident or a serious illness..... how long will you be able to hold on. I'd say as long as you have all the cash in your pocket that you need. And after that?
What about your peace of mind, and say things like guilt and remorse for not foreseeing things, feelings like this that might crop up..... how would you handle that. I don't think it would go very well with you. No man can handle stress under sever conditions and a human being is not made to handle extreme and sever pressure. Ther's a limit to everything. Even if you were to go on a long course of anti depressants and mood lifters you will not be able to hold on. Just because you have a rosy picture set for you, or that you have probably set, that doesn't mean that its a surety for future happiness. Think about it. P.S. I really enjoy these sharings. Hope you do too. After my last post up there, my husband and I had a strong discussion on this, quite contradictory opinions.... and now to return,.... I have a bone to pick with him also.
I've often wondered the same thing. Sometimes I think the real sign of Job's faith wasn't that he believed in God through hardship, but that he believed when everything was going great for him.
I've often not had cash in my pocket. I have had rough times. I've seen awful things happen. When people talk about all the crap they go through in their lives, I usually think I've had about the same number of bad things happen to me. Um, if my wife died...? I honestly can't say. I think I could handle it, but there's no telling. Anyway, I'd mistrust any religion that was so obviously a crutch. I mean, if my wife dies and I just HAVE TO believe that there's an afterlife because I can't stand the thought of her simply being GONE... well, I haven't had any EXPERIENCE of God. I don't have anything showing me there is a heaven. I just have need or want. Want isn't God, to me. It doesn't add to my knowledge or experience. Anyway, that's all kind of beside the point, for me. I don't mean that I have fewer bad experiences or times in my life, but that when I have a bad time, I really believe I'm going to be able to take care of it on my own. So the experience doesn't seem so bad. I don't know, maybe if I believed in God, if I was fatalistic or lacked confidence, those times would seem worse to me. My life would seem worse. You know? PS-I enjoy these conversations too.
Those times would be the best years of your life... not fatalistic or unfortunate. What I'm trying to say is that it's not a loved one's death that's the ultimate, that we have to take into account.... but life's situations. There's so many situations in life where we reach a dead end. Why I am so strong on my point is that I have tested scripture passages... and have asked my self why, how .. is it true, etc. And one instance where I've tested it was on the passage "Give and it will come backed to you. Pressed down shaken together and running over, when you give to the Lord." and I've tried to give.... some of the little cash I had on me (I don't work and one person's salary isn't enough for a four member family)... and within 24 hrs.... somebody sent me more than double the amount for no reason...a gift. So I gave more money to the church and then about Aust$ 150.00 was sent to me by another relative as a gift, within a few days. Till then there had been no gift sent from this sourse by way of cash. I've found this a very useful way of getting through... ie. by testing the scriptures and knowing for myself that its true. And at times one just has to be patient knowing that all things work for good to those that love the Lord. It pays off with the immediate grace of peace and a blissful sleep despite the storms.
Hmm...I give a lot to Plan International and have yet to receive from an unexpected source - can I borrow some of your relatives?
Hmm Ranger, are you tall dark and handsome? ;-)
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&;friendid=34804799
Judge for yourself =p
Hmm, you'll have to take out the semicolon after '&' for it to work...copy/paste turns into copy/addsemicolon/paste here it seems...and I know nothing about computers, so I wouldn't even know how to avoid it.
Give me 10,000 dollars and a plane ticket to Vegas and I'll bring you back a retirement plan and buy you your own KFC.
But seriously, If Karma didn't work in India where would it?
Karma - Justice...what's the difference between the two concepts?
Karma's suppose to be unavoidable.
Good answer. But in a perfectly just world do you think they'd equate to the same thing?
Oh - and justice (ultimate justice) is also supposed to be unavoidable according to Christianity. You'll get what you deserve in Heaven, presumably.
In a perfectly just world "Karma Chameleon" would have been grounds for Boy George's execution. In a perfectly Karmic world he would have came back as a lizard stuck in Richard Gere's ass.
Who knows...maybe he will. I wouldn't know who to feel more sorry for.
I'm sure they'd both be quite happy.
Dirty blighters.
Here's a question. Is believing that love is more than a chemical reaction or that art is more than the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the senses, is that the same thing basically as believing in God?
No. Why do you draw that parallel?
(I'm devising a more extended answer to the initial question, justification will follow.)
It's all mysticism. Just done to different degrees.
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.
If by mystical you mean beyond ordinary understanding then absolutely.
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.
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.
Given all the religions in the worldâs 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 - âGod is love,â for example, and the artistically fabricated parables of Jesus. Yes, I think itâs 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 thatâs an unprovable feeling. I also feel that when, on rare occasion, I create art, that too is an extension of God. My God, Iâve left a lot of logical holes in this statement. Lambaste me!
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.
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?
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...
See, I thought you were just talking genetics. I suppose we all have a "god gene". After all, he is our father.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm really not trying to poke holes in your beliefs and I haven't the time to poke holes in your statement. How much must it suck to think that love is nothing but a chemical addiction or that art is essentially impractical and frivolous entertainment. How narrow a path is it that does not make room for the euphoria of believing in God.
By the way Da Vinci was very athletic. It's been said that he could leap over a man from a standstill and he was incredibly strong. His nickname was L'Uomo Universale (The universal man) in which all skills reside.
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.
I don't think I said art was frivolous but it seems the next step for those who feel God believing is a waste of time.
We once lived without art. It was a long time ago and life was pretty exciting back then, you know, running away from Sabertooth tigers and all that. Art and religion almost popped up hand in hand. Back then we understood love as an act of nature. It wasn't until we started philosiphizing about what it meant that we started adding all these mystical qualities to it. Sure you can say "I don't find love mystical at all" but then whatever kind of love poems would you write? Once they came up with a religion they had to represent it somehow so they invented stories and drew pictures and later on made statues. That's not the connection I'm really talking about. I'm talking about how most people romanticize about art, love and of course God. Does not love ask for your faith?(at least your faith that it's love) Does not art need that at least for the moment a little part of you believes in what you're seeing? The art you seek is abundant. You just seem to be looking in the wrong place. The stuff you're "ranting" about is just a bunch of experimenters trying to be original and almost always failing horribly. I think you said it best when you said life would get incredibly tedious if we didn't indulge in the fantastical and mystical impulses we have to make things better than what they really they are. Let our dreams be our blueprints. "The ninety and nine are with dreams, content but the hope of the world made new, 'tis the hundredth man who is grimly bent on making those dreams come true." -Edgar Allan Poe
'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.
When I was younger, I would say that I believe something because I wanted it to be true. I remember announcing to the world that I am an atheist. I had it all worked out in high schoolâhumans are apes. Life is only an electrochemical reaction. Mind is only a set of conditioned reflexes. And most people arenât as rational as me. Considering how much my beliefs have changed, itâs not hard to imagine more change. Itâs interesting listening to yours and Alchemyâs uncertainties about morality and the nature of God.
I am certain about the nature of God. That's my point, believing in God is natural.
Sorry, I should have made clear what I meant. It's been my downfall here to say what makes good sense to me in a confusing manner, (See, I confused even that.)
Believing in God is natural for me too. But the nature of God is not that clear. What is God like? That is the question.
I really enjoyed reading the discussions between you guys Al and Ranger. If you want to define love there's no better definition than this..."Love is patient, kind, NEVER proud or envious, slow to anger, NEVER rude, never keeps account of wrong, does not delight in evil, but always rejoices in the truth, sacrifices, always gives, perseveres and NEVER fails."
A lot of ideas have come to my mind on reading your discussion.... but I think I will start from here. When ever somthing gets uneasy in my life or my relationships with people go topsy turvy, I reflect upon this and see if love has really been there, or whether I have made an effort to keep it ablaze. Romeo and Juliet is just an example of probably sacrifice.... but in my opinion I'd call it more like selfish love, not selfless love. From this play you get and idea or a picture of what love probably is, but to experience and know it for real, one has to put all the ingredients (mentioned in the definition) together and let it flow.
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.
But all you're really experiencing is a chemical cocktail in your body. "love" itself is just a word you use to represent it. Saying you don't know about love if you haven't loved is like saying you don't know about lions if you haven't been a lion. Sure you're likely to know lions better if you've been one but you can know enough about them while never being one to say for instance "I know they are an impressive creature". I'm not saying you can know everthing about love by reading Shakespeare but you also won't likely know everything about love by being in love either. The fact that you're saying that things like love and unicorns can't be believed in without direct experience leads me to believe that you really don't believe in God - or did you experience him directly?
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.
By simply seeing what love does for other people you could conclude that love is a glorious thing. You might also descide it's a horrible thing. Even alot of people who have been in love think it's a horrible thing. If you're saying that love by the chemical definition or other scientifically provable ways exists then yes you can say it definitely exists but that can be shown to you without you having to be the one in love. If you say I know for sure that love exists because I've felt it, it's not defining love and so it is not proof(except maybe to the one feeling it). Just like saying I know for sure God exists because I feel God's presence doesn't prove that God exists(except maybe to the one feeling it). Are you seeing the connection I'm trying to make now.
Having God in your life can make the world more lovely.
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.
Yes, it is a bugger to express. I think we need that mysterious and elusive factor that many of us sense with love, art, God, etc. I think once we start thinking that our current use of logic is the only way then our boundries become set and we are doomed to be lost in time like the Amish, unwilling to open our minds and dream of the seemingly impossible. Call me a Don Quixote but I love the idea of the impossible dream, that something exists that we are at this point incapable of understanding.
Ranger I qoute...'The nearest you can get to non-introspective knowledge of love, however, is seeing couples together.'.....
However, Ranger, love is not limited to just couples you see together. If it were really love, then it would last for a very very very long time instead of the many make-break arrangements of living. Its not an easy task being in love... for one encounters umpteen situatiuons where one has to sacrifice, adjust, surrender freedom of old bachelorhood, rethink your priorities.... and in the bargain one gets hurt. But if there's the sacrifice, patience, trust and the joy of just having that other person around... then it's love, one which will last enough to make you feel its taste a very long time. And it doesn't even have to be only between couples. What about between friends, between family mambers... its that bond between people thats called love. And to experience it , you have to reach out first to receive love. Its contagious and a chain reaction. Love is what sheilds you from negativity. The more you love... the more elevated your mood.... its not just chemical, its what a person is built upon in totality.
You forgot: "Love is a many splendored thing" "Love is all around you, love is knocking outside your door" "Love is all you need" "Love is just a four letter word" "Love is a battlefield" "Love is in the air" etc. etc. -And those are just a list of songs, which leads a Foreigner like me to sing the question "I wanna know what love is?"
I hope you didn't take that wrong. I just wanted to show you that love's grown into many definitions, mainly because of the mystique that seems to go with it.
No.
To be God, or not to be God; That is the question, for he is the ideal.
No? Since we have already agreed on "God or not God" (settled that, I thought) it seemed appropriate to find out if we only agree on the existance of a word, or maybe something more solid.
Let me rephrase that to make my thoughts clearer. "To be like God or not to be like God."
There's a tooth missing in the mesh of our gears. We keep coming full circle on these issues about God, and I can't figure out why. I enjoy dialog more than interslacig monologs, and most of our conversation is dialog, yet we seem unable to get to some key issue. What the hell is the issue here, anyway?
Christ. All gears come full circle, Dovina, toothless or not.
And what the hell is the issue? Nothing.
Originally it started with me wondering how one can be a skeptic and a romantic at the same time, how we mystify and even deify things like love and art but nobody seemed to get on the same wavelength for a while. That's why we need you here. You keep the dreamers from getting too dreamy.
Oh, because that's like my job or what I like to do?
Romance is believing in the capability of human beings to change, to affect their lives. Romance is believing in the potential for happiness, however fleeting, false, or self-deceptive. Happiness is the only irreducible thing.
Wow, you're starting to sound like Amanda. I wonder what you think god is.
Dovinaâs Diary, March 20, 2006:
Ah, yes, the morning mail and another dispatch from Mr. Zodiac. The question is whether to answer it, giving the appearance of dialog, (which, if history repeats, will really be two intersecting monologs), or to ignore another assertion of my incompetence as a human being. It is both gratifying to know he cares, and irritating to see it go on this way, with no more apparent understanding of me than he showed in those year-old diatribes of his. Heâs very persistent. âWhich would you rather be, Dovina, a child caught in a magicianâs spell, or the magician casting it?â Silly me, Iâve sometimes answered his questions, knowing heâll take my answer off on a tangent. Itâs sweet, really, the way he keeps on, as if hoping, even after all these months, that Iâll follow him to Arabia on an invitation to Paris. I imagine him telling some coffee-house crony about me, and the crony saying, âIs she a nut?â and him weighing a stack of my Poemranker comments and poems in his hand, saying, âIâm not sure.â When you correspond with someone, you begin to form impressions. You wonder whether the impressions are correct. âCertainly not a beauty. Long, pointed nose? Brown beady eyes? No, I think more . . . probing. Pushy.â I imagine his impressions of me running along these lines, rather than the harsh nouns and adjectives he writes to describe me. No, I donât believe Iâll answer this time.
Talking to you is like trying to talk to a machine programmed to say sensible-sounding phrases utterly at random. I could say, "This thread has never had the appearance of dialogue, even when I wasn't on it," and you're just going to say, "I get a bright shine with Ajax!" The number of times you've seemed to answer sensibly on this site is, like, 5, which is about what you'd expect for utter randomness. I blame myself for believing in those times.
You two are so god damned adorable it makes my teeth ache.
Some of your best poetry to date.
Now that's a high blow. You mean I could just as well post my diary entries, and rebut zodiac, and be better esteemed in your judgement as to slave over these 200 odd poems?
Because these are more true to the real Dovina. They're personal unfiltered and naturally written. They're quite beautiful.
I suppose I should say thanks. But itâs like having built my dream house, and after taking you on a grand tour, I ask your opinion.
âI like the adorable footprints you left all around as you were building it,â you say.
There you go again. Great line.
Getting back to where we were before this diversion, you were saying, "To be like God or not to be like God" in what I take as an evasion of my question "What is God like?"
I have tried several times to impale you to some substantial pillar to stop you from dancing around what you really mean. I've tried gears with missing teeth, trial attributes of "god," and compliments, all of which you have dodged. Now I resort to classification with its inevitable angerment. You are a Taoist and your god is Tao. Tao is nameless; if you call it something, it hides. Tao is before concepts, before individual things. And in keeping with where I am saying this, taoists believe numbers exist by virtue of the universe of numbers - because they are. Unless you straighten up and say something substantial about this God you claim, I shall be forced to post a poem entitled, "The God of Alchemy."
I would love to read that poem. I'd like to tell you what my God is like but I haven't finished creating him/her/it yet.
A long time ago I wrote this down somewhere. "God spoke us into being so that some day we might be gracious enough to return the favor."
God is like a soap bubble. A really big soap bubble.
God is like a dreamer dreaming he is dreaming a dream about dreaming.
God is like a warm comfy bed that swallows you whole.
God is like a song so highly pitched you can't hear it. After a time it makes you deaf, and then finally you can hear it.
God is like a bicyle built for 2 hundred billion trillion people.
God is like a cat scratching at the bedroom window in the middle of the night forcing you to get up and let him in, because you assume that's the only way you'll ever get any rest. And then 5 minutes later he's begging to go back outside so you let him out knowing that if you don't he'll spray the brand new dress you bought and you won't notice it intil someone at the awards ceremony says 'What the hell is that god-awful smell'?! And then 30 minutes after you let the cat/god back out, just as you are beginning to fall into a deep sleep, he's scratching at the window again begging to be let in. So you let him in and you scream at him a little because otherwise you'd give him a swift sharp kick to the gut. He gives you this totally blank stare and you feel so guilty you take him to bed with you and he falls asleep curled up on your head sucking on the top of your left ear. of course you get absolutely no sleep, but the cat's happy.
I used to think God was like a very large ancient cat that made alot of noise at night until you got pissed and carried him out by his neck and booted him out the door. I'd slam the door and he'd look back at me through the window with an angry look. he'd pretend to roll up his sleeves and He'd dive straight through the window which happened to be open and you'd hear a scuffle and me hollering and then the door would open. There he'd be, the big cat, holding me by the neck and then a big boot to the rear. I'd be out the door. I'd get up, turn to the door to go back in and it would slam shut and lock before I got there. And there I'd be all night, outside pounding on the door hollering Willlmaaa!
Good lord. This is the best comment in this entire benighted thread. "What the hell IS that god-awful smell?"
All applause.
What do I need KFC for when I have AFC here. ....figure that one out!
Don't worry Amanda, Zodiac does believe in God. His God just happens to be him.
But Amanda you should know better than to speak of such things as Zodiac's wife dying. The Bird Flu should be hitting Alaska within weeks. I swear, God must love him alot 'cause he always seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and still makes it out in one piece.
Well Alchemy, did I speak about zodiac's wife dying? I don't think so. And God does love him very much, there's no denying that.... and what about you? Aren't you going to join him there in Alaska for some stuffed roast chicken. I prepare it well. Could send you one with compliments from life accross the seas! Specially for you!
And boy, what a scene! Chicken stall owners sit with nothing in their stalls, a sunken look on their faces and with absolutely none of their employees with them! They're selling it now for just Rs.5.oo which is an equivalent to roughly 80 cents per kg, I think. Just when we thought it was wrapping up, another outbreak shows up... and yet I long to eat fried chicken!
You're right, Zodiac was the one who talked about his wife dying, not you. She must have been nagging him that day. I see your statement mentioned serious illness which come to think of it is even more creepily related to the Bird Flu. I'd love some of your famous chicken as long as it's dead and fried. Mad Cow disease, Bird Flu, Mercury in the fish, pretty soon I'll be surviving on nothing but McFries and a shake.
Poor thing, his wife... and it all ends up with a nagging wife! What about the husbands.... they paint themselves as saints while they're pretty good at what they do! I suppose each one of them should be offered a chicken on a golden platter along with some beef cuts. You married Al? Maybe your wife, if you are lucky enough, could serve you some..... would be fun then! he he he he....
"Later he saw Jesus move from tree to tree in the back of his mind, a wild ragged figure motioning him to turn around and come off into the dark, where he was not sure of his footing, where he suddenly might be walking on water and not know it and then suddenly know it and drown."
- Flannery O'Connor
'It is easy to forget our times of knowing, to think they've been dreams or old miracles, one time. Nothing good is a miracle, nothing lovely is a dream.'
'The world is a dream, you say, and it's lovely, sometimes. Sunset. Clouds. Sky.' 'No. The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?' -Richard Bach
Plenty of replies to sift through, interesting and some humorous I must add. My take on this poem is rather simple, that 183 is just that person, that next soul trying to find her own significance in the scheme of things. Arenât we all? I enjoyed this and appreciated the attempt at defining the importance of being ~ 183, as if a person but taken in numbers.
I had that idea in mind. Glad you noticed it. I also tried to show the philosophical notion of numbers as real entities, distinguishable from useful words. If you mix the two viewpoints together you come up with wonderment over whether we are real.
Obscure.
364 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
'Called, with affection, odd'
Marvellous. 9