| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
deviant conveniences (Free verse) by J.B. Manning We had unprotected sex
Knowing youâre infected
Your cum-fungus blistered my flesh
On contact
Memories of you resonate
in my mind
Like water on windows
Certainty fades like
Daylight and
looking back is easyâ¦fore-site blinding
Love is addictive and
Iâm broken
I want to
Tie your pubic hair in knots
and hang you on your contemplation
Every time
You
say
goodbye.
Up the ladder:
(pieces, peaces)
Down the ladder:
The Commanding Disobedince of Words
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 6.4
Posted: April 30, 2004 9:42 AM PDT; Last modified: April 30, 2004 2:45 PM PDTWeighted score: 5.166884 Overall Rank: 5035 Comments:
301 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why the infatuation with the vile and depraved? There is more to life than unencumbered sexual desire. Your writing could be so much better if not for your lack of emotional depth and maturity.
2. "A little more love, compassion, and charity would go a long long way towards making this world a better place to live in."
3. "We are in the mess we're in because we are ruled by the urges and desires of our ego and flesh and completely ignore our spirtitual nature."
I don't "disagree" with any of those. They're undisagreeable with, because they're wishy-washy platitudes with no verificiation or falsification conditions. No evidence or sensible thought process could lead you to believe them, nor could it lead you to disbelieve them.
Thanks!
There are some people who understand that humans are essentially chimpanzees with over-connected brains. Because humans are animals, humans act like animals, which is why it's unsurprising and inevitable that humans will be "ruled by the urges and desires of our egos and flesh". To think any differently is to totally ignore the facts.
But then there are people like you, who have an utterly wrong-headed idea of what humans are. You think their essential nature is "spiritual", and therefore when humans act like animals, you're surprised and shocked. You think that when humans act like animals, they're betraying their essential spiritual nature, and failing somehow.
And, of course, you have an exceedingly difficult time reconciling that actual behaviour of humans with your crazy theory, because your theory is based on fancy and superstition and produces nothing but wishy-washy platitudes. Your theory 'explains' a few isolated traits of humans, and struggles with the other 90%, but you still cling to it because it's cosy and you're too god damned spineless to admit it's unverifiable cod.
-10-
2. I fear you've become terribly confused. This isn't some sort of competition to see who can have the theory of human nature that requires the most spine to accept. Whether or not one theory is more difficult to accept than another is beside the point. The question is which theory better explains human nature.
You seem determined to hold a theory which is demonstrably buncombe because it poses a "deeper challenge". You think that artificially imposing a grand cosmic structure on your life is a worthwhile thing to do. Fine. But whether it's worthwhile to do that is totally separate from whether you can explain actual human behaviour with some grand cosmic theory of "spirituality".
A good theory of X explains all of the observations about X with the fewest exceptions and special cases. But your theory is based on the principle that humans are essentially "spiritual", which means that for the 90% of human behaviour which isn't "spiritual", you have to make exceptions and call them special cases. Ergo it is a buncombe theory.
1. Nothing about pleasure has been mentioned, or whether it's good to submit to pleasure. You've made a series of silly implications and are now ranting about what you think I would think about pleasure, even though the subject hadn't even been raised.
2. I don't think it's artificial because it can't be "captured in a test tube". I think it's artificial because there are no verification or falsification conditions for it. What evidence would you have to see to stop believing in souls? What evidence could I see for me to start believing in souls? In both cases, there is no such thing. No evidence could have any bearing on whether souls exist, because believing in souls is a superstition that can neither be proved nor disproved.
3. "That was not my question it was yours". Well, you know, that is the topic of this argument, i.e. whether believing in "spirituality" is a wishy-washy platitude.
4. "I know the issue of God is one that you still wrestle with".
No, it actually isn't. After five years of studying philosophy and innumerable arguments with innumerable Christians, the question of whether God exists is, to me, beyond stupid. I would rather eat my own foot than have one more argument about God. Luckily, that isn't what we're talking about.
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.
Science does not say "atoms exist". There are merely a number of mathematical models of the Universe which assert that matter is composed of atoms. These models can be used to predict the behaviour of the Universe. We can then use experiments to check whether or not these predictions are accurate. The job of the physicist is to (a) formulate a model of the universe (b) see if the model matches experimental data. An example is classical Newtonian mechanics, which was shown to be a good model (in the sense that its predictions matched experimental results) for everyday objects travelling at ordinary speeds. However, when physicists were able to test objects travelling at speeds close to the speed of light, experiments showed us that at such speeds Newton's model could only be described as "unbelievably appalling".
My point is that my only 'belief' concerning atoms is that there exist mathematical descriptions of the universe which model matter as being composed of atoms, and which have been shown to be good models (in the sense that the predictions they make are reasonably consistent with experiments designed to test those predictions).
The trouble with souls is that I don't even know what a soul is meant to be. People who talk about souls have an utterly vague, guff-soaked notion of what they think a soul is, yet to them it seems obvious what a soul is because they have been so bum-crushingly deluded from birth that the question has never even lodged itself in their brain glandes. Atoms, on the other hand, are very clearly defined, so the consequences of assuming the existence of atoms in some model can be clearly described.
"Plus all scientific theories are held as language. How can you possibly verify the transferability of language to the physical."
If you're saying what I think you're saying, then what you're saying is basically what I've said above. Atoms are mathematical objects in a mathematical model of the universe. I suppose you would say they are 'held as language'. Fine. But I don't 'transfer atoms to the physical' in the sense you seem to be suggesting.
Suppose - and this is just a simple example - that in some model we assume matter is made of atoms, which are defined as spheres of radius x cm and mass y kg. Now suppose we use our model to see what would happen if we wack your face with a mallet. Suppose our model says that your face will splatter over an area of up to 10 meters squared. To test the model, we wack your face with a mallet and measure how far it splats. But alas! We actually find that your face splatters over an area of 110 meters squared! Our model is therefore buncombe, and must be changed. That's all science is.
1. Atoms are part of a model. They are not 'literally' taken to exist. They are only talked about as a useful part of a useful explanatory model.
Conversely, souls are not part of a model. They are believed to literally exist, independently of, in spite of, their explanatory power.
2. As atom-believers gather more data, they are liable to abandon atoms are part of their physical model. New observations causing a change in model happens all the time in science. The aim is to have a model which accounts for all the observations simply and completely; keeping atoms as part of the model is not a general aim, except inasmuch as the theory of atoms is well-developed and well-understood and therefore possibly practical to keep in some form.
Conversely, as soul-believers gather more data, they are not liable to abandon or revise their belief in souls. Instead, they are liable to come up with more and more exceptions and ad hoc reasons as to why souls explain the data. There is no possible observation a soul-believer could make that could cause him to stop believing in souls; he can only tack on special cases to his model, never change it. The one trick he has up his sleeve is to gradually change the definition of 'soul', so that if things get too bad, he can say 'soul' actually means something else, and has done all along.
These aren't the differences of two things in a continuum. Especially not a 'continuum of vagueness', which is bosh, if I know bosh.
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?
If the notion of 'soul' was defined well enough to be used in some model which could formulate verification conditions, then of course I have no objection to investigations into the soul. And indeed any individual who attempts to model the universe on a fixed, unchangeable assumption that matter is composed of atoms is liable to run into trouble at some point - namely, the point at which the atomic model of matter breaks down.
It's obvious that my arguments have nothing to do with what the people formulating the models call themselves.
What's more, Dr Carawax has in several other instances been publicly outed as a giant fraud and a gay, his only invention of any merit being the now sorely deficient MEDIOCRITY CHECKLISTE. The idea of a man like Carawax measuring soul is absurd.
What's even more, the term "soul" didn't even exist until it was invented by Negroes in the 1960s, before which time everyone thought their physical bodies really were exhumed by Jesu on Judgment Day. This, of course, led to all kinds of supremely misguided attempts to preserve bodies after death, such as wrapping them in tinfoil and baking at a low temperature for an incredibly long time, which only had the effect of turning Walt Disney into a kind of flavorless jerky now marketed in EuroDisney as "American Space Meat."
In short, you fail.
It is like saying fish have primacy for they have fins or women have primacy for they have breasts.
M.R. #2: Or take it the other way: 'Unverifiability is what makes religion special' - true, but now 'special' has the sense of the drooling boy who peed every day on the bus. For 'unverifiability' to be what makes religion 'special' in a positive sense, then unverifiability has to be special in a positive sense. Ergo, unverifiability is positive, which leads to all kinds of silliness. It's simply better for verifiability to remain positive and unverifiability to be slightly negative.
1) the relevance of verifiability is that it makes a comment on the verifiability of things, nothing more.
to suggest that verifiability has relevance on the thing itself is an article of belief.
2) There is no base unit in science, no truth. Take the smallest particle in the universe, every time one takes a more detailed look the picture becomes more blurred. There is never a point at which the smallest particle changes from something to nothing. The idea of a particle as infinitely small.
The point about verification and falsification is the unwillingness of soul-believers to name verification and falsification conditions. If you'd taken any time at all to read the discussion before leaping in with your dreamy proclamations, you'd have seen that.
The question is: Are soul believers prepared to give observable conditions C such that if C obtain they will stop believing in souls; if so, what are they, and if not, why not? That's not a question to you, by the way. It's a question to the soul-believers, e.g. Joe-Joe. Who probably won't even read this.
And stop being so rude, did madam leave the TV remote out of your reach or something.
Obviously it's a bit of a buncombe notion, which is why you have to have falsifiability as well.
If a soul-believer claimed he had a machine which could detect a soul, he wouuld have to specify what observations the machine was making when it gave a positive. He has three options:
1. Tautology: "It is observing a soul." Buncombe.
2. Mysticism: "It is detecting something that is otherwise undetectable to humans." Buncombe.
3. A proper answer: "It is measuring X observable quantity."
If 3, then I say, "Oh, is that all you meant by 'a soul'?" He then has two replies:
1. "Yes, that's all," in which case I say "So you've just given a funny mystical name to the observation of X?" He replies, "But that's just what you've done with an atom." I say, "Yes, an atom is just a funny name for talking about certain observations."
2. "No, but it's an unmistakable sign that a soul is nearby." in which case I say, "But how can you distinguish between this pattern of X spontaneously appearing, and this pattern of X being caused by a soul?" He then has two replies:
1. "This pattern can't appear except when a soul is near," in which case I say, "How can you tell?", and he says "Because every time I've measured it, my machine has detected a soul!!"
2. "There is no difference; that's what a soul is," in which case I reply "So a soul is just a funny name for X?" etc.
Q.E.D.
"I don't think it's artificial because it can't be "captured in a test tube". I think it's artificial because there are no verification or falsification conditions for it." Your distinction escapes me.
"I don't think it's artificial because it can't be "captured in a test tube". I think it's artificial because there are no verification or falsification conditions for it." Your distinction escapes me.
Look at yourself, my boy. Look what you've become. Here is the form of your argument:
PROOFE THAT P:
1. I believe that P.
2. For if not-P, I would not believe that P.
3. Therefore if I believe that P, P.
4. Therefore P.
5. Q.E.D.
Which is so badly lodged in its own codswallop that the Mayor has commissioned a special Unbuncombe Brigade to destroy it before it becomes so swollen that it blocks out the sun.
"Foolish as I may seem at times, I would dare not weigh my self down with a self-concocted system of beliefs that is at odds with my flesh and blood desires."
1. See "Shame" by Joe-joe.
2. See the following line: "Oh how much nicer it would be to live the life of a hedonist, giving into my every desire without giving thought to the eternal fate of my soul. "
Conclusions: You are as foolish as you seem.
I know it's difficult for you to put 2 and 2 together but I'll try:
Quote from Dark Angel: "You seem determined to hold a theory which is demonstrably buncombe because it poses a "deeper challenge". You think that artificially imposing a grand cosmic structure on your life is a worthwhile thing to do". Interpretation: Darky says that my "theory" is concocted for the sake of a challenge that I seek.
My response: If I were to "impose" an "artificial" (knowlingly false and without merit) grand cosmic scheme upon myself it certainly would not resemble the set of beliefs I currently hold. On the contrary, I would create a religion based on the pursuit of pure worldy pleasure...kinda like the religion working today through popular American Culture.
1. Christianity appeals to me because it teaches denial of worldly pleasure, which I think should be denied...
2. ...although if it were up to me I'd "create a religion based on the pursuit of worldly pleasure" -
3. which is why I need religion. I'd just bollocks it up otherwise (cf. "Shame" and "Joseph, Joseph" by Joe-joe)...
4. ...though the desire to deny oneself pleasure and live, I don't know, "purely" or something is the natural tendency of the human soul.
5. How do we know this? Because the religion I subscribe to says so.
What a bunch of crap assumptions. Please in the future do not assume anything about MY human nature or soul or whatever, which despite ten years of Catholic school and the fact of my being raised in an essentially evangelical and puritanical country says nothing about the inherent evil of worldly pleasure.
Joe-joe: Your system is crap too, Zodie.
zodiac: No. Probably not.
Joe-joe: [some random unrelated thing.]
Would you please relax? Why do you find it so difficult to refrain from personal insults?
1. When did I say that Christianity (I don't think I ever mentioned Christianity) appealed to me BECAUSE it teaches denial of worldly pleasures?
2. I said that if I did not have a soul and were left on my own to "artifically" construct a system of beliefs I would construct a system based soley on the desires of the flesh. But I do have a soul and that soul demands to be recognized and is at odds with the desires of the flesh. None of this is a matter of choice...it's just the way it is.
What's the big deal? This is just the way I see it. We all have assumptions about the world, the existance of souls, and human nature. Why are you so caught up on mine? What is it that you believe in?
Concerning your point 1., you're right. I was on my way to delete that comment when I saw yours. As far as your point 2., what supreme stupidity. If you were to ask me (which you haven't) what I find simplistic and trite about your world-view, one of my first answers would be your idea that the alternative to your system of beliefs is some kind of (inevitably self-destructive) hedonism "based [solely] on the desires of the flesh."
No, wait, you didn't say that; you just said that if you didn't have your system of beliefs, you'd choose hedonistic gluttony, which is doubly idiotic.
You ask, "Why are you so caught up on mine?" Mostly because it's only slightly less boring than the Irigaray I'm supposed to be reading.
You ask, "What is it that you believe in?" That ninety-nine percent of philosophical/religious discussions really have no more bearing on my life than a) I'm still young enough to find them mildly entertaining, and b) there's the very real possibility of my being beaten to death or otherwise horribly killed by some true believer in something or other, but not enough for me to waste my time worrying about. The possibility of an afterlife doesn't make me any more or less inclined to be generally nice to other people, nor does Xeno's paradox prevent me from suddenly drawing my wife down onto the couch for a quick midafternoon screw.
2. What is a "real possibility"?
3. There is no such person as "Xeno". Perhaps you are thinking of "Xena".
4. You do not have a wife. Stop pretending you do.
2. A figure of speech, and redundant.
3. I mistyped. It's Zeno, of course.
4. I have a wife.
I would think that someone who is so completely against and afraid of the idea that we are truly a random act of nature, that some greater being has some greater purpose for us, and that our life will not end with death is the spineless route. It takes more courage to believe that we are alone in this. That there is no god to get back at the people who do us wrong or to keep us in line. All that goes with it, the safety net, the security, and the immortality of it is all so very easy and comforting to accept. Try accepting oblivion. Not just believing in it, but being unafraid of it. Not utter oblivion but conscious oblivion. Stand up against all the challenges life has to offer with THAT understanding of how things might turn out and we'll see how strong your spin really is. Because only then is it a real spine and not a fantasy-fabrication of one.
I don't think I've summed up all of the "important facts" but I do think that we've all made life a whole lot more complicated and painful than it needs to be. A little more love, compassion, and charity would go a long long way towards making this world a better place to live in. We are in the mess we're in because we are ruled by the urges and desires of our ego and flesh and completely ignore our spirtitual nature. Now if you disagree with these assertions your problem is not with me but with some of the greatest spiritual and philosophical thinkers of all time.
Interesting that I've inspired such a long string of comments. Er, well...someone has. lol
Source of the poets vision: Language, one can never hope to use language to (literally!) match the physical. One can make representations, study relationships.
(found it)
Weren't you even listening in the Clubhouse?! You nod your head with some serious expression on your face so I think you're paying attention, but you're really humming "witchy woman" endlessly in your head while idly wondering if other people's earwax tastes the same as yours (it does). Then I find out you haven't heard a word I've said. Jesus, this unending guff-trap is never going to be over this way.
Good day.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "using language to match the physical" but it seems to me that if you reject all metaphysical explanations of the poets vision and inspiration, you must be able explain every aspect of them in physical terms. I assume this would be done much in the same way one would explain how a computer works.....use of binary code to generate letters and symbols...memory storage....working memory...pre-programmed sets of instructions , etc... But even this form of explanation runs you head first into an arguement for something beyond simple physical cause and effect becuase the computer does nothing without receiving stimuli from a source beyond its physical boundries, the human mind and body.
What I mean is for something happens at the information processing level, the best we can do to describe it is to invent terms such as neurotransmitter and firing (language).
Something happens in the brain, we call it firing. But the modes of 'event' and 'language describing event' are different. It is a metaphysical gap (something like that).
If there was a way to put 'event' down on paper. Both science and poetry, which both make representations of the world would be obsolete.