Thank You,Tedward :-)
Richard Platek (Lion)
Catharine of Ignorance said:
> At least we didn't go round bombing Moslem countries into oblivion coz
they had
> oil.....
> Could you,perhapz,provide some evidence for the amazing assertation that
*I* am
> a pirate?.
Nope. But if you follow the money, or read "All the Shah's Men" you might
have a more balanced view of British interests, and British strategy in the
Middle East.
The roots of modern terrorism originated when the Brits convinced the
Americans to remove a democratically elected leader in Iran. He said "WE
SHOULD CONTROL OUR OIL"
The Brits saw big time losses and pleaded. A new administration responded
and .....
The rest is history and source material is easily available.
Caf:
> At least we didn't go round bombing Moslem countries into oblivion coz
they had
> oil.....
> Could you,perhapz,provide some evidence for the amazing assertation that
*I* am
> a pirate?.
Lion:
No. But that first sentence indicates you have the qualities required to be
a pirates cabin saint.
The Brits didn't bomb them, they took them fair and square :)
> > If anyone ever asks me, "Do you speak English", I look forward to the
moment
> > of being able to confess, "a little"
>
> Ah,.aYank with ambition :-)
Lion:
I am confused.
I guess I got a W and Y confused. Happy and satisfied with nothing to show
for it? Well, nothing a good scrubbing can't handle. :)
And you know what's funny? I don't think I can have the moment I shared with
you twice.
I recorded it, and when I watched it again, yes, there was the genius. But
not the same explosion of WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW.
Into what pit, do failed words fall? All shown with no gain.
then gain becomes the villain that blocked failed words.
You see, I get great joy, playing with such mastery.
Yours,
Richard Platek (Lion)
I said:
> Into what pit, do failed words fall? All shown with no gain.
> then gain becomes the villain that blocked failed words.
Correction:
then gain becomes the villain that blocked failed words.
then gain becomes the pit into which failed words fall.
Gimme a Break :) I am addressing (and being moved by) a master of words.
And I am angry, too. Why didn't any of my teachers give me this to play
with?
This world will become sane when I love You. And stop killing you.
Yours,
Richard Platek (Lion)
> > An interesting thought I had, is, are there other Shakespeares in other
> > languages?
Caffy:
> No.We also have Dickens n' many other brilliant wordsmithz
Lion:
Sweetheart, you deserve a gentle swat on your bum. See above
I heard an interview today with an a hugely admired actor from India. The
BBC did a poll, World Wide, and they placed him as the actor of the decade.
Far ahead of any British or American actor.
They placed him higher then SIR LAURENCE.
All this aside, William Shakespeare, can never be bettered. And his mastery
can be duplicated. But he created a mountain to climb, which never existed
before.
Only one gets to have this.
Us Brits and Americans are partners in crime.
Yours,
Rogers
> All this aside, William Shakespeare, can never be bettered. And his
mastery
> can be duplicated.
Reminds me, another great contemporary Shakespearean piece is "Booty Call."
Les.
Richard Platek (Lion)
Les > Lion
> Anyway, Lion, have you seen "Shakespeare in Love?" I wouldn't dare
suggest
> it was of comparable magnitude to the original works - but it sure is a
good
> emulation, a perfect emulation in so many ways.
Lion > Les
Yes. I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Gweneth was remarkable I thought. It
would probably be on my 20 best list. It still amazes me that I only
discovered WS at 53! As I mentioned somewhere, when was in high school
drama, we took a field trip to see a film of Othello. I recall being told
this was a unique film because a black man played the Moor. I remember
enjoying it, but not really getting it. I had a pretty lazy drama teacher.
I want to see Samuel L. Jackson's Hamlet.
Yours,
Rogers
> It still amazes me that I only discovered WS at 53!
We're about in the same boat (I'm 56 now). When I was younger I remember
seeing Lawrence Olivier playing, oh, what was it? Richard III? Hmmm. Was
John Gielgud in the same movie? Maybe I'm confusing movies, I know I've
seen him in one or two Shakespearean pieces too. Either way, couldn't fault
the acting, that's for sure, but it didn't "bite" until I saw Kenneth
Branagh's "Henry V" (decades later).
And then subsequently, took great delight in "Twelfth Night." (As well as
"Shakespeare in Love" which really is a Shakespearean piece - as far as *I*
am concerned. Not because of the title but because of the content.)
Oh, for all I know, "movies" made based on Shakespeare's works are
considerably compromised. I could understand the argument. But as I said
before (and Ron said something similar) "art" must communicate at some level
or other, and if it's a written or spoken piece, it is all the more
imperative that it does communicate.
Despite my reference to the use of a dictionary, I find I'm far too lazy
and/or lacking in time or interest to do so - in the context of Shakespeare.
Would probably take about a year to get through ONE play if one had to
wrestle with the Oxford English Dictionary all the time. But I find that
each time I watch Henry V, say, more and more of the words all of a sudden
make sense! You know, each time through reveals more. Similarly with
Twelfth Night and so on. It's a funny phenomenon, but I suppose that most
current westerners were westerners a few hundred years ago too. So, chances
are that a lot of us were exposed to that Elizabethan English at the time.
It's just the point of tapping into it again by exposure and familiarity.
Les.
Rogers
ONE of the things I really appreciated about Henry V was it's psychological
soundness. I appreciate that in any movie.
Oh, I almost hate to use the word "psychological" - but you know what I
mean, or will in a moment.
It's like, on the eve of that famous battle - a battle that was to be
against overwhelming odds - Harry (the king) did not, or could not, sleep
(now THAT's real), but, rather, visited amongst his troops, boosting ARC and
morale. Then, on the morn', he delivered his famous (St. Crispin's) speech
and, it was almost as if Shakepeare must have BEEN THERE to hear it, since
his rendition must, just MUST have been of comparable magnitude. It was a
rousing speech, for sure, but it also cleverly turned the "odds against"
into "odds FOR." That is to say, "the greater the odds - the greater the
share of glory." AND, then he mocked up a FUTURE for his men, telling them
how they might celebrate and be celebrated at the anniversaries of this
coming battle.
And, of course, the French were NOT "psyched up" at all. They had an
overwhelming army and outnumbered the bedraggled, tired and weary English -
several to one.
Well, for those who may not know the story (which was based on historical
fact), the Englanders KICKED BUTT and Harry took the French throne which he
had all along deemed was his birthright.
Les.
Richard Platek (Lion)
Lion:
I have not arrived yet at consideration of the play/story itself. The
mastery of the words still have me. I kinda get the story, but I get
distracted.
And for some reason, I don't find I need to resort to a dictionary. You
mentioned it in an earlier post. Words used well in context define all of
the words used in the context. I had the same experience you did.
The Dictionary uses words to define words. It is a circular reference. :)
The night I watched Olivier doing Hamlet, I understood every word. I think
he used simple words well.
But, I am a real newbie ... :)
And your recent posts puts you on the short list of the Lion Smart Cookie
Award for Fall 2003.
Yours,
Rogers
"Richard Platek (Lion)" <li...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
> And for some reason, I don't find I need to resort to a dictionary. You
> mentioned it in an earlier post. Words used well in context define all of
> the words used in the context. I had the same experience you did.
>
> The Dictionary uses words to define words. It is a circular reference. :)
>
> The night I watched Olivier doing Hamlet, I understood every word. I think
> he used simple words well.
Well, just to clarify my own words in context.
When one is studying a subject that involves, or will involve, doingness,
the application of study tech is really quite vital. And of course,
"misunderstood word" tech is the biggie. Simply put, if one doesn't get all
the words in the doingness subject, one won't be able to do! Or, one's
doingness in that subject will be far below par if not bordering on
counter-productive.
Now, that's not to say that people don't shy away from (say) Shakespeare
exactly for that same reason, namely, misunderstoods, but in the cosmic
scheme of things one "should" be able to get away with tolerating m/us in
art. Well, unless one is studying art in order to DO art. Then we're back
to the necessity of study tech.
Backstep. Mostly, the words that can create mental/spiritual stress are
mis-understoods. NOT to be confused with just plain non-understoods. Well,
of course, as I said, in a doingness subject, one would need to define those
non-understoods too and they could certainly be a bona fide barrier to the
doingness of that subject. But the one's that REALLY screw one up are the
one's one has a misdefinition for.
Shakespeare is not a doingness subject (for most), but I'd point out that it
has the sneaky attribute of being written in (quote) "English" (unquote) -
with some of the words being used even today - although not necessarily
according to the same definition in use around 1600 c.e.
Sooooo...interestingly, something like Shakespeare becomes a perfect example
of a possible study difficulty. Namely, the student comes across a phrase
or sentence that reads to him like Jabberwocky, and it indeed has
half-a-dozen unrecognizable words in it, yet upon careful clearing of those
obvious words he still has difficulty making sense out of the sentence.
Well, the trouble could very well be, and I mean, VERY WELL BE, a rather
harmless-looking word - just prior.
As an example, in one of Shakespeare's unpublished works, well actually one
of Shakespeare's unwritten works, (ha ha ha) the hero makes an inspiring
soliliquy that begins, "'Twas brillig and the slithy toves...", and after
looking up (hopelesly and fruitlessly, as it would come to pass) "slithy
toves" and then "brillig" only to realize that the key was the simple
"'Twas."
Les.
Ralph Hilton
<3f61...@news2.lightlink.com>, :
>As an example, in one of Shakespeare's unpublished works, well actually one
>of Shakespeare's unwritten works, (ha ha ha) the hero makes an inspiring
>soliliquy that begins, "'Twas brillig and the slithy toves...", and after
>looking up (hopelesly and fruitlessly, as it would come to pass) "slithy
>toves" and then "brillig" only to realize that the key was the simple
>"'Twas."
>
>Les.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
...
"That's enough to begin with", Humpty Dumpty interrupted: "there are plenty
of hard words there. 'Brillig' means four o'clock in the afternoon--the time
when you begin broiling things for dinner."
"That'll do very well", said Alice: "and 'slithy'?"
"Well, 'slithy' means 'lithe and slimy'. 'Lithe' is the same as 'active'.
You see it's like a portmanteau--there are two meanings packed up into one
word."
I see it now", Alice remarked thoughfully: "and what are 'toves'?"
"Well, 'toves' are something like badgers --they're something like
lizards--and they're something like corkscrews."
"They must be very curious creatures."
"They are that", said Humpty Dumpty: "also they make their nests under
sun-dials --also they live on cheese."
"And what's to 'gyre' and to 'gimble'?"
"To 'gyre' is to go round and round like a gyroscope. To 'gimble' is to make
holes like a gimlet."
"And 'the wabe' is the grass plot round a sun-dial, I suppose?" said Alice,
surprised at her own ingenuity.
"Of course it is. It's called 'wabe', you know, because it goes a long way
before it, and a long way behind it--"
"And a long way beyond it on each side", Alice added.
"Exactly so. Well then, 'mimsy' is 'flimsy and miserable' (there's another
portmanteau for you). And a 'borogove' is a thin shabby-looking bird with
its feathers sticking out all round-- something like a live mop."
"And then 'mome raths'?" said Alice. "If I'm not giving you too much
trouble."
"Well a 'rath' is a sort of green pig, but 'mome' I'm not certain about. I
think it's short for 'from home'--meaning that they'd lost their way, you
know."
"And what does 'outgrabe' mean?"
"Well, 'outgribing' is something between bellowing an whistling, with a kind
of sneeze in the middle: however, you'll hear it done, maybe--down in the
wood yonder--and when you've once heard it, you'll be quite content. Who's
been repeating all that hard stuff to you?"
"I read it in a book", said Alice.
--Through The Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll
--
Ralph Hilton
http://www.ralphhilton.org
Freezone Directory: http://www.freescientology.org
Freezone International: http://www.fzint.net
FZAOINT http://www.fzaoint.org
C-Meter: http://www.cmeter.org
Richard Platek (Lion)
> Hi Lion,
>
> "Richard Platek (Lion)" <li...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
>
> > And for some reason, I don't find I need to resort to a dictionary. You
> > mentioned it in an earlier post. Words used well in context define all
of
> > the words used in the context. I had the same experience you did.
> >
> > The Dictionary uses words to define words. It is a circular reference.
:)
> >
> > The night I watched Olivier doing Hamlet, I understood every word. I
think
> > he used simple words well.
>
> Well, just to clarify my own words in context.
>
> When one is studying a subject that involves, or will involve, doingness,
> the application of study tech is really quite vital. And of course,
> "misunderstood word" tech is the biggie. Simply put, if one doesn't get
all
> the words in the doingness subject, one won't be able to do! Or, one's
> doingness in that subject will be far below par if not bordering on
> counter-productive.
Lion: I agree completely. I think word clearing is a remarkable thing. And
it's fun as well.
Les:
> Now, that's not to say that people don't shy away from (say) Shakespeare
> exactly for that same reason, namely, misunderstoods, but in the cosmic
> scheme of things one "should" be able to get away with tolerating m/us in
> art. Well, unless one is studying art in order to DO art. Then we're
back
> to the necessity of study tech.
Lion: Yes. Perhaps someone who has done extensive word clearing is able to
draw more understanding out of context. And his work is a word painting.
Viewing great creativity is like viewing the night sky or the Grand Canyon.
You can't see everything all at once. And you never get tired of viewing it.
Les:
> Backstep. Mostly, the words that can create mental/spiritual stress are
> mis-understoods. NOT to be confused with just plain non-understoods.
Well,
> of course, as I said, in a doingness subject, one would need to define
those
> non-understoods too and they could certainly be a bona fide barrier to the
> doingness of that subject. But the one's that REALLY screw one up are the
> one's one has a misdefinition for.
Lion: Yes. Also, very commonly used words that one has never explored. Every
once in a while, I notice a word that I use frequently and don't have this
slighest clue what it really means. Like poor or rediculous ...
Les:
> Shakespeare is not a doingness subject (for most), but I'd point out that
it
> has the sneaky attribute of being written in (quote) "English" (unquote) -
> with some of the words being used even today - although not necessarily
> according to the same definition in use around 1600 c.e.
> Sooooo...interestingly, something like Shakespeare becomes a perfect
example
> of a possible study difficulty. Namely, the student comes across a phrase
> or sentence that reads to him like Jabberwocky, and it indeed has
> half-a-dozen unrecognizable words in it, yet upon careful clearing of
those
> obvious words he still has difficulty making sense out of the sentence.
> Well, the trouble could very well be, and I mean, VERY WELL BE, a rather
> harmless-looking word - just prior.
>
> As an example, in one of Shakespeare's unpublished works, well actually
one
> of Shakespeare's unwritten works, (ha ha ha) the hero makes an inspiring
> soliliquy that begins, "'Twas brillig and the slithy toves...", and after
> looking up (hopelesly and fruitlessly, as it would come to pass) "slithy
> toves" and then "brillig" only to realize that the key was the simple
> "'Twas."
>
> Les.
Lion: I almost missed this:) Excellent example, excellent dialog. I haven't
gotten into reading him yet.
My new dream girl is a conscious, sexually free and financially independent,
retired Professor of Literature, who likes to travel and adores the art of
filmaking.
Yours,
Richard Platek (Lion)
Les:
> 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
> Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
> All mimsy were the borogoves,
> And the mome raths outgrabe.
> ...
Ralph added:
Lion: Great response Ralph. Delightful.
Yours,
Richard Platek (Lion)
> Now, that's not to say that people don't shy away from (say) Shakespeare
> exactly for that same reason, namely, misunderstoods, but in the cosmic
> scheme of things one "should" be able to get away with tolerating m/us in
> art. Well, unless one is studying art in order to DO art. Then we're
back
> to the necessity of study tech.
Lion: Second response ----
I have never seen a real life Jackson Pollack painting. I intend to correct
this character flaw in the near future :)
The excellent film Pollack did a really good job, as well as it can be done
on a movie or TV screen. And you know, sometimes TV is better than reality.
Well, like football, or any sport actually.
But back to my point ... and my point is. There is no where to go to clear
Jackson Pollack's Art work. This is obvious.
But what about Picasso? What about Klee? What about Monet?
What I admire most about Pollack, is that you really can't have anything
deeper. His life offers no clue whatsoever.
And I have no idea where I am going with this ... :)
Yours,
Shakespeare painted with words. And made music with them too.
Rogers
> But back to my point ... and my point is. There is no where to go to clear
> Jackson Pollack's Art work. This is obvious.
> But what about Picasso? What about Klee? What about Monet?
After watching "Jerry McGuire" I can't resist the urge to say, "Show me the
Monet!"
> What I admire most about Pollack, is that you really can't have anything
> deeper. His life offers no clue whatsoever.
Talking about this "kind" of artwork, I was very much impressed with a
Playboy article (yeah, like I only read them for the articles) featuring
Farrah Fawcett "painting" a canvas spread on the floor using her own naked
body as a paint applicator. "Yes," I thought to myself, "this is art!"
But now, more seriously. Yes, you can't "word-clear" a piece of art, like a
painting, sculpture or musical composition, but one could apply study tech
to the "technical" aspects of doing art. As Ron explained rather well,
mastership of the technical aspects, the tools of the medium, doesn't
necessarily equate to artistic genius, but nevertheless it is quite
indispensible.
And, you might say that a person who has a misunderstood word in a
particular area is not "free" in that area. If an artist is not free with
his tools and media, his creativity will be stymied.
Les.
Richard Platek (Lion)
> After watching "Jerry McGuire" I can't resist the urge to say, "Show me
the
> Monet!"
Lion:
Now that's good! And your creativity inspires mine.
I rewatched "The Color Purple" today. Amazing film. I would be happy if I
could draw from this to respond.
Nope, nothing there. I am a little pissed I can't find anything there.
Les, you are way more expansive then you used to be.
Nope, can't find a response worthy tonight ....
Yours,
Rogers
> Nope, can't find a response worthy tonight ....
Sometimes the creative fire is temporarily damped and burns low; and
fatigue, like sooty smoke, settles over one's imagination. But that
creative fire can never be completely quenched, and sparks remain to alight
anew - only requiring to be refreshed and lit by new visions, external or
internal, on a new day.
Les.
Richard Platek (Lion)
Les said:
> Sometimes the creative fire is temporarily damped and burns low; and
> fatigue, like sooty smoke, settles over one's imagination. But that
> creative fire can never be completely quenched, and sparks remain to
alight
> anew - only requiring to be refreshed and lit by new visions, external or
> internal, on a new day.
Lion:
Einstein on creativity and despair
Yet the miracle of Einstein's creative spirit was that if he felt despair,
it was never lasting. One of Einstein's most recent biographers, Albrecht
Fölsing, tells us that "he was capable of pursuing a theoretical concept,
with great enthusiasm for months and even years at a stretch; but when
grievous flaws emerged - which invariably happened in the end - he would
drop it instantly at the moment of truth, without sentimentality or
disappointment over the time and effort wasted. The following morning, or a
few days later at the most, he would have taken up a new idea and would
pursue that with the same enthusiasm." "After all," Einstein wrote to a
friend, "to despair makes even less sense than to strive for an unattainable
goal."
Yours,