can a poem be formless?
Sherrie Lee
The human mind tends to want to make sense out of the senseless.
Some people frustrate over their inability to do so.
"This makes no sense!"
Have you ever stared at the snow on a TV screen?
I'm not much up on chaos.
That's a part of it,
but if your mind portrays the formless
in the form of words,
that's your poetry.
Sherrie (that's what's needed! coffee! be back soon and more
refreshed)
In article <8p5jm4$ok$1...@violet.singnet.com.sg>,
"rachel ng" <hi...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:
> Can a poem be without form? No rhyme, no particalar form? I read
poems all
> the time in the newsgroup. Some are really good, in my perception.
> What's the key here? If any?
> And I hope to attain some degree of fluidity Anyway... no great
tragedy if I
> don't. Just reading good poems is fine.
>
> R.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
zain...@my-deja.com
But true disregard,
For life's plunders,
And hate avontgarde,
Never thinking it is true,
We all shout in disrepute,
For all poetry hold a form of heart,
Which writers uses every day,
To truly show how much they have to give,
To those looking outside in.
Darren Lamb
mr.cin
mr.cin
rachel ng <hi...@singnet.com.sg> wrote in message
news:8p5jm4$ok$1...@violet.singnet.com.sg...
silent_cry
poems all
> the time in the newsgroup. Some are really good, in my perception.
> What's the key here? If any?
> And I hope to attain some degree of fluidity Anyway... no great
tragedy if I
> don't. Just reading good poems is fine.
>
> R.
>
>
these days so as to render the term almost meaningless. Personally, I
think a poem must have rhythm and balance, coupled with a flow of
thought that draws in then keeps your interest, to qualify for the
lofty title of Poem.
Rhyme is my first love, but I can see the virtue of nonrhyming verse if
it's done artfully, showing construction past that of (what is probably
hopefully) an interesting breaking into lines of something that should
really be written in paragraph form.
Then, my opinion is: yes, poems should have form.
SC
j r sherman
ever read Frank O'Hara?
j r sherman
---------------------------------------------------
"No rogue nations will hold this nation hostile
or hold our allies hostile."
George W. Bush
---------------------------------------------------
Sherrie Lee
Why not do something 21st Century with (the) language? I imagine
artists to be "trend" setters not to do their art for the purpose of
setting a new trend; but, poets can use their insight, language
expertise, awareness of current happenings, and projections in order to
communicate with technological tools (ex. internet) toward the
advancement of poetry (civilization or what not).
This is not to say the classicists have no room to write during this
century. This is to suggest poetic evolution which may or may not
include some type of form depending on its definition or whoever's
perspective.
Sherrie
Sherrie Lee
AlphaOmegaK13 SunYangkey.Homing
. . . hhmmm
===============SheWrote================
Re: can a poem be formless?
Group: rec.arts.poems Date: Sat, Sep 9, 2000, 2:17pm (PDT+7) From:
sherr...@my-deja.com (Sherrie Lee)
-
-
Why not do something 21st Century with (the) language? I imagine artists
to be "trend" setters not to do their art for the purpose of setting a
new trend; but, poets can use their insight, language expertise,
awareness of current happenings, and projections in order to communicate
with technological tools (ex. internet) toward the advancement of poetry
(civilization or what not).
This is not to say the classicists have no room to write during this
century. This is to suggest poetic evolution which may or may not
include some type of form depending on its definition or whomever's
perspective.
-
Sherrie
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
=============AlphaSunNotes==============
. . . hhmmm
if i may say so,
When studying lingotangodances,
English is an extremely dull, hollow, barbaric lingo;
a run-away lingo precipitating in advancement
of wars and destruction.
English lingo lacks even in the most
fundamental words for the basic human
discernable tastes such as "spicy hot" or
"extreme high temperature hot" ( picoso o caliente ) Or,
intellectually, "spken words" or "written words"
( "G_l" or "Mahl" )
And this becomes painfully obvious
when studying and practicing Laws;
there's no Contract or Laws written in English lingo that can not be
shredded down to meaninglessness. Thus, "Letter of Law" and "Sprit of
Law" were the employed concepts as in attempt to give Substance to the
toothless lingo.
tossing in my nickle for Sherrie.
silent_cry
Chaos has no rhythm, it's white noise. Entropy has no balance past the
balance of death. I abhore white noise, and I don't seek death.
Because of this, it's my opinion that poetry should reflect the rhythm
and balance of life.
The most "21st Century" thing that can be done, it seems, is to realize
that _everything_ is valid in some frame of reference. The mark of the
end of the 20th Century was the attitude Old _as_well_as_ New has
things of importance to offer us. Evidence the Holistic and Naturalist
trends, complete with herbalists, minimalists, acupunturists, etc.
To disregard the past is to lessen yourself, not the past. The past
doesn't care, it's gone, but it has left us works of knowledge and
insight, beauty and hope, that can help us become more than we ever
could have been otherwise. To deny that we are _still_ as we were plus
_more_ is to deny a basic part of our humanity. Why work to be
crippled on purpose, when we can be whole by simply being all of what
we are?
Why do you think rhythm and balance have always been so sought after in
art? What's at the root of that quest? Look in the mirror, do you
note balance? Lay your hand on your chest, do you note rhythm? Study
a flower, do you note a flowing pattern? Watch a cat, do you note a
fluid motion? Waves roll in rhythm toward the shore, clouds fly in
wind-ordered masses overhead, birds leap as one flock into the air,
fish move as one mind with each other.
Everywhere around us, those things that make up the life of our world
beat in rhythm, repeat in balance, count their own meter, write the
poetry of the harmony that is existence within the same world that all
of us share. Is it wrong to seek that poetic balance ourselves? To
strive to echo the rhythm and symmetry that is all around us and, in so
doing, realize that we are a part of that harmony? To deny it is to
deny life.
Rhythm is dynamic, it _means_ life, and life evolves naturally so, of
course, if art reflects life, it evolves as well. Why strive toward
death? What's gained by denying life? Death makes its own statement,
it needs no help from us. Death will take everything eventually.
Finally, all rhythm will still. What should we do, say that because
death always comes, we should take it into us now?
Would you be what you are now if you hadn't first been what you were
before? From the past the rhythm that is the life of the soul of man
flows on to us. We can choose to pass that life on to future
generations, altered through our own perspectives and added to through
our own experiences, or not. It's a decision each of us has to make on
our own. The past isn't our enemy, the only enemy of life is death.
SC
silent_cry
Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> whomever
>
I think you were right the first time. The trick I remember, regarding
who/whom, is to try to put "him" in its place. If "him" won't fit,
then "whom" won't fit, and you should use "who". In the context of
your usage, "him" won't fit. :)
SC
Sherrie Lee
silent_cry <silen...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8pdgs9$m6b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > whomever
> >
>
> I think you were right the first time. The trick I remember,
regarding
> who/whom, is to try to put "him" in its place. If "him" won't fit,
> then "whom" won't fit, and you should use "who". In the context of
> your usage, "him" won't fit. :)
>
> SC
perhaps then it is /whose/? I use your explaination when I show folks
the usage of who and whom. there is another one explained by
prepositions. I got flubbed on the "depending on". So, what it looks
like I'm after is a possessive. oy! all these rules to clear things
up, but ya'll /sorta/ got what I meant, eh?
Sherrie
Sherrie Lee
The question of chaos, death stars, black holes, gamma ray bursters,
and the stock market all may have answers, but one statement made not
by me fascinates me. "Will these be the right answers to the wrong
questions?"
Is life existence? Does not chaos exist? Is randomness reality? Oh,
I have so forgotten my imaginary numbers. Can we possibly integrate
all? I fathom so what with the capabilities of computers to task what
bores us.
Then I study the forest. Mushrooms and moss. Maggots and carrion.
Vultures. and I see Death is Life.
"The flower cannot turn time backward and become a seed again; it
seeds."
Neither do we. Our words are seeds. The deaths of some poets feed
greater life into their words. This may be form, rhythm, allegory, all
that. Or tangentializing. associations. What touches you?
Perhaps the form is a spiral. I do not know the nature of spirals. I
think I know about strengths and weaknesses.
What is the right question?
Sherrie
P.s. I loved your hyperbolic essay!! Excellent writing. <s>
In article <8pel43$tkt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
silent_cry
Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8pele0$toa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> silent_cry <silen...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8pdgs9$m6b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > whomever
> > >
> >
> > I think you were right the first time. The trick I remember,
> regarding
> > who/whom, is to try to put "him" in its place. If "him" won't fit,
> > then "whom" won't fit, and you should use "who". In the context of
> > your usage, "him" won't fit. :)
> >
> > SC
>
> perhaps then it is /whose/? I use your explaination when I show folks
> the usage of who and whom. there is another one explained by
> prepositions. I got flubbed on the "depending on". So, what it looks
> like I'm after is a possessive. oy! all these rules to clear things
> up, but ya'll /sorta/ got what I meant, eh?
>
> Sherrie
>
"whosever"? GAD! I am now officially _confused_! :) So it's off the
my trusty online American Heritage Book of English Usage -
http://www.bartleby.com/64/
You can do a search for "who", "whom", "whoever", or "whomever",
they're all covered on the same page. Lots of nice info.
Happy. "Whosever" is _not_ recognized but, then, neither is the good
old "whose" that we know and love.
Then it's on to my favorite trusty online dictionary, Dictionary.com -
http://www.dictionary.com/
No go on the "whosever", there is a "whosoever" though. I head
for "whose". (Hmm. I didn't know that "whose" was also the possesive
form of "which". Ah! Guess I did, now that I see their examples, just
never actively thought of it that way.) And, at the bottom, "See Usage
Note at who." Off to "who" it is.
(Why is it that every time they say something is "relatively simple"
they proceed into an explanation that can only be considered relatively
complicated?) Nice bit of clarification, however. At the bottom: "See
Usage Note at whose." Feel like the dictionary just gave me one of
those cards that reads: "For hours of fun, see back." Then reads on
the flipside: "For hours of fun, see back."
Now... what was I doing? Why did I start all that? I forget. Oh,
yes, I remember now...
Your meaning came through quite clearly, nonetheless. :)
SC
peter stewart richards
would cover the intention without problem.
p
"Sherrie Lee" <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pdgs9$m6b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
mr.cin
I have an analogy that I like to use which I hope, despite our cultural
differences, will be understandable to you.
In western music the most simple tunes are children's songs, old folk tunes,
and traditional church music.
Almost any one can hear these songs and appreciate them.
Pop music, classical music, are more complex internally and usually small
children or very unsophisticated people will not appreciate them.
Modern Jazz and avante garde (forgive my spelling) classical music are the
most complex and require the most musical background to appreciate them.
To a small child, Jazz just sounds like a confusing mass of notes with no
organizing principle. However most professional musicians prefer it,
because the more simple forms seem trite and overly simplistic to their more
sophisticated ear.
Now picture a small child sitting down at the piano and announcing, " I am
going to play some Jazz." He would probably just bang around at random,
because that is what "Jazz" sounds like to him.
Many people in the newsgroup are comparatively new at poetry and, in an
attempt at what they perceive as more sophisticated form, they just write a
bunch of crap. Others are really, really good and are experimenting with
more or less success with forms more subtle than, say, a sonnet. At times,
you may find it hard to tell which is which.
Beginners at either art should work in a form they understand most of the
time.
mr.cin
rachel ng <hi...@singnet.com.sg> wrote in message
news:8p5jm4$ok$1...@violet.singnet.com.sg...
silent_cry
Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> I cannot answer many questions because I simply do not know.
Smart answer.
> The question of chaos, death stars, black holes, gamma ray bursters,
> and the stock market all may have answers, but one statement made not
> by me fascinates me. "Will these be the right answers to the wrong
> questions?"
Who doesn't wonder that? Only the young or the clueless.
> Is life existence?
The part we're engaged in. :)
> Does not chaos exist? Is randomness reality?
Yes. Chaos is existence at its most simple level. No work is required
to achieve it. Viewing chaos for any length of time forces one to seek
order within themselves.
Yes. Randomness is a part of reality. The part from which many of the
beginnings of meaning are gathered. If meaning isn't sought, then
randomness is the answer.
> Oh, I have so forgotten my imaginary numbers. Can we possibly
> integrate all?
Entropy integrates naturally, but not with Life. Life hates it. It's
Life (order) that must fight to survive.
> I fathom so what with the capabilities of computers to task what
> bores us.
Entropy. Can't anyone grab a word and stick it somewhere? What art is
involved? The art inherent in the mind of the reader to make order out
of chaos (as exampled by your above line)? So you are saying that the
choas of the modern poetic movement is meant to spark the creativity of
the reader? Can't a good game of Word Scrabble do that?
> Then I study the forest. Mushrooms and moss. Maggots and carrion.
> Vultures. and I see Death is Life.
Death isn't Life. What you see is that Life causes and/or utilizes
Death. That's different. Death is the end of a cycle that Life makes
use of in order to continue. Death alone has no value without Life to
give it some sort of worth.
> "The flower cannot turn time backward and become a seed again; it
> seeds."
Life makes Life, then dies. The importance is in the making of more
Life, not in the dying that comes after. At the last, after the end,
the best that can be hoped is that Life will find some use for the
remains of Death. The remains that were once themselves Life. They're
important _because_ they were once Life, their meaning is in that fact.
> Neither do we. Our words are seeds. The deaths of some poets feed
> greater life into their words. This may be form, rhythm, allegory,
> all that. Or tangentializing. associations.
That's a very Starving Artist remark. The "form, rhythm, allegory, and
all that" came from the poet's life, not his death. The only thing his
death adds is the undeiable fact that the work up until his death is
all he's ever going to contribute to Life.
His death may add an exclamation mark to his work, if that death is
dramatic _and_ related to his passion for his art. But, more probably,
the passion that caused such a dramatic death was integral to the
poet's overall makeup (his personal approach to life), which, in turn,
was reflected in his work.
> What touches you?
Life, transmitted through the ages from Life that came before, and
appreciated in all the Life around me, or visualized as possible in the
future from the clues that presently exist.
> Perhaps the form is a spiral.
Yes, it's a spiral. A spiral that can only be built by Life. The
climb to the next ring can only be accomplished by new Life. Death is
incapable of it. Death can't do anything but complete one circuit
begun by Life.
> I do not know the nature of spirals. I think I know about strengths
> and weaknesses.
In the general sense, the personal sense, or both?
> What is the right question?
Think you just hit it. :)
> Sherrie
>
> P.s. I loved your hyperbolic essay!! Excellent writing. <s>
>
Thank you. :) I enjoyed your reply.
Max King
>Can a poem be without form?
yep, they can be invisible too!
Ever seen a 'formless' piece of concrete poetry?
Everything has structure . . . except maybe a three letter poem . . .
and even then.
Ideally a poem should have symetry,
no matter how confused or obscure.
I'll even go so far as to say that a poem with 'balance'
is a ballet in words.
No internal symetry can make it seem convuluted or confused,
but if that's what you're going for well . . . hey.
>No rhyme, no particalar form? I read poems all
>the time in the newsgroup. Some are really good, in my perception.
>What's the key here? If any?
Rhyme is not a pre-requisite, but it's sometimes a good starting point,
for as we say 'you have to know the rules 'for you can brak 'em'.
But a poem with internal rhyme, balance and smooth word flow is still
not a poem if you're not saying anything. Content helps. Traditional structures
are an art form. If you learn them and do it well, it is art. Free form
poetry can be just as passionate, but it's always nice to throw in
a few poetic techniques so people think you know what you're doing.
The biggest piece of the puzzle though is, how to put those words together
so that they skate on ice in an orgasm, they don't have too much
creamy filling without nutrition and that each drop of alphabet soup
cures any ailment, succintly and with a powerful satisfaction. Ahhhh!
. . . eh, that's the key I use, anyway.
>And I hope to attain some degree of fluidity Anyway...
fluidity . . . you got it. Read the dictionary. The more ways you
know how to say things, the easier it gets to say it smoothly and without
pain. Oh and get the best Thesuarus you can find. Try to jump over the holes
everyone else falls into.
>no great tragedy if I
>don't. Just reading good poems is fine.
Yeah it is, but it's also a tragedy if you can do it and don't do it.
. . . just my six bits.
-Max
>
>R.
>
>
Amanda Rachelle Warren
Of course not.
Anybody want to argue?
My pov: a poem is either on a surface or in the air as vibrations.
(written or vocalized, though it can be other things.) Those things are
forms. Those things rely on forms. A poem has a shape on a page, a word
has a shape in the mouth and on the ear. A line is broken so, a word is
chosen so, etc, forever, selah amen. Even chaos has form...consider pi. A
poem may not take a traditional form, but it has a form once it is on a
page, regardless of its adhesion or rejection of what we consider "form".
A poem's form can change. A poem without the considerations of line,
image, whatever, isn't a poem, it is something else.
I rant therefore I is,
Amander
"Let us so endeavor to eat a lot while we're alive so they'll have to bury
us in a piano crate. Boy, will that undertaker be sorry."
- Mark Twain.
Sherrie Lee
are how galaxies appear as i understand them. what about poetry?
perhaps poetry appears in form as beauty is to the eye of the beholder.
picasso has come to my awareness as having been an "artist prodigy" at
the age of sixteen whose art was considered mature and life-like,
until, he reversed direction in his thirties when he chose to create
art that he considered more child-like, I consider coloring outside the
lines, and still others call the cubist form.
yet, the nazis called his works senseless. I recall Geurnica and a
rumour about picasso and a nazi. The nazi exclaims after viewing
Geurnica, "So! You're the one who did this!!"
Picasso responds, "No. You are."
Anyway, without chaos, there would be no art I suppose. I don't know
how much more can be said of Humanity.
Sherrie
In article <8ph9n7$nhq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
silent_cry
Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> there is form in a spiral and form in a sphere or ellipsis. these
> are how galaxies appear as i understand them.
Some galaxies. :)
> what about poetry? perhaps poetry appears in form as beauty is to the
> eye of the beholder.
TOTALLY agree with you! Diversity is what makes life so wonderful.
It's always seemed strange to me but, even though I truly enjoy the
company of those who have similar tastes to my own and find
them "comfortable" to be with, interaction with those whose personal
preferences and outlooks on life differ from mine have always been
extremely stimulating and pleasureable. There's a dynamism of thought
when yin/yang interact that isn't as readily present when communicating
with those of "like mind". Think I've always enjoyed being a Team
Player for that reason.
> picasso has come to my awareness as having been an "artist prodigy"
> at the age of sixteen whose art was considered mature and life-like,
> until, he reversed direction in his thirties when he chose to create
> art that he considered more child-like, I consider coloring outside
> the lines, and still others call the cubist form.
Used Picasso as an example myself in the past! :)
> yet, the nazis called his works senseless. I recall Geurnica and a
> rumour about picasso and a nazi. The nazi exclaims after viewing
> Geurnica, "So! You're the one who did this!!"
>
> Picasso responds, "No. You are."
>
> Anyway, without chaos, there would be no art I suppose. I don't know
> how much more can be said of Humanity.
>
> Sherrie
>
I agree with you again. Without chaos, how would we be aware of
order? The existence of an opposite is the only thing that can set
something apart as being uniquely what it is. :)
silent_cry
j r sherman <jr...@wenet.net> wrote:
>
> ever read Frank O'Hara?
>
> j r sherman
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> "No rogue nations will hold this nation hostile
> or hold our allies hostile."
> George W. Bush
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
j r sherman
>>
>> j r sherman
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> "No rogue nations will hold this nation hostile
>> or hold our allies hostile."
>> George W. Bush
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>SC
>
you should.
j r s
Robert St. James (mei dominum Santiago Matamoros)
Sherrie Lee wrote in message <8pmras$8tt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
:there is form in a spiral and form in a sphere or ellipsis. these
:are how galaxies appear as i understand them. what about poetry?
:perhaps poetry appears in form as beauty is to the eye of the beholder.
No, formless poetry is called "prose" or "rec.arts.poems"
Just in case you wanted to know.
Robert St. James
(opinions are like haircuts, everybody has one, but most of them suck)
Sherrie Lee
silent_cry <silen...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8pmras$8tt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > there is form in a spiral and form in a sphere or ellipsis. these
> > are how galaxies appear as i understand them.
>
My apologies for universalizing.
> > what about poetry? perhaps poetry appears in form as beauty is to
the
> > eye of the beholder.
>
> TOTALLY agree with you! Diversity is what makes life so wonderful.
I don't want to come across as a nitpicker here. I want to present
another facet of the life/diversity concept. Diversity includes many
horrors according to some people's perspectives. What may be
considered "wonderful" is the acceptance of diversity. This gets
complicated. To what extent of diversness is one willing to tolerate?
Oh, those annoying questions!
> It's always seemed strange to me but, even though I truly enjoy the
> company of those who have similar tastes to my own and find
> them "comfortable" to be with, interaction with those whose personal
> preferences and outlooks on life differ from mine have always been
> extremely stimulating and pleasureable. There's a dynamism of thought
> when yin/yang interact that isn't as readily present when
communicating
> with those of "like mind". Think I've always enjoyed being a Team
> Player for that reason.
Lot's of thought provoking stuff here you present. I'm eager to find
an opening to share an experience. This may be as good as any or
none. I'll stick here, nonetheless.
I work with people who have mental illnesses. Immediately, I assume an
assumption, an image, a preconceived notion of such is conjured. A
gentleman, who mumbles and smiles and likely hallucinates was staring
at a plastic couch. I approach him. "Hi. Whachya doin?"
He points to the couch, "mrph, miggle, here doodly doplin dape" was his
reply.
I regret to say I have nothing scientific to claim but testimony and a
smile. I looked at the couch, and rather than saying, "oh, how
wonderful! you sound happy!" I tried to share his perception which
can be risky and is advised against.
"I do see the swirls, the impressions, left in the vinyl of this couch
as a result of someone having sat there at one time. It's very
interesting how the rear end can make such an impression."
Yes. He nodded, he smiled and became even more talkative. Eureka! an
epiphany! a good moment. For him and me. communication is wonderful
when it's right on.
> > picasso has come to my awareness as having been an "artist prodigy"
> > at the age of sixteen whose art was considered mature and life-like,
> > until, he reversed direction in his thirties when he chose to create
> > art that he considered more child-like, I consider coloring outside
> > the lines, and still others call the cubist form.
>
> Used Picasso as an example myself in the past! :
congrats. he's an easy target at moments such as this.
> > yet, the nazis called his works senseless. I recall Geurnica and a
> > rumour about picasso and a nazi. The nazi exclaims after viewing
> > Geurnica, "So! You're the one who did this!!"
> >
> > Picasso responds, "No. You are."
> >
> > Anyway, without chaos, there would be no art I suppose. I don't
know
> > how much more can be said of Humanity.
> >
> > Sherrie
> >
> I agree with you again. Without chaos, how would we be aware of
> order? The existence of an opposite is the only thing that can set
> something apart as being uniquely what it is. :)
I would be cautious of unversalizing. It might back you into a corner.
:-) Thank you for your patience.
> SC
Sherrie
silent_cry
Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8pos5r$m05$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> silent_cry <silen...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8pmras$8tt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > there is form in a spiral and form in a sphere or ellipsis. these
> > > are how galaxies appear as i understand them.
> >
> > Some galaxies. :)
>
> My apologies for universalizing.
Lint-picker. Sorry. :)
> > > what about poetry? perhaps poetry appears in form as beauty is to
> > > the eye of the beholder.
> >
> > TOTALLY agree with you! Diversity is what makes life so wonderful.
>
> I don't want to come across as a nitpicker here. I want to present
> another facet of the life/diversity concept. Diversity includes many
> horrors according to some people's perspectives. What may be
> considered "wonderful" is the acceptance of diversity. This gets
> complicated. To what extent of diversness is one willing to tolerate?
>
> Oh, those annoying questions!
My sister has a tendency to see the weeds, too. Unfortunately, I see
the flowers most of the time. Tempus fugits and every tick counts, why
spend them crying in my soup? Yes, there are horrors, but living in a
pit of them gives you very few options for escape. Before long, most
people tend to accept the pit and join the crowd. How does that help?
A wonderful moment for you both, I'll bet. :) Can understand your
elation.
> > > picasso has come to my awareness as having been an "artist
> > > prodigy" at the age of sixteen whose art was considered mature
> > > and life-like, until, he reversed direction in his thirties when
> > > he chose to create art that he considered more child-like, I
> > > consider coloring outside the lines, and still others call the
> > > cubist form.
> >
> > Used Picasso as an example myself in the past! :
>
> congrats. he's an easy target at moments such as this.
Not that many well-knowns do such a radical.
> > > yet, the nazis called his works senseless. I recall Geurnica and
> > > a rumour about picasso and a nazi. The nazi exclaims after
> > > viewing Geurnica, "So! You're the one who did this!!"
> > >
> > > Picasso responds, "No. You are."
> > >
> > > Anyway, without chaos, there would be no art I suppose. I don't
> > > know how much more can be said of Humanity.
> > >
> > I agree with you again. Without chaos, how would we be aware of
> > order? The existence of an opposite is the only thing that can set
> > something apart as being uniquely what it is. :)
>
> I would be cautious of universalizing. It might back you into a
> corner.
Corners are not strangers to me. :) This is just conversation, no
lives will be terminated as a result.
> :-) Thank you for your patience.
>
> Sherrie
>
And thank you for yours. :)
SC
silent_cry
j r sherman <jr...@wenet.net> wrote:
> 240498Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:41:32 GMT
> >
> >In article <8pdeda$q...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> > j r sherman <jr...@wenet.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> j r s
>
> "No rogue nations will hold this nation hostile
> or hold our allies hostile."
> George W. Bush
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
Sherrie Lee
silent_cry <silen...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8ppj6i$ge0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Some galaxies. :)
> >
> > My apologies for universalizing.
>
> Lint-picker. Sorry. :)
Nah. No worries. You helped me to feel good after a long day. I
enjoy being a smarty pants every once in a while. It shows I'm human.
Thank you.
> My sister has a tendency to see the weeds, too. Unfortunately, I see
> the flowers most of the time. Tempus fugits and every tick counts,
why
I wasn't gonna respond to this thread anymore! Believe it or not, I
was turned on to "tempus fugits" only a few days ago. (Thank you, Mr.
xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx!)
> spend them crying in my soup? Yes, there are horrors, but living in a
> pit of them gives you very few options for escape. Before long, most
> people tend to accept the pit and join the crowd. How does that help?
hmmmm... and there are some people who recognize what the pit is, and
they stand up! revolutionize! fight for rights! and create options
for escape while others remain whipped by circumstance or blind
themselves (not my problem) or dump their "problem" on to another
person.
heard the other day:
"I see flowers in a vase. Each one is unique. Together they are
beautiful."
> Corners are not strangers to me. :) This is just conversation, no
> lives will be terminated as a result.
gee, I hope you're right. now, I will resist responding! and tend to
a stack of junk piled high in a corner of my apartment!
Sherrie
silent_cry
Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8pplcs$is9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> silent_cry <silen...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8ppj6i$ge0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Some galaxies. :)
> > >
> > > My apologies for universalizing.
> >
> > Lint-picker. Sorry. :)
>
> enjoy being a smarty pants every once in a while. It shows I'm human.
> Thank you.
You're very welcome. :) ALL of us like to be "smary pants" once in
awhile.
> > My sister has a tendency to see the weeds, too. Unfortunately, I
> > see the flowers most of the time. Tempus fugits and every tick
> > counts,
>
> I wasn't gonna respond to this thread anymore! Believe it or not, I
> was turned on to "tempus fugits" only a few days ago. (Thank you, Mr.
> xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx!)
Been saying it the majority of my longer-than-I-would-like-to-admit
life, nothing like murdering a dead tongue. :)
> > why spend them crying in my soup? Yes, there are horrors, but
> > living in a pit of them gives you very few options for escape.
> > Before long, most people tend to accept the pit and join the
> > crowd. How does that help?
>
> hmmmm... and there are some people who recognize what the pit is, and
> they stand up! revolutionize! fight for rights! and create options
> for escape while others remain whipped by circumstance or blind
> themselves (not my problem) or dump their "problem" on to another
> person.
Wish my sister would take your attitude. Problem is, she _is_ a
fighter, an _Earth Shaker_, in fact, on a city and state level wherever
she happens to live; but that doesn't keep her head above the edge of
the pit. She seems to help everyone but herself.
> heard the other day:
>
> "I see flowers in a vase. Each one is unique. Together they are
> beautiful."
Beautiful thought... but I've missed the context...
> > Corners are not strangers to me. :) This is just conversation, no
> > lives will be terminated as a result.
>
> gee, I hope you're right. now, I will resist responding! and tend to
> a stack of junk piled high in a corner of my apartment!
>
> Sherrie
>
Good luck! :)
SC
PS - My real first name is Sherri. :)
Sherrie Lee
silent_cry <silen...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8pqg56$ga6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Oh! You temptress, you!
> You're very welcome. :) ALL of us like to be "smary pants" once in
> awhile.
I beg to differ! I do NOT like "smeary" pants! Give me fresh undies!
Please! Or give me none-dees!
> Been saying it the majority of my longer-than-I-would-like-to-admit
> life, nothing like murdering a dead tongue. :)
I wish I had a younger tongue with which to learn the language, but I
ain't dead yet!
> > > why spend them crying in my soup? Yes, there are horrors, but
> > > living in a pit of them gives you very few options for escape.
> > > Before long, most people tend to accept the pit and join the
> > > crowd. How does that help?
> >
> > hmmmm... and there are some people who recognize what the pit is,
and
> > they stand up! revolutionize! fight for rights! and create
options
> > for escape while others remain whipped by circumstance or blind
> > themselves (not my problem) or dump their "problem" on to another
> > person.
>
> Wish my sister would take your attitude.
I'm a tad confused. What attitude is it that you claim is mine?
Problem is, she _is_ a
> fighter, an _Earth Shaker_, in fact, on a city and state level
wherever
> she happens to live; but that doesn't keep her head above the edge of
> the pit. She seems to help everyone but herself.
this can be considered quite natural. there is a notion
of "preservation of species" at the sacrifice of "self" which on some
level (global, perhaps) may be thought of as looking out for self when
one senses self within a species.
> > heard the other day:
> >
> > "I see flowers in a vase. Each one is unique. Together they are
> > beautiful."
>
> Beautiful thought... but I've missed the context...
Your comment on seeing flowers despite the weeds reminded me of the
above. It's about appreciating diversity. I heard it from a Chinese
woman who is a teacher and poet. She gave me her permission to share
her stories as I see fit. I thought it fit here. Perhaps I stretched
a bit.
> > gee, I hope you're right. now, I will resist responding! and tend
to
> > a stack of junk piled high in a corner of my apartment!
> >
> > Sherrie
> >
> Good luck! :)
yeah, right. you foiler~! you!
> SC
>
> PS - My real first name is Sherri. :)
This is odd. I had thought about asking you to tell your name but
withheld the urge. Good see a name with the SilentCry.
Sherrie
silent_cry
Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8pqjip$kfh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> silent_cry <silen...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8pqg56$ga6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Oh! You temptress, you!
. >:D
> > You're very welcome. :) ALL of us like to be "smary pants" once in
> > awhile.
>
> I beg to differ! I do NOT like "smeary" pants! Give me fresh undies!
> Please! Or give me none-dees!
"SMARTY"! I meant: "SMARTY"! :)
> > Been saying it the majority of my longer-than-I-would-like-to-admit
> > life, nothing like murdering a dead tongue. :)
>
> I wish I had a younger tongue with which to learn the language, but I
> ain't dead yet!
I've actually decided to learn it, even taken rudimentary overtures.
Now all I need is the time...
> > > > why spend them crying in my soup? Yes, there are horrors, but
> > > > living in a pit of them gives you very few options for escape.
> > > > Before long, most people tend to accept the pit and join the
> > > > crowd. How does that help?
> > >
> > > hmmmm... and there are some people who recognize what the pit is,
> > > and they stand up! revolutionize! fight for rights! and create
> > > options for escape while others remain whipped by circumstance or
> > > blind themselves (not my problem) or dump their "problem" on to
> > > another person.
> >
> > Wish my sister would take your attitude.
>
> I'm a tad confused. What attitude is it that you claim is mine?
Less morose.
> > Problem is, she _is_ a fighter, an _Earth Shaker_, in fact, on a
> > city and state level wherever she happens to live; but that doesn't
> > keep her head above the edge of the pit. She seems to help
> > everyone but herself.
>
> this can be considered quite natural. there is a notion
> of "preservation of species" at the sacrifice of "self" which on some
> level (global, perhaps) may be thought of as looking out for self when
> one senses self within a species.
Oh, yes! My sister is a mother spider if there ever was one!
> > > heard the other day:
> > >
> > > "I see flowers in a vase. Each one is unique. Together they are
> > > beautiful."
> >
> > Beautiful thought... but I've missed the context...
>
> Your comment on seeing flowers despite the weeds reminded me of the
> above. It's about appreciating diversity. I heard it from a Chinese
> woman who is a teacher and poet. She gave me her permission to share
> her stories as I see fit. I thought it fit here. Perhaps I stretched
> a bit.
I've always found free association enjoyable. Turning off the ego and
letting the superego talk is when much of my best poetry happens. Ego
tends to be too formal, rigidly metered. Superego chants and/or flows,
with movement like a rill over smooth stones.
> > Good luck! :)
>
> yeah, right. you foiler~! you!
. >:D
> > PS - My real first name is Sherri. :)
>
> This is odd. I had thought about asking you to tell your name but
> withheld the urge. Good to see a name with the SilentCry.
>
> Sherrie
>
Don't know why I ever picked "Silent Cry", frustration, I guess. It's
a bloody fact I am _anything_ but "silent". :)
SC
PS - Is your corner ordered?
mr.cin
Sherrie Lee
silent_cry <silen...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8pqn6f$p2d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I've actually decided to learn it, even taken rudimentary overtures.
> Now all I need is the time...
Re: Latin
I understand that about time. tempus fugit or something. a
photographic memory might help. I don't happen to have one. My memory
is as fleeting as time (except I have this beautiful image imprinted of
something I saw today. I still see it clear as a picture except for
maybe one eensy thing. I've been piecing words about it in between
putting together other words).
If you find the language that important, try incorporating it into your
day or look for how the day incorporates itself into the language. it
sounds like fun. carpe diem.
> > I'm a tad confused. What attitude is it that you claim is mine?
>
> Less morose.
hmmm, it's difficult for me to defend this. I don't know how morose
your sister is.
> > this can be considered quite natural. there is a notion
> > of "preservation of species" at the sacrifice of "self" which on
some
> > level (global, perhaps) may be thought of as looking out for self
when
> > one senses self within a species.
>
> Oh, yes! My sister is a mother spider if there ever was one!
I don't know what mother spiders do. I was suggesting something of a
kamikaze spirit.
> > Your comment on seeing flowers despite the weeds reminded me of the
> > above. It's about appreciating diversity. I heard it from a
Chinese
> > woman who is a teacher and poet. She gave me her permission to
share
> > her stories as I see fit. I thought it fit here. Perhaps I
stretched
> > a bit.
>
> I've always found free association enjoyable. Turning off the ego and
> letting the superego talk is when much of my best poetry happens. Ego
> tends to be too formal, rigidly metered. Superego chants and/or
flows,
> with movement like a rill over smooth stones.
I thought my association was more logical and less free, nonetheless, I
may not understand associations and logic. I liken the two, yet, the
term /free/ bungles me. Not sure if this is my ego or superego here.
I tend to think /superego/ if it correlates with the high mind and the
mind or even brain is thought of as having three sections -- low or
rear, middle, high or front.
Perhaps, free-associatively, my extremely high forehead indicates high-
mindedness and a large frontal lobe. Or, I may just have a receding
hairline.
Does this chant/flow or show rigid metering?
> Don't know why I ever picked "Silent Cry", frustration, I guess. It's
> a bloody fact I am _anything_ but "silent". :)
>
> SC
"a bloody fact", eh? where are you from?
> PS - Is your corner ordered?
my corner is getting there. blame my superego for not being formal or
rigid. or blame my reptilian mind for building cozy places for mice
and other prey. ew! no! I do not have mice! (I hope)
Sherrie
Sherri F White
Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> article <8pro6j$3iv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> silent_cry <silen...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8pqn6f$p2d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I've actually decided to learn it, even taken rudimentary
> > overtures. Now all I need is the time...
>
> Re: Latin
>
> I understand that about time. tempus fugit or something.
> a photographic memory might help. I don't happen to have
> one. My memory is as fleeting as time (except I have this
> beautiful image imprinted of something I saw today. I still
> see it clear as a picture except for maybe one eensy thing.
> I've been piecing words about it in between putting
> together other words).
>
> If you find the language that important, try incorporating it
> into your day or look for how the day incorporates itself
> into the language. it sounds like fun. carpe diem.
Actually "seized" your idea already and subscribed to some Latin email
newsletters. :)
> > > I'm a tad confused. What attitude is it that you claim
> > > is mine?
> >
> > Less morose.
>
> hmmm, it's difficult for me to defend this. I don't know
> how morose your sister is.
Think about the deepest Pits of Hell, then crawl under them.
> > > this can be considered quite natural. there is a
> > > notion of "preservation of species" at the sacrifice of
> > > "self" which on some level (global, perhaps) may be
> > > thought of as looking out for self when one senses
> > > self within a species.
> >
> > Oh, yes! My sister is a mother spider if there ever
> > was one!
>
> I don't know what mother spiders do. I was suggesting
> something of a kamikaze spirit.
Yup! That's what I was referencing. Many mother spiders are the first
food their babies eat. The mother carries her babies around on her
back until the dear, wee things suck her parchment-dry. I've seen that
sucked-parchment-dry look on the face of more than one mother (my
sister being one of them).
Of course, human fathers aren't immune to sucky-babies. Spider
fathers, on the other hand, are mommafood. (DAMN! Nature says things
that are too true at times!)
> > > Your comment on seeing flowers despite the weeds
> > > reminded me of the above. It's about appreciating
> > > diversity. I heard it from a Chinese woman who is a
> > > teacher and poet. She gave me her permission to
> > > share her stories as I see fit. I thought it fit here.
> > > Perhaps I stretched a bit.
> >
> > I've always found free association enjoyable. Turning
> > off the ego and letting the superego talk is when much
> > of my best poetry happens. Ego tends to be too
> > formal, rigidly metered. Superego chants and/or
> > flows, with movement like a rill over smooth stones.
>
> I thought my association was more logical and less free,
> nonetheless, I may not understand associations and logic.
That would come as a surprise. :) :)
> I liken the two, yet, the term /free/ bungles me. Not sure
> if this is my ego or superego here.
"free association" isn't my personal term, as I'm sure you know. :)
Agree with you as to the "free" thing. If you're mind's doing it,
there's some sort of governing going on, so how can it truly
be "free"? Yet, as free as the mind can associate, is what the term
means. "What's the first word that pops into your head when I say
_____?" That sort of thing.
> I tend to think /superego/ if it correlates with the high mind
> and the mind or even brain is thought of as having three
> sections -- low or rear, middle, high or front.
Triangle: Ego/Superego/Id. The superego is the mediator between the
ego and the id, the governor. That's what I was referencing, is that
what you're saying?
> Perhaps, free-associatively, my extremely high forehead
> indicates high-mindedness and a large frontal lobe. Or,
> I may just have a receding hairline.
>
> Does this chant/flow or show rigid metering?
Do you have a diversity of toys you play with, or a few favorite
ones? :) :)
> > Don't know why I ever picked "Silent Cry", frustration,
> > I guess. It's a bloody fact I am _anything_ but "silent".
> > :)
> >
> > SC
>
> "a bloody fact", eh? where are you from?
Texas. Used the term most of my life. Don't know why, heard it/read
it somewhere, it stuck. Like "old sock", too.
> > PS - Is your corner ordered?
>
> my corner is getting there. blame my superego for not
> being formal or rigid. or blame my reptilian mind for
> building cozy places for mice and other prey. ew! no!
> I do not have mice! (I hope)
>
> Sherrie
You are fun! :) :)
Okay, let me explain the formal/rigid thing: The ego second-guesses,
the superego has more of a tendency to be "right on", straight-line.
It understands natural order and balance on a more intuitive
level. "This is how it's supposed to be and that's just the way it
is," sort of thing.
Following is an example of a poem I wrote in what I call a "superego
state". The entire poem poured out of me complete, as fast as I could
type it in, and I did almost no editing afterwards (then only spelling
and punctuation):
Who?
Who is the sunshine? Who is the lamp?
Who is the beacon through night?
Who is the voice who whispers the Truth?
Who is the one who is right?
Who is the walker? Who is the road?
Who is the sturdy soled shoe?
Who is the herald who beckons the Light?
Who is the Song? Tell me, who?
I am the hammer, I am the forge,
I am the coals glowing bright;
I am the heartbeat, I am the head,
I am the song in the night;
I am the loved one, I am the joy,
I am the rapture of thought;
I am the hoped for, I am the dream,
I am the one who has bought.
Give me your anguish, give me your doubt,
Give me your weakness and dread;
Give me your sorrows, give me your hate,
Give me your crown for my head;
Give me your failings, give me your thirst,
Give me your credos of doom;
Give me your blindness, give me your pride,
Give me your sin, I have room.
I am the sought for, I am the found,
I am the Rod Who Won't Bend;
I am the Always, I am The Way,
I am the Bright Journey's End.
SFWhite
See what I mean? It balances naturally, flows well, and is chantlike
in its overall precision. Yet I never counted syllables, searched for
rhymes, or thought of the flow as I was writing it. I was ready to
throw it away if I didn't like what came out. Just typing what hit me.
Be well - SC
aka Pax
aka Sherri F White
o~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~o
As Pogo said: "We has met thu enuhmy 'n' he is US!"
Sherrie Lee
Language, the mind, nature etc ... seem to have been topics of
discussion throughout most of history. These discussions seem to be
performed in a quest for truth, yet what seems to happen is a sort of
molding of truth around an idea, theory, formula, what have you. What
takes place is as if truth is clay. Bits and clumps of clay are
discarded in order for the mold to work. Successful seekers of truth
admit this phenomenon and struggle to pick up the pieces. Truth is
pretty big and our theories are small by comparison. Nonetheless, our
theories continue. Mine are no exception, except, I have yet to
seriously delve into my ideas. Thus, I categorize myself in the realm
of the half-hearted which judgementally may be worse than those who
show their sculpture of truth upon burying the flashings. I have going
for me my awareness of this. I trust this explains a degree of
strength and weakness as it applies to me as well as universally, and
compares my degree of moroseness with that of your sister.
Since you show an interest in Latin, and I infer from this an interest
in language, I suggest that do a word study on Hell and God. I've been
exposed to limited study, and it has broadened my perspective regarding
religions.
Regarding your sister, I add that you seem to view her as deeply morose
as to her view of life. Does she see only the decay? I can understand
this on some levels.
Nature and truth. Nature seems to be our model for truth. Do not
overlook the lioness, who hunts, and the lion, who eats first forsaking
the cubs who at times die of starvation, for the sake of seeing mamma
spider eating pappa spider.
As far as the triunal mind. I wasn't looking for an explanation. I
was again being a "smarty" pants and used my "brain talk" as a set-up
for my groaner of a punchline.
Speaking of, your poem is a groaner. I can say this because I know.
I've written a few myself. Ugh!
Be well yourself.
Sherrie
("Live and learn from fools and from sages." Aerosmith)
Sherri F White
Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Sherri,
>
> Language, the mind, nature etc ... seem to have been topics of
> discussion throughout most of history. These discussions seem to be
> performed in a quest for truth, yet what seems to happen is a sort of
> molding of truth around an idea, theory, formula, what have you. What
> takes place is as if truth is clay. Bits and clumps of clay are
> discarded in order for the mold to work. Successful seekers of truth
> admit this phenomenon and struggle to pick up the pieces. Truth is
> pretty big and our theories are small by comparison. Nonetheless, our
> theories continue. Mine are no exception, except, I have yet to
> seriously delve into my ideas. Thus, I categorize myself in the realm
> of the half-hearted which judgementally may be worse than those who
> show their sculpture of truth upon burying the flashings. I have
> going for me my awareness of this.
Having a bit of trouble understanding how you think someone
can "sculpt" the Truth and have it _be_ the Truth. Most times, we only
discover fragments of the Truth, and pass them on. But often they're
only fragments. That's the problem, a partial Truth can actually be a
lie when presented as a _whole_ Truth.
> I trust this explains a degree of strength and weakness as it applies
> to me as well as universally, and compares my degree of moroseness
> with that of your sister.
Good grief! Really?! Yet, it seems from the below that, even though
the level might be the same, the areas are different.
> Since you show an interest in Latin, and I infer from this an interest
> in language, I suggest that do a word study on Hell and God. I've
> been exposed to limited study, and it has broadened my perspective
> regarding religions.
Have done such a study.
> Regarding your sister, I add that you seem to view her as deeply
> morose as to her view of life. Does she see only the decay? I can
> understand this on some levels.
No, not decay. Hopelessness. Only her Faith holds her up.
> Nature and truth. Nature seems to be our model for truth. Do not
> overlook the lioness, who hunts, and the lion, who eats first
> forsaking the cubs who at times die of starvation, for the sake of
> seeing mamma spider eating pappa spider.
That's a very popular view, and no more true than the other, over all.
> As far as the triunal mind. I wasn't looking for an explanation.
Wasn't explaining as if I thought you were unaware of the true meaning,
was explaining as if you were unaware of my usage of the meaning (which
might not hold with the most popular interpretation).
> I was again being a "smarty" pants and used my "brain talk" as a
> set-up for my groaner of a punchline.
Typed: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!" then thought better of it, and erased it. :)
> Speaking of, your poem is a groaner. I can say this because I know.
> I've written a few myself. Ugh!
My poem might be such to you (especially if you don't share the
statement of Faith the poem makes, and/or don't like the chant-like
style, wording, etc.), but that doesn't apply to everyone. :)
That's what poetry, and all art, is all about, isn't it? I detest some
of the most famous works of art. But that's just me. Personal. And I
realize that fact and make allowances for it. How can we really say
any further than that it's our personal opinion about proven-to-be-
popular art? That particular poem is one of the few of mine that's
been published. However, never, at _any_ time, did it ever crossed my
mind that everyone would care for it.
Think that's what I find most distressing about the attitudes I see
expressed so often on these poetry newsgroups, it's as if the critic
thinks their attitude is the _only_ viable attitude OTHERS should hold
as well. The lack of regard for the Truth exhibited by that mind-set
totally escapes me. It depresses and angers me as well, since it seems
to be echoed thoughout modern society, at least here in the States.
We're not ants. What's good or pleasant for one is _not_ good or
pleasant for another. We're diverse, and that's our strength.
Therefore, such a stance is so far away from the Truth as to be almost
completely its opposite, in my opinion.
You seem to value Truth. If that's so, then perhaps you understand. :)
> Be well yourself.
>
> Sherrie
>
> ("Live and learn from fools and from sages." Aerosmith)
Thanks. :)
Kind regards - Pax
o~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~o
As Pogo said: "We has met thu enuhmy 'n' he is US!"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sherri F White
Hi again, Sherrie, :)
In case you've gotten the idea I like _only_ rhyming poetry, wanted to
add that I tend to like ALL poetry when it's done my particular idea of
well. The recently departed MCN (whom I discovered from his death
notices here) was FANTASTIC! http://gate.cruzio.com/~mmichael/
Also, here's someone I think is REALLY good. She doesn't rhyme either
(that I know of, haven't read all her stuff yet), but she's an artist
with words. She paints REAL inside and out in such a way you feel it
in all the tenses.
Deb Byrnes --
www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/author/view_author_info.gsp?
auth_id=41915
For me, there's another choice besides "live and let live", when it's
not what I naturally prefer, I drop into "discover and appreciate" mode.
Warm regards - Pax
o~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~o
As Pogo said: "We has met thu enuhmy 'n' he is US!"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jeannekhan
Found her as Deb Byrne
in the A-M search; others failed..
Jeanne
>Subject: Re: can a poem be formless?
>From: Sherri F White pa...@whitesweb.com
>Date: 9/17/00 6:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8q2h78$fbe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Pax
Hi, Jeanne, :)
Sending you the direct link to her Author's Page by email. Here's the link,
this post may not show up on DejaNews, it "Spam-Blocks" ThemeStream links for
some reason!
http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/author/view_author_info.gsp?auth_id=41915
(Think the link will "break" here in this post, though.)
Deb's listed under "Deborah Byrne" when I do a search on ThemeStream. She's one
of the best writers I've read in a long time; if you like MCN, I think you'll
really enjoy her writing too. :)
Warm regards - Pax (Sherri F White)
"Jeannekhan" <jeann...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000918121426...@ng-mf1.aol.com...
mr.cin
if not are out and why remenber come over here while it stopped breathing
anyway
get pocket this then on a curious
reverie where is my basket
ball and socks are three as many it isn't are
you to golden 256 return a king
Sherri F White
>
> come over here
> while it stopped
> breathing anyway
>
> get
>
> pocket this then
> on a curious reverie
> where is my basket
> ball and socks
> are three as many
>
> it isn't
> are you
>
> to golden 256
>
> return a king
>
This isn't REM, it's LSD. :) Care to give us a key-code to decrypt?
Anything past the "random eyes" (randomize)? Isn't free-association,
doesn't seem to associate anywhere. Total chaos, then?
Regards - Pax
o~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~o
As Pogo said: "We has met thu enuhmy 'n' he is US!"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sherrie Lee
I'm glad you were having trouble understanding what you thought it was
that I thought because what you thought I had thought was not what I
had thought.
What I was talking about was something like the Catholic church
sticking to their story despite Gallileo's (Pope's alleged apology
noted) findings and other such happenings here and there like, the
president of South Africa and his Health Minister saying that HIV is
not linked to AIDS. Who knows?
> > Since you show an interest in Latin, and I infer from this an
interest
> > in language, I suggest that do a word study on Hell and God. I've
> > been exposed to limited study, and it has broadened my perspective
> > regarding religions.
>
> Have done such a study.
kewl! and here's one of my 'to read' book wishes. "Vanishing Voices"
by Nettle and Romaine (I think). I saw it today in a Seattle book
store, but I haven't read it yet. May buy it soon. It's about extinct
languages and supposed soon-to-be extinct languages and the effect of
such extinctions on cultures etc ... An anthropological viewpoint, as
I can gather.
> > Regarding your sister, I add that you seem to view her as deeply
> > morose as to her view of life. Does she see only the decay? I can
> > understand this on some levels.
>
> No, not decay. Hopelessness. Only her Faith holds her up.
I do not understand the concept of having faith without hope. Does
hope leave room for doubt? If one feels hopeless, does this undermine
one's faith? Perhaps faith is the absence of doubt therefore hope is
unnessessary?? A faith in the hopelessness?
Heavy.
> Typed: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!" then thought better of it, and erased
it. :)
That's good. I'd have your head examined were you to laugh THAT hard
at one of MY zingers!
> > Speaking of, your poem is a groaner. I can say this because I know.
> > I've written a few myself. Ugh!
>
> My poem might be such to you (especially if you don't share the
> statement of Faith the poem makes, and/or don't like the chant-like
> style, wording, etc.), but that doesn't apply to everyone. :)
I do not care for certain repetitions.
> That's what poetry, and all art, is all about, isn't it?
Yes. It is a matter of opinion. Art seems to be the mirror of a
culture or the mirror of a person's viewpoint on a society or dimension
of society. Maybe if people are "deluded" enough, art becomes the
culture. ...
I detest some
> of the most famous works of art. But that's just me. Personal. And
I
> realize that fact and make allowances for it. How can we really say
> any further than that it's our personal opinion about proven-to-be-
> popular art?
or our personal opinion about any art, popular or unpopular or, "that's
not ART! that's total SHIT!!"
That particular poem is one of the few of mine that's
> been published. However, never, at _any_ time, did it ever crossed my
> mind that everyone would care for it.
> Think that's what I find most distressing about the attitudes I see
> expressed so often on these poetry newsgroups, it's as if the critic
> thinks their attitude is the _only_ viable attitude OTHERS should hold
> as well. The lack of regard for the Truth exhibited by that mind-set
> totally escapes me. It depresses and angers me as well, since it
seems
> to be echoed thoughout modern society, at least here in the States.
The same may hold for some poets who write thinking that their attitude
is the only viable attitude others should hold as the truth. As well
as this is depressing or angering to some, I venture this is scary and
that it is such fear which ignites many emotions.
> We're not ants. What's good or pleasant for one is _not_ good or
> pleasant for another. We're diverse, and that's our strength.
> Therefore, such a stance is so far away from the Truth as to be almost
> completely its opposite, in my opinion.
>
> You seem to value Truth. If that's so, then perhaps you
understand. :)
I don't as yet know "the truth". Everybody's perception seems to be so
different. I do value understanding. Misunderstanding seems to be
such chaos.
Yet art without a measure of predictability is quite attractive to me.
It's (the art is) surprising. Uncontrollable. I think lust is a good
word here. Or spontaneous.
Sherrie
P.s. re: your addendum. thanks for the poetry suggestions.
mr.cin
Sherri F White <pa...@whitesweb.com> wrote in message
news:8q6qtq$ck7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Sherri F White
Ooooookay... I'll go back over it in that light. :)
Regards - Pax
In article <8q6urc$blk$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
--
mr.cin
geeez -- it was just
a dumb joke. It's
formless. It's mean
ingless. Bet your
honey has giv
en up showing
you cartoons in
the paper by
now, Sherrie, eh?
:>) mr.cin
Sherri F White <pa...@whitesweb.com> wrote in message
news:8q77mh$r8j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> Ooooookay... I'll go back over it in that light. :)
>
> Regards - Pax
>
>
> In article <8q6urc$blk$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "mr.cin" <mr....@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> --
Sherri F White
"mr.cin" <mr....@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> can a poem be formless?
>
> geeez -- it was just
> a dumb joke. It's
> formless. It's mean
> ingless. Bet your
> honey has giv
> en up showing
> you cartoons in
> the paper by
>
> :>) mr.cin
Forgive me, please! You breath of fresh air! :) :) I'm so used to all
too serious seriousness, I was afraid to be light with you, in case I
offended. :) :)
Be well :) :) - Pax
> Sherri F White <pa...@whitesweb.com> wrote in message
> news:8q77mh$r8j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> >
> > Ooooookay... I'll go back over it in that light. :)
> >
> > Regards - Pax
> >
> >
> > In article <8q6urc$blk$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > "mr.cin" <mr....@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > o~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~o
> >
> > As Pogo said: "We has met thu enuhmy 'n' he is US!"
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
--
Sherri F White
Well! Glad you set my thinking re your thinking straight. :) It was
the molding and the clumping and the discarding and the admitting and
the showing and the burying and the flashing that mixed me up. :)
(Were there "tailings" in there? Perhaps I was designating from the
clumping and the discarding... fragmenting not being the same thing, to
my understanding, but just an alternating wording I was using.)
> What I was talking about was something like the Catholic church
> sticking to their story despite Gallileo's (Pope's alleged apology
> noted) findings and other such happenings here and there like, the
> president of South Africa and his Health Minister saying that HIV is
> not linked to AIDS. Who knows?
Sort of like America being dubbed "The Land of the Free"?
> > > Since you show an interest in Latin, and I infer from this an
> > > interest in language, I suggest that do a word study on Hell and
> > > God. I've been exposed to limited study, and it has broadened my
> > > perspective regarding religions.
> >
> > Have done such a study.
>
> kewl! and here's one of my 'to read' book wishes. "Vanishing Voices"
> by Nettle and Romaine (I think). I saw it today in a Seattle book
> store, but I haven't read it yet. May buy it soon. It's about
> extinct languages and supposed soon-to-be extinct languages and the
> effect of such extinctions on cultures etc ... An anthropological
> viewpoint, as I can gather.
All cultures go extinct sooner or later, even if they keep their native
language.
> > > Regarding your sister, I add that you seem to view her as deeply
> > > morose as to her view of life. Does she see only the decay? I
> > > can understand this on some levels.
> >
> > No, not decay. Hopelessness. Only her Faith holds her up.
>
> I do not understand the concept of having faith without hope. Does
> hope leave room for doubt? If one feels hopeless, does this undermine
> one's faith? Perhaps faith is the absence of doubt therefore hope is
> unnessessary?? A faith in the hopelessness?
"Faith is belief in things unseen." Her hopelessness is rooted in
Humanity, not Divinity. :)
> Heavy.
Indeed. :)
> > Typed: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!" then thought better of it, and erased
> > it. :)
>
> That's good. I'd have your head examined were you to laugh THAT hard
> at one of MY zingers!
Examine away then. Unfortunately (I guess), quite a few things you say
hit me as hilarious. :) :)
> > > Speaking of, your poem is a groaner. I can say this because I
> > > know. I've written a few myself. Ugh!
> >
> > My poem might be such to you (especially if you don't share the
> > statement of Faith the poem makes, and/or don't like the chant-like
> > style, wording, etc.), but that doesn't apply to everyone. :)
>
> I do not care for certain repetitions.
Lot of people don't. :)
> > That's what poetry, and all art, is all about, isn't it?
>
> Yes. It is a matter of opinion. Art seems to be the mirror of a
> culture or the mirror of a person's viewpoint on a society or
> dimension of society.
Right. It's a "channel" of sorts. One person discovers or deduces
something relevant to them, then offers it to others in the form of his
art. The rest is up to the artist's audience to agree of disagree,
like or not like. How many like chords the artist is able to strike in
his audience says something about the society, one would assume.
> Maybe if people are "deluded" enough, art becomes the culture. ...
Heaven FORBID!
> > I detest some of the most famous works of art. But that's just
> > me. Personal. And I realize that fact and make allowances for
> > it. How can we really say any further than that it's our personal
> > opinion about proven-to-be-popular art?
>
> or our personal opinion about any art, popular or unpopular
> or, "that's not ART! that's total SHIT!!"
Oh, AMEN! That's a "gut level" response, perhaps the truest one.
Guess the open-mindedness of the individual takes over after that; how
willing the individual is to broaden their outlook by attempting to
educate themselves re another's perspective. For all the preachifying
going on today concerning the merits of an egalitarian attitude, it's
_not_ terribly in evidence, generally speaking.
> > That particular poem is one of the few of mine that's been
> > published. However, never, at _any_ time, did it ever crossed my
> > mind that everyone would care for it. Think that's what I find most
> > distressing about the attitudes I see expressed so often on these
> > poetry newsgroups, it's as if the critic thinks their attitude is
> > the _only_ viable attitude OTHERS should hold as well. The lack of
> > regard for the Truth exhibited by that mind-set totally escapes
> > me. It depresses and angers me as well, since it seems to be
> > echoed thoughout modern society, at least here in the States.
>
> The same may hold for some poets who write thinking that their
> attitude is the only viable attitude others should hold as the
> truth. As well as this is depressing or angering to some, I venture
> this is scary and that it is such fear which ignites many emotions.
True. Agree, agree! (See comment above.)
Think that's what sets me off, in fact. Guess it's the poets... but
it's the afficionados as well. The king may've been taken in, but the
crowd went right along with him (The Emperor's New Clothes). A voice
in a vacuum isn't a danger, because no one hears it.
> > We're not ants. What's good or pleasant for one is _not_ good or
> > pleasant for another. We're diverse, and that's our strength.
> > Therefore, such a stance is so far away from the Truth as to be
> > almost completely its opposite, in my opinion.
> >
> > You seem to value Truth. If that's so, then perhaps you
> > understand. :)
>
> I don't as yet know "the truth". Everybody's perception seems to be so
> different. I do value understanding. Misunderstanding seems to be
> such chaos.
Just because Ultimate Truth escapes us, that doesn't mean that _all_
Truth is a matter of opinion. There are some "Universal Truths". We
tend to take them as so basic that we pay little or no attention to
them, but they're still there.
> Yet art without a measure of predictability is quite attractive to me.
> It's (the art is) surprising. Uncontrollable. I think lust is a good
> word here. Or spontaneous.
Much spontaneous art I find attractive, but at its heart there's always
a mirroring going on of something to which the art can be related,
either externally, as to nature, or internally, as to emotion.
Even a paint splat has circles and rays, chaotic modern art has colors
that flow and blend or contrast sharply, words incite or soothe, bounce
the mind, or certify some mindset. All art touches if it reaches its
audience, and in order for it to do that, it must've struck a common
chord, a place the viewer could relate, no matter how abstractly.
> Sherrie
>
> P.s. re: your addendum. thanks for the poetry suggestions.
You're very welcome. :) :)
Be well - Pax
o~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~o
As Pogo said: "We has met thu enuhmy 'n' he is US!"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sherrie Lee
Heck if I know what it was. a lack of careful reading? a lack of
careful writing? the language failing? no mention of showing and
burying in the piece. no tailings either. clumps are discarded.
fragmenting might work as alternate wording. classifying might also.
ignoring or not observing might work as another.
> > What I was talking about was something like the Catholic church
> > sticking to their story despite Gallileo's (Pope's alleged apology
> > noted) findings and other such happenings here and there like, the
> > president of South Africa and his Health Minister saying that HIV is
> > not linked to AIDS. Who knows?
>
> Sort of like America being dubbed "The Land of the Free"?
The US is the land of the "Buy Here Pay Later!" or "The Land of the
Freely Exploit(ed)ive!"
> > > > Since you show an interest in Latin, and I infer from this an
> > > > interest in language, I suggest that do a word study on Hell and
> > > > God. I've been exposed to limited study, and it has broadened
my
> > > > perspective regarding religions.
> > >
> > > Have done such a study.
> >
> > kewl! and here's one of my 'to read' book wishes. "Vanishing
Voices"
> > by Nettle and Romaine (I think). I saw it today in a Seattle book
> > store, but I haven't read it yet. May buy it soon. It's about
> > extinct languages and supposed soon-to-be extinct languages and the
> > effect of such extinctions on cultures etc ... An anthropological
> > viewpoint, as I can gather.
>
> All cultures go extinct sooner or later, even if they keep their
native
> language.
is there an extinct culture where which the native language is alive?
how do evolution and extinction relate to language and culture?
differ? how does a culture's language exist without the culture to
keep it alive? who is speaking it? who understands it? is it the
same language? how does a culture die without its language dying? I
hadn't thought about this.
the concept of a language's effect on culture and a culture's effect on
language is a new one for me. maybe a language survives based on its
effectiveness, and a culture dies for the opposite reason. maybe the
effectiveness of a language relates to how well it serves the current
culture. does a language serve a culture? can a culture survive
without its language?
anyway, the point was to tout a book I hadn't read about cultures
disappearing as their languages disappear. I haven't run into any
books recently describing languages being kept by an extinct culture,
but now you've got me interested.
> > > > Regarding your sister, I add that you seem to view her as deeply
> > > > morose as to her view of life. Does she see only the decay? I
> > > > can understand this on some levels.
> > >
> > > No, not decay. Hopelessness. Only her Faith holds her up.
> >
> > I do not understand the concept of having faith without hope. Does
> > hope leave room for doubt? If one feels hopeless, does this
undermine
> > one's faith? Perhaps faith is the absence of doubt therefore hope
is
> > unnessessary?? A faith in the hopelessness?
>
> "Faith is belief in things unseen." Her hopelessness is rooted in
> Humanity, not Divinity. :)
she's not totally hopeless. she holds hope rooted in something unseen
as well as having faith in this same thing.
> > Heavy.
>
> Indeed. :)
I wonder how hope is being held. Is it the hope that the unseen thing
is there? is it the hope that this unseen thing that's there for sure
is harmless? is helpful? what? or is it that this unseen thing
offers hope? then what? hope exists yet it's rejected on the basis of
its relationship with humanity? or does this unseen thing offer no
hope in relation to humanity?
> > > Typed: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!" then thought better of it, and erased
> > > it. :)
> >
> > That's good. I'd have your head examined were you to laugh THAT
hard
> > at one of MY zingers!
>
> Examine away then. Unfortunately (I guess), quite a few things you
say
> hit me as hilarious. :) :)
maybe unfortunately, maybe not. it would be fun to examine the whys
behind that. hilarity is a funny thing. I do write occasionally with
humour in mind. Maybe what I say works. or maybe something else I say
hits you that way.
> >It is a matter of opinion. Art seems to be the mirror of a
> > culture or the mirror of a person's viewpoint on a society or
> > dimension of society.
>
> Right. It's a "channel" of sorts. One person discovers or deduces
> something relevant to them, then offers it to others in the form of
his
> art. The rest is up to the artist's audience to agree of disagree,
> like or not like. How many like chords the artist is able to strike
in
> his audience says something about the society, one would assume.
and one might interpret what the something is that it says.
> > Maybe if people are "deluded" enough, art becomes the culture. ...
>
> Heaven FORBID!
yes. like gangster rap is an artist's statement on his innercity
experience, yet the suburbs get a listen to it and imitate the dress,
mannerisms, killings etc...
I don't have any answers. The question of art imitating life and life
imitating art has been around for eons. I propose we throw out the
idea of the which and the what in which imitates what, for the moment,
and focus on imitation. It might lead us somewhere where we can pick
up the pieces of which and what. It's a start at least.
> > > I detest some of the most famous works of art. But that's just
> > > me. Personal. And I realize that fact and make allowances for
> > > it. How can we really say any further than that it's our personal
> > > opinion about proven-to-be-popular art?
> >
> > or our personal opinion about any art, popular or unpopular
> > or, "that's not ART! that's total SHIT!!"
>
> Oh, AMEN! That's a "gut level" response, perhaps the truest one.
depends on how truest is defined I suppose. I'd hate to be burned at
the stake based on someone's gut level judgement of me. Well, I doubt
that I'd like to be burned in any case. Just my gut talking here.
mmm, maybe not. I've been burned. Also, an aquaintance died from
burns. Not pleasant.
> Guess the open-mindedness of the individual takes over after that; how
> willing the individual is to broaden their outlook by attempting to
> educate themselves re another's perspective.
I'm not sure how to take this. Education regarding awareness as
opposed to remaining ignorant? Learning about others' perspectives and
buying into them?
Sometimes the gut offers an insight or an intuition. Since we're
talking humans here, testing the offer might be well-advised.
For all the preachifying
> going on today concerning the merits of an egalitarian attitude, it's
> _not_ terribly in evidence, generally speaking.
maybe not. maybe the merit is in trying. reciprocity comes to mind.
I think some people strive together to "rise above the barbaric". It
seems to be taking a long time. The egalitarian ideal might work only
with political truths. Politics like so many things is out of my
league.
> > > That particular poem is one of the few of mine that's been
> > > published. However, never, at _any_ time, did it ever crossed my
> > > mind that everyone would care for it. Think that's what I find
most
> > > distressing about the attitudes I see expressed so often on these
> > > poetry newsgroups, it's as if the critic thinks their attitude is
> > > the _only_ viable attitude OTHERS should hold as well. The lack
of
> > > regard for the Truth exhibited by that mind-set totally escapes
> > > me. It depresses and angers me as well, since it seems to be
> > > echoed thoughout modern society, at least here in the States.
> >
> > The same may hold for some poets who write thinking that their
> > attitude is the only viable attitude others should hold as the
> > truth. As well as this is depressing or angering to some, I venture
> > this is scary and that it is such fear which ignites many emotions.
>
> True. Agree, agree! (See comment above.)
>
> Think that's what sets me off, in fact. Guess it's the poets... but
> it's the afficionados as well. The king may've been taken in, but the
> crowd went right along with him (The Emperor's New Clothes). A voice
> in a vacuum isn't a danger, because no one hears it.
a voice in a vacuum might also be dangerous because no one hears it.
> > > We're not ants. What's good or pleasant for one is _not_ good or
> > > pleasant for another. We're diverse, and that's our strength.
> > > Therefore, such a stance is so far away from the Truth as to be
> > > almost completely its opposite, in my opinion.
> > >
> > > You seem to value Truth. If that's so, then perhaps you
> > > understand. :)
> >
> > I don't as yet know "the truth". Everybody's perception seems to be
so
> > different. I do value understanding. Misunderstanding seems to be
> > such chaos.
>
> Just because Ultimate Truth escapes us, that doesn't mean that _all_
> Truth is a matter of opinion. There are some "Universal Truths". We
> tend to take them as so basic that we pay little or no attention to
> them, but they're still there.
I have heard of truth being classified as absolute truth, universal
truth, verbal truth, and other truths. I think this is what man has
to guide him so far. It's as though truth were clay ...
> > Yet art without a measure of predictability is quite attractive to
me.
> > It's (the art is) surprising. Uncontrollable. I think lust is a
good
> > word here. Or spontaneous.
>
> Much spontaneous art I find attractive, but at its heart there's
always
> a mirroring going on of something to which the art can be related,
> either externally, as to nature, or internally, as to emotion.
I don't know much about art. I flunked Western Humanities with a B as
an underclassman. That means I missed out on something like 20% which
was measured by open-book test analysis. Pretty pitiful if you ask
me. Add (or subtract as whatever the case may be) to that the fact
that my memory just aint so good. I'm probably an artistic idiot or
less severely -- undereducated. Nevertheless, I shall have to look
into this "spontaneous" art. The art I was talking about was what I
call "less predictable" where it is not uniform, the pattern is in its
whole or theme or something less linear rather than as a tesselation or
predictable repetition . It can be planned and take time to assemble.
Your sister might enjoy the aging Goya.
> Even a paint splat has circles and rays, chaotic modern art has colors
> that flow and blend or contrast sharply, words incite or soothe,
bounce
> the mind, or certify some mindset. All art touches if it reaches its
> audience, and in order for it to do that, it must've struck a common
> chord, a place the viewer could relate, no matter how abstractly.
I think that's why I like a less predictable art. My reality relates
to it. Here's a thought. Maybe I lack imagination. Maybe the truly
imaginative person finds more excitement in the predictable than the
less predictable. Ironically, the one piece of art I have hanging in
my living room is quite rigid. It repeats color, zizzags and shell-
like patterns. Yet, I relate to it. Rather it relates to me. It
provides me certainty and order except that I have stared at it for so
long that I think it no longer is predictable. It goes "white-brown-
brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-white-
brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-
white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown" Perhaps the piece was
cut short of an obvious repetition.
Sherrie
P.s. apologies for the long post. I'm beginning to be stymied over
where to cut and what to keep.
Pax
"Sherrie Lee" <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qejrb$j6s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8qb3ub$e0k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Sherri F White <pa...@whitesweb.com> wrote:
> > In article <8q6u2b$g8q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <8q1o9e$lkl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > Sherri F White <pa...@whitesweb.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <8q1cj9$9lc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Since you show an interest in Latin, and I infer from this an
> > > > > interest in language, I suggest that do a word study on Hell and
> > > > > God. I've been exposed to limited study, and it has broadened
> > > > > my perspective regarding religions.
> > > >
> > > > Have done such a study.
> > >
> > > kewl! and here's one of my 'to read' book wishes. "Vanishing
> > > Voices" by Nettle and Romaine (I think). I saw it today in a Seattle
> > > book store, but I haven't read it yet. May buy it soon. It's about
> > > extinct languages and supposed soon-to-be extinct languages and the
> > > effect of such extinctions on cultures etc ... An anthropological
> > > viewpoint, as I can gather.
> >
> > All cultures go extinct sooner or later, even if they keep their
> > native language.
>
> is there an extinct culture where which the native language is alive?
Could you tell me how alive the english-speaking cultures of prior centuries
are? How alive is even the culture that carried us into the 20th century?
In just the 20th century:
How about the culture of the 1910s and 1920s with World War I, Prohibition,
flappers, and Einstein's Relativity? The 1930s with the Great Depression
brought on by Black Thursday in 1929? The 1940s with World War II, rationing,
Rosie the Riveters (the end of the "classic" single bread-winner family), and
the Baby Boom? The 1950s with the Korean War, the advent of television, the
Cold War, and the Space Race? The 1960s with Viet Nam, hippies, protests
against anything and everything, the Great Society with its introduction of the
modern Welfare System, the drug culture, the first Moon Landing, Women's Lib?
Each generation has its own culture that dies with it, only the language
surviving. How much of the culture of the 1890s is alive? Nothing to speak of.
How much of the culture of the 1960s is alive? Less and less. They fought in
the name of freedom and peace, then set up the most oppressive government
America has ever known. When the spirit dies, the culture dies.
> how do evolution and extinction relate to language and culture?
> differ?
My opinion: A culture is marked by its mores. Everything that embodies a
culture, from its idioms to it art, is tied to its mores. Environment may
trigger mores, but the people of the culture decide how they, as a social
entity, will react to the environment.
http://www.dictionary.com/
"mores n : (sociology) the conventions that embody the fundamental values of a
group"
> how does a culture's language exist without the culture to
> keep it alive? who is speaking it? who understands it? is it the
> same language? how does a culture die without its language dying? I
> hadn't thought about this.
See above. Of course, you can always go back to the simple example of Latin.
> the concept of a language's effect on culture and a culture's effect on
> language is a new one for me. maybe a language survives based on its
> effectiveness, and a culture dies for the opposite reason. maybe the
> effectiveness of a language relates to how well it serves the current
> culture. does a language serve a culture? can a culture survive
> without its language?
Yes. Evidence the Jews. Many Jews completely lost their language (Hebrew, tied
to and taught through their religious writings which were lost or destroyed)
during the Diaspora, yet retained varying degrees of their "Jewishness". As
long as any of the culture survived, allowing them the knowledge of who they
were, the language could be regained. Now, if the language completely died out
with no traces left to aid in reconstruction...
> anyway, the point was to tout a book I hadn't read about cultures
> disappearing as their languages disappear. I haven't run into any
> books recently describing languages being kept by an extinct culture,
> but now you've got me interested.
Didn't say "languages being kept by an extinct culture", although my sloppy
wording could lead to that interpretation (if you insist on reading with the
goal of obfuscation). The "they" I was referring to was the society that came
after the extinct one that had used the language previously.
> > > I do not understand the concept of having faith without hope. Does
> > > hope leave room for doubt? If one feels hopeless, does this
> > > undermine one's faith? Perhaps faith is the absence of doubt
> > > therefore hope is unnessessary?? A faith in the hopelessness?
> >
> > "Faith is belief in things unseen." Her hopelessness is rooted in
> > Humanity, not Divinity. :)
>
> she's not totally hopeless. she holds hope rooted in something unseen
> as well as having faith in this same thing.
No. She is certain. Hope isn't certain, that's why it's "hope".
> I wonder how hope is being held. Is it the hope that the unseen thing
> is there? is it the hope that this unseen thing that's there for sure
> is harmless? is helpful? what? or is it that this unseen thing
> offers hope? then what? hope exists yet it's rejected on the basis of
> its relationship with humanity? or does this unseen thing offer no
> hope in relation to humanity?
Well _you_ just danced off into a side-track of your own design. :) Do I want
to dance with you on this one? Nope. Don't think so. :)
> > > > Typed: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!" then thought better of it,
> > > > and erased it. :)
> > >
> > > That's good. I'd have your head examined were you to laugh THAT
> > > hard at one of MY zingers!
> >
> > Examine away then. Unfortunately (I guess), quite a few things you
> > say hit me as hilarious. :) :)
>
> maybe unfortunately, maybe not. it would be fun to examine the whys
> behind that. hilarity is a funny thing. I do write occasionally with
> humour in mind. Maybe what I say works. or maybe something else I say
> hits you that way.
I think I just catch it right at times... primarily when you're being much more
friendly and much less catty. :)
> > >It is a matter of opinion. Art seems to be the mirror of a
> > > culture or the mirror of a person's viewpoint on a society or
> > > dimension of society.
> >
> > Right. It's a "channel" of sorts. One person discovers or deduces
> > something relevant to them, then offers it to others in the form of
> > his art. The rest is up to the artist's audience to agree of disagree,
> > like or not like. How many like chords the artist is able to strike
> > in his audience says something about the society, one would assume.
>
> and one might interpret what the something is that it says.
True.
> > > Maybe if people are "deluded" enough, art becomes the culture. ...
> >
> > Heaven FORBID!
>
> yes. like gangster rap is an artist's statement on his innercity
> experience, yet the suburbs get a listen to it and imitate the dress,
> mannerisms, killings etc...
Oh! Right! Good point.
> I don't have any answers. The question of art imitating life and life
> imitating art has been around for eons. I propose we throw out the
> idea of the which and the what in which imitates what, for the moment,
> and focus on imitation. It might lead us somewhere where we can pick
> up the pieces of which and what. It's a start at least.
Try to find the start of a circle? :)
> > > or our personal opinion about any art, popular or unpopular
> > > or, "that's not ART! that's total SHIT!!"
> >
> > Oh, AMEN! That's a "gut level" response, perhaps the truest one.
>
> depends on how truest is defined I suppose.
"truest" -- most natural and immediate before corrections of any type are
applied
> I'd hate to be burned at the stake based on someone's gut level
> judgement of me.
Then thank Providence you weren't a Southern black living 50 or more years ago,
or a European Jew during Hitler's "gut level" Holocaust.
> Well, I doubt that I'd like to be burned in any case. Just my gut
> talking here. mmm, maybe not. I've been burned. Also, an
> aquaintance died from burns. Not pleasant.
Well, that was unpredictable.
> > Guess the open-mindedness of the individual takes over after that; how
> > willing the individual is to broaden their outlook by attempting to
> > educate themselves re another's perspective.
>
> I'm not sure how to take this. Education regarding awareness as
> opposed to remaining ignorant? Learning about others' perspectives and
> buying into them?
Must you "buy into" something to understand it? As for art, there's very little
danger in being subverted if your intention is appreciation rather than
initiation. One need not be an acolyte to appreciate.
> Sometimes the gut offers an insight or an intuition. Since we're
> talking humans here, testing the offer might be well-advised.
What offer?
> > For all the preachifying going on today concerning the merits of an
> > egalitarian attitude, it's _not_ terribly in evidence, generally speaking.
>
> maybe not. maybe the merit is in trying. reciprocity comes to mind.
Point at some around these parts.
> I think some people strive together to "rise above the barbaric". It
> seems to be taking a long time. The egalitarian ideal might work only
> with political truths. Politics like so many things is out of my
> league.
The "egalitarian ideal" works least well in the political arena, if modern
politics are any standard. Politics is just like that politician from the 1930s
said (can't remember his name): Cats ruling a kingdom of mice. We have a choice
between this color cat or that color cat, how does that help a bunch of mice?
No matter which cats are voted in, the cats still dine and the mice still die.
> > Think that's what sets me off, in fact. Guess it's the poets... but
> > it's the afficionados as well. The king may've been taken in, but the
> > crowd went right along with him (The Emperor's New Clothes). A voice
> > in a vacuum isn't a danger, because no one hears it.
>
> a voice in a vacuum might also be dangerous because no one hears it.
True. But that's the people's choice, isn't it? Educated or totally ignorant
though it may be. Sometimes it's not a game.
> > Just because Ultimate Truth escapes us, that doesn't mean that _all_
> > Truth is a matter of opinion. There are some "Universal Truths". We
> > tend to take them as so basic that we pay little or no attention to
> > them, but they're still there.
>
> I have heard of truth being classified as absolute truth, universal
> truth, verbal truth, and other truths. I think this is what man has
> to guide him so far. It's as though truth were clay ...
Perhaps what you're really saying is understanding is clay.
> > > Yet art without a measure of predictability is quite attractive to
> > > me. It's (the art is) surprising. Uncontrollable. I think lust is a
> > > good word here. Or spontaneous.
> >
> > Much spontaneous art I find attractive, but at its heart there's
> > always a mirroring going on of something to which the art can be
> > related, either externally, as to nature, or internally, as to emotion.
>
> I don't know much about art. I flunked Western Humanities with a B as
> an underclassman. That means I missed out on something like 20% which
> was measured by open-book test analysis. Pretty pitiful if you ask
> me. Add (or subtract as whatever the case may be) to that the fact
> that my memory just aint so good. I'm probably an artistic idiot or
> less severely -- undereducated. Nevertheless, I shall have to look
> into this "spontaneous" art. The art I was talking about was what I
> call "less predictable" where it is not uniform, the pattern is in its
> whole or theme or something less linear rather than as a tessellation or
> predictable repetition. It can be planned and take time to assemble.
Okay.
> Your sister might enjoy the aging Goya.
She enjoys pretty much the same types of art I do.
> > Even a paint splat has circles and rays, chaotic modern art has colors
> > that flow and blend or contrast sharply, words incite or soothe,
> > bounce the mind, or certify some mindset. All art touches if it
> > reaches its audience, and in order for it to do that, it must've struck
> > a common chord, a place the viewer could relate, no matter how
> > abstractly.
>
> I think that's why I like a less predictable art. My reality relates
> to it. Here's a thought. Maybe I lack imagination. Maybe the truly
> imaginative person finds more excitement in the predictable than the
> less predictable.
Define "less predictable".
> Ironically, the one piece of art I have hanging in my living room is
> quite rigid. It repeats color, zizzags and shell-like patterns. Yet, I
> relate to it. Rather it relates to me. It provides me certainty and
> order except that I have stared at it for so long that I think it no
> longer is predictable. It goes "white-brown-brown-white-brown-
> brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-white-
> brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-brown-
> white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-
> white-brown" Perhaps the piece was cut short of an obvious
> repetition.
Catty remark:
Sounds like it should be named "Variations On A Muddy Theme". :) :)
> Sherrie
>
> P.s. apologies for the long post. I'm beginning to be stymied over
> where to cut and what to keep.
NP. Tried to cut it a bit. If I cut something you'd like further discussion
on, please reinclude it. :) :)
Sherrie Lee
"Pax" <pa...@whitesweb.com> wrote:
>
> "Sherrie Lee" <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8qejrb$j6s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Could you tell me how alive the english-speaking cultures of prior
centuries
> are? How alive is even the culture that carried us into the 20th
century?
I can neither tell you this nor tell you how alive the language is. I
have only the questions for the moment.
I like the word spirit. I think it can be traced back to mean breath.
> > how do evolution and extinction relate to language and culture?
> > differ?
>
> My opinion: A culture is marked by its mores. Everything that
embodies a
> culture, from its idioms to it art, is tied to its mores.
Environment may
> trigger mores, but the people of the culture decide how they, as a
social
> entity, will react to the environment.
>
> http://www.dictionary.com/
> "mores n : (sociology) the conventions that embody the fundamental
values of a
> group"
>
> > how does a culture's language exist without the culture to
> > keep it alive? who is speaking it? who understands it? is it the
> > same language? how does a culture die without its language dying?
I
> > hadn't thought about this.
>
> See above. Of course, you can always go back to the simple example
of Latin.
you have put some thought into this it appears.
> > the concept of a language's effect on culture and a culture's
effect on
> > language is a new one for me. maybe a language survives based on
its
> > effectiveness, and a culture dies for the opposite reason. maybe
the
> > effectiveness of a language relates to how well it serves the
current
> > culture. does a language serve a culture? can a culture survive
> > without its language?
>
> Yes. Evidence the Jews. Many Jews completely lost their language
(Hebrew, tied
> to and taught through their religious writings which were lost or
destroyed)
> during the Diaspora, yet retained varying degrees of
their "Jewishness". As
> long as any of the culture survived, allowing them the knowledge of
who they
> were, the language could be regained. Now, if the language
completely died out
> with no traces left to aid in reconstruction...
degrees of culture and subcultures might be applied to your 19th and
20th century examples. I'll have to study more.
> > anyway, the point was to tout a book I hadn't read about cultures
> > disappearing as their languages disappear. I haven't run into any
> > books recently describing languages being kept by an extinct
culture,
> > but now you've got me interested.
>
> Didn't say "languages being kept by an extinct culture", although my
sloppy
> wording could lead to that interpretation (if you insist on reading
with the
> goal of obfuscation). The "they" I was referring to was the society
that came
> after the extinct one that had used the language previously.
you are projecting. I was showing interest in such a concept. I want
to study it and see whether the/a language remains intact unchanged and
the culture totally dies out. I suspect evolution/morphology plays a
big role.
>
> > > > I do not understand the concept of having faith without hope.
Does
> > > > hope leave room for doubt? If one feels hopeless, does this
> > > > undermine one's faith? Perhaps faith is the absence of doubt
> > > > therefore hope is unnessessary?? A faith in the hopelessness?
> > >
> > > "Faith is belief in things unseen." Her hopelessness is rooted in
> > > Humanity, not Divinity. :)
> >
> > she's not totally hopeless. she holds hope rooted in something
unseen
> > as well as having faith in this same thing.
>
> No. She is certain. Hope isn't certain, that's why it's "hope".
that's what confuses me.
>
> > I wonder how hope is being held. Is it the hope that the unseen
thing
> > is there? is it the hope that this unseen thing that's there for
sure
> > is harmless? is helpful? what? or is it that this unseen thing
> > offers hope? then what? hope exists yet it's rejected on the
basis of
> > its relationship with humanity? or does this unseen thing offer no
> > hope in relation to humanity?
>
> Well _you_ just danced off into a side-track of your own design. :)
Do I want
> to dance with you on this one? Nope. Don't think so. :)
Just questions regarding what you say about your sister.
> > > > > Typed: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!" then thought better of it,
> > > > > and erased it. :)
> > > >
> > > > That's good. I'd have your head examined were you to laugh THAT
> > > > hard at one of MY zingers!
> > >
> > > Examine away then. Unfortunately (I guess), quite a few things
you
> > > say hit me as hilarious. :) :)
> >
> > maybe unfortunately, maybe not. it would be fun to examine the whys
> > behind that. hilarity is a funny thing. I do write occasionally
with
> > humour in mind. Maybe what I say works. or maybe something else I
say
> > hits you that way.
>
> I think I just catch it right at times... primarily when you're being
much more
> friendly and much less catty. :)
this sounds like a projection too unless you aren't applying your
comment to these posts. I have been known to cat with the cats. I
rarely if never make the first move. but regarding these posts, I have
genuine curiosity. if this is catty. so-be-it. it has been known to
kill it. and that's life.
exactly. i posit truth is that way.
the insight or intuition.
> > > For all the preachifying going on today concerning the merits of
an
> > > egalitarian attitude, it's _not_ terribly in evidence, generally
speaking.
> >
> > maybe not. maybe the merit is in trying. reciprocity comes to
mind.
>
> Point at some around these parts.
what's that dumb saying? "do not forsake the trees for the forest."
does that work here? I think there are people who give and take. You
have to look small. The grassroots are where things happen.
> > I think some people strive together to "rise above the barbaric".
It
> > seems to be taking a long time. The egalitarian ideal might work
only
> > with political truths. Politics like so many things is out of my
> > league.
>
> The "egalitarian ideal" works least well in the political arena, if
modern
> politics are any standard. Politics is just like that politician
from the 1930s
> said (can't remember his name): Cats ruling a kingdom of mice. We
have a choice
> between this color cat or that color cat, how does that help a bunch
of mice?
> No matter which cats are voted in, the cats still dine and the mice
still die.
Like I said, I'm weak in politics. toss the cat and elect a mouse.
it'll happen one day.
> > > Think that's what sets me off, in fact. Guess it's the poets...
but
> > > it's the afficionados as well. The king may've been taken in,
but the
> > > crowd went right along with him (The Emperor's New Clothes). A
voice
> > > in a vacuum isn't a danger, because no one hears it.
> >
> > a voice in a vacuum might also be dangerous because no one hears it.
>
> True. But that's the people's choice, isn't it? Educated or totally
ignorant
> though it may be. Sometimes it's not a game.
I don't know where game comes from. Perhaps it's never a game. and
maybe the people don't have a choice. there's a lot of floating
insanity out there. I'm sure /insanity/ can be ripped apart too.
Define insanity. and am I insane for my opinions? and are you insane
for your opinions? or are we simply going through a process of
evolution rather than having had evolved? do we nail the insane? or
are we the insane doing the nailing? maybe we're back to that circle.
> > > Just because Ultimate Truth escapes us, that doesn't mean that
_all_
> > > Truth is a matter of opinion. There are some "Universal
Truths". We
> > > tend to take them as so basic that we pay little or no attention
to
> > > them, but they're still there.
> >
> > I have heard of truth being classified as absolute truth, universal
> > truth, verbal truth, and other truths. I think this is what man has
> > to guide him so far. It's as though truth were clay ...
>
> Perhaps what you're really saying is understanding is clay.
no. I'm saying understanding is the sculpture. we cannot handle all
the clay. that might be truth. I don't know, though. I have my
fantasies about this which come as a first step or starting point.
less predictable as in less predictable than /1,2,3,4,5,6 ___ / what
comes next.
less symetrical that sorta thing.
> > Ironically, the one piece of art I have hanging in my living room is
> > quite rigid. It repeats color, zizzags and shell-like patterns.
Yet, I
> > relate to it. Rather it relates to me. It provides me certainty
and
> > order except that I have stared at it for so long that I think it no
> > longer is predictable. It goes "white-brown-brown-white-brown-
> > brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-white-
> > brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-brown-
> > white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-
> > white-brown" Perhaps the piece was cut short of an obvious
> > repetition.
>
> Catty remark:
> Sounds like it should be named "Variations On A Muddy Theme". :) :)
I don't know why you'd want to make such a remark and associate it with
being catty. I rather project that it is quite an insightful remark!
Did you know that my wall hanging was mud art? Do you have experience
with African mud art? Is that what gave you the idea to use the word
muddy?
If not, and you were being catty for whatever reason, becareful with
your witchy gift.
Sherrie
Sherri F White
Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <39cb2...@data.wt.net>,
> "Pax" <pa...@whitesweb.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Sherrie Lee" <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8qejrb$j6s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > Could you tell me how alive the english-speaking cultures of prior
> > centuries are? How alive is even the culture that carried us into
> > the 20th century?
>
> I can neither tell you this nor tell you how alive the language is. I
> have only the questions for the moment.
People tend to think past "culture" and "quaint" are synonymous.
Indians sitting on the side of the road in beads and braids selling
blankets, for instance, rather than the tribal leader in a business
suit, aware of Now, educated at university as well as his father's
knee, and dedicated to preserving his tribal autonomy and beliefs
(the "old ways"). Respect for the past... seeing the value the mores
(roots) of the past have when applied to the present and carried into
the future... is the only thing that keeps culture alive.
> > In just the 20th century:
> > How about the culture of the 1910s and 1920s with World War I,
> > Prohibition, flappers, and Einstein's Relativity? The 1930s with
> > the Great Depression brought on by Black Thursday in 1929? The
> > 1940s with World War II, rationing, Rosie the Riveters (the end of
> > the "classic" single bread-winner family), and the Baby Boom? The
> > 1950s with the Korean War, the advent of television, the Cold War,
> > and the Space Race? The 1960s with Viet Nam, hippies, protests
> > against anything and everything, the Great Society with its
> > introduction of the modern Welfare System, the drug culture, the
> > first Moon Landing, Women's Lib?
> >
> > Each generation has its own culture that dies with it, only the
> > language surviving. How much of the culture of the 1890s is
> > alive? Nothing to speak of. How much of the culture of the 1960s
> > is alive? Less and less. They fought in the name of freedom and
> > peace, then set up the most oppressive government America has ever
> > known. When the spirit dies, the culture dies.
>
> I like the word spirit. I think it can be traced back to mean breath.
Right. More exactly: "breath of life". :)
> > > how do evolution and extinction relate to language and culture?
> > > differ?
> >
> > My opinion: A culture is marked by its mores. Everything that
> > embodies a culture, from its idioms to its art, is tied to its
> > mores. Environment may trigger mores, but the people of the
> > culture decide how they, as a social entity, will react to the
> > environment.
> >
> > http://www.dictionary.com/
> > "mores n : (sociology) the conventions that embody the fundamental
> > values of a group"
> >
> > > how does a culture's language exist without the culture to
> > > keep it alive? who is speaking it? who understands it? is it
> > > the same language? how does a culture die without its language
> > > dying? I hadn't thought about this.
> >
> > See above. Of course, you can always go back to the simple example
> > of Latin.
>
> you have put some thought into this it appears.
Guess I have. People interest me. Why people think as they think, act
as they act. I'm totally flummoxed by the "intellectual" stance that
the values of the past have no worth in the present. Constantly, when
this subject is broached, my mind is filled with pictures of snapped
cables flapping free, unancored, writhing, unattached and therefore
primarily useless except for adding to the chaos of movement without
any real purpose.
The Bible speaks of a "souless generation". For so long the meaning of
that escaped me. It doesn't anymore. "Soul" is another word
for "spirit".
> > > the concept of a language's effect on culture and a culture's
> > > effect on language is a new one for me. maybe a language
> > > survives based on its effectiveness, and a culture dies for the
> > > opposite reason. maybe the effectiveness of a language relates
> > > to how well it serves the current culture. does a language serve
> > > a culture? can a culture survive without its language?
> >
> > Yes. Evidence the Jews. Many Jews completely lost their language
> > (Hebrew, tied to and taught through their religious writings which
> > were lost or destroyed) during the Diaspora, yet retained varying
> > degrees of their "Jewishness". As long as any of the culture
> > survived, allowing them the knowledge of who they were, the
> > language could be regained. Now, if the language completely died
> > out with no traces left to aid in reconstruction...
>
> degrees of culture and subcultures might be applied to your 19th and
> 20th century examples. I'll have to study more.
Good. :)
> > > anyway, the point was to tout a book I hadn't read about cultures
> > > disappearing as their languages disappear. I haven't run into any
> > > books recently describing languages being kept by an extinct
> > > culture, but now you've got me interested.
> >
> > Didn't say "languages being kept by an extinct culture", although my
> > sloppy wording could lead to that interpretation (if you insist on
> > reading with the goal of obfuscation). The "they" I was referring
> > to was the society that came after the extinct one that had used
> > the language previously.
>
> you are projecting.
If that's so, I'm happy. :)
> I was showing interest in such a concept. I want to study it and see
> whether the/a language remains intact unchanged and the culture
> totally dies out. I suspect evolution/morphology plays a big role.
It all goes back to "truth".
> > > > > I do not understand the concept of having faith without hope.
> > > > > Does hope leave room for doubt? If one feels hopeless, does
> > > > > this undermine one's faith? Perhaps faith is the absence of
> > > > > doubt therefore hope is unnessessary?? A faith in the
> > > > > hopelessness?
> > > >
> > > > "Faith is belief in things unseen." Her hopelessness is rooted
> > > > in Humanity, not Divinity. :)
> > >
> > > she's not totally hopeless. she holds hope rooted in something
> > > unseen as well as having faith in this same thing.
> >
> > No. She is certain. Hope isn't certain, that's why it's "hope".
>
> that's what confuses me.
In what way?
> > > I wonder how hope is being held. Is it the hope that the unseen
> > > thing is there? is it the hope that this unseen thing that's
> > > there for sure is harmless? is helpful? what? or is it that
> > > this unseen thing offers hope? then what? hope exists yet it's
> > > rejected on the basis of its relationship with humanity? or does
> > > this unseen thing offer no hope in relation to humanity?
> >
> > Well _you_ just danced off into a side-track of your own design. :)
> > Do I want to dance with you on this one? Nope. Don't think so. :)
>
> Just questions regarding what you say about your sister.
They were only sparked by what I said, they weren't about what I
actually said. They're your questions, and only you can answer them
for yourself. Don't think my answers would mean anything to you.
Besides, I have a tendency not to argue Faith.
> > > > > > Typed: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!" then thought better of it,
> > > > > > and erased it. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > That's good. I'd have your head examined were you to laugh
> > > > > THAT hard at one of MY zingers!
> > > >
> > > > Examine away then. Unfortunately (I guess), quite a few things
> > > > you say hit me as hilarious. :) :)
> > >
> > > maybe unfortunately, maybe not. it would be fun to examine the
> > > whys behind that. hilarity is a funny thing. I do write
> > > occasionally with humour in mind. Maybe what I say works. or
> > > maybe something else I say hits you that way.
> >
> > I think I just catch it right at times... primarily when you're
> > being much more friendly and much less catty. :)
>
> this sounds like a projection too unless you aren't applying your
> comment to these posts. I have been known to cat with the cats. I
> rarely if never make the first move.
Perhaps it's your tendency toward brutal honesty with your opinions at
times. One of my best friends is like that. Took a while to learn
her. :) Hard without body language to accompany.
> but regarding these posts, I have genuine curiosity. if this is
> catty. so-be-it. it has been known to kill it. and that's life.
I stand corrected and apologize for my misconception.
> > > > >It is a matter of opinion. Art seems to be the mirror of a
> > > > > culture or the mirror of a person's viewpoint on a society or
> > > > > dimension of society.
> > > >
> > > > Right. It's a "channel" of sorts. One person discovers or
> > > > deduces something relevant to them, then offers it to others in
> > > > the form of his art. The rest is up to the artist's audience
> > > > to agree of disagree, like or not like. How many like chords
> > > > the artist is able to strike in his audience says something
> > > > about the society, one would assume.
> > >
> > > and one might interpret what the something is that it says.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > > I don't have any answers. The question of art imitating life and
> > > life imitating art has been around for eons. I propose we throw
> > > out the idea of the which and the what in which imitates what,
> > > for the moment, and focus on imitation. It might lead us
> > > somewhere where we can pick up the pieces of which and what.
> > > It's a start at least.
> >
> > Try to find the start of a circle? :)
>
> exactly. i posit truth is that way.
Why?
> > > > > or our personal opinion about any art, popular or unpopular
> > > > > or, "that's not ART! that's total SHIT!!"
> > > >
> > > > Oh, AMEN! That's a "gut level" response, perhaps the truest
> > > > one.
> > >
> > > depends on how truest is defined I suppose.
> >
> > "truest" -- most natural and immediate before corrections of any
> > type are applied
> >
> > > > Guess the open-mindedness of the individual takes over after
> > > > that; how willing the individual is to broaden their outlook by
> > > > attempting to educate themselves re another's perspective.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure how to take this. Education regarding awareness as
> > > opposed to remaining ignorant? Learning about others'
> > > perspectives and buying into them?
> >
> > Must you "buy into" something to understand it? As for art, there's
> > very little danger in being subverted if your intention is
> > appreciation rather than initiation. One need not be an acolyte to
> > appreciate.
> >
> > > Sometimes the gut offers an insight or an intuition. Since we're
> > > talking humans here, testing the offer might be well-advised.
> >
> > What offer?
>
> the insight or intuition.
Got lost again. :) Then you were talking about the need for those
subsequent corrections being applied after the "truest response" I
spoke of earlier. I agree.
If people understood how much "gut level" applies to territoriality and
other basic survival instincts that are really not applicable today as
more than vestigial drives (appendix reactions with no use anywhere and
a lot of harm resulting), perhaps it would help. To know they're being
driven by the same instincts that drive an ant or a roach, even a
bacteria, might cause some to rethink their stance.
Used-to-was like-for-like was the most certain way to insure survival
of the species. It denoted a preponderance of common genes and,
therefore, offered any offspring the best chance for survival in the
native environment. Stil does, down the evolutionary scale. No, guess
that's not the right term, since bacteria and virus are _much_ more
evolutionarily advanced than are we, kind-for-kind considered.
> > > > For all the preachifying going on today concerning the merits of
> > > > an egalitarian attitude, it's _not_ terribly in evidence,
> > > > generally speaking.
> > >
> > > maybe not. maybe the merit is in trying. reciprocity comes to
> > > mind.
> >
> > Point at some around these parts.
>
> what's that dumb saying? "do not forsake the trees for the forest."
>
> does that work here? I think there are people who give and take. You
> have to look small. The grassroots are where things happen.
Very true. :) Was being more specific to the subject of this NG in my
comment. :)
> > > I think some people strive together to "rise above the barbaric".
> > > It seems to be taking a long time. The egalitarian ideal might
> > > work only with political truths. Politics like so many things is
> > > out of my league.
> >
> > The "egalitarian ideal" works least well in the political arena, if
> > modern politics are any standard. Politics is just like that
> > politician from the 1930s said (can't remember his name): Cats
> > ruling a kingdom of mice. We have a choice between this color cat
> > or that color cat, how does that help a bunch of mice? No matter
> > which cats are voted in, the cats still dine and the mice still die.
>
> Like I said, I'm weak in politics. toss the cat and elect a mouse.
> it'll happen one day.
That speech was made in the 1930s concerning "politics as usual" back
then. Still applies. What you suggest hasn't happened yet.
> > > > Think that's what sets me off, in fact. Guess it's the poets...
> > > > but it's the afficionados as well. The king may've been taken
> > > > in, but the crowd went right along with him (The Emperor's New
> > > > Clothes). A voice in a vacuum isn't a danger, because no one
> > > > hears it.
> > >
> > > a voice in a vacuum might also be dangerous because no one hears
> > > it.
> >
> > True. But that's the people's choice, isn't it? Educated or
> > totally ignorant though it may be. Sometimes it's not a game.
>
> I don't know where game comes from. Perhaps it's never a game. and
> maybe the people don't have a choice.
People get too caught up in chic. Many times the most critical things
are very _NOT_ chic, macho, with-it, cool... whatever.
People always have a choice. Perhaps it's not between any options
they'd enjoy choosing, but the choice is still there.
> there's a lot of floating insanity out there. I'm sure /insanity/
> can be ripped apart too. Define insanity.
"Crazy" according to that Higher Authority known as THEY? :) :) My
personal definition of insanity: Thoughts and/or actions that
promulgate the death (on some level) of the individual and/or the
society. Insanity is death-affirming rather than life-affirming.
> and am I insane for my opinions? and are you insane for your
> opinions?
By someone's standards. :) :)
> or are we simply going through a process of evolution rather than
> having had evolved? do we nail the insane? or are we the insane
> doing the nailing? maybe we're back to that circle.
At some level what carries us on into the future must be considered.
If we don't survive due to actions we've taken as a result of popular
mindset, from a personal level on up to the societal, we did something
very insane somewhere along the way.
> > > > Just because Ultimate Truth escapes us, that doesn't mean that
> > > > _all_ Truth is a matter of opinion. There are some "Universal
> > > > Truths". We tend to take them as so basic that we pay little
> > > > or no attention to them, but they're still there.
> > >
> > > I have heard of truth being classified as absolute truth,
> > > universal truth, verbal truth, and other truths. I think this is
> > > what man has to guide him so far. It's as though truth were
> > > clay ...
> >
> > Perhaps what you're really saying is understanding is clay.
>
> no. I'm saying understanding is the sculpture. we cannot handle all
> the clay. that might be truth. I don't know, though. I have my
> fantasies about this which come as a first step or starting point.
Intersting observation that rings true to me. :)
> less predictable as in less predictable than /1,2,3,4,5,6,___/ what
> comes next.
21,23,25,27,29,31,156,159,162,165,168,171,981,985,989,993,...?
> less symetrical that sorta thing.
1,2,3,10,15,20,4,5,6,9,14,19,7,8,9,8,13,18,10,11,12,7,12,17,...?
> > > Ironically, the one piece of art I have hanging in my living room
> > > is quite rigid. It repeats color, zizzags and shell-like
> > > patterns. Yet, I relate to it. Rather it relates to me. It
> > > provides me certainty and order except that I have stared at it
> > > for so long that I think it no longer is predictable. It
> > > goes "white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-
> > > brown-brown-white-white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown-
> > > brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-
> > > white-brown" Perhaps the piece was cut short of an obvious
> > > repetition.
> >
> > Catty remark:
> > Sounds like it should be named "Variations On A Muddy Theme". :) :)
>
> I don't know why you'd want to make such a remark and associate it
> with being catty.
Merely a loose, "Southern" definition of "catty". Was teasing,
actually. :) :) Don't do catty well either, I'm a failure as a
true "Suhthun Bell".
> I rather project that it is quite an insightful remark!
>
> Did you know that my wall hanging was mud art? Do you have experience
> with African mud art? Is that what gave you the idea to use the word
> muddy?
No, it was the preponderance of browns.
> If not, and you were being catty for whatever reason, be careful with
> your witchy gift.
>
> Sherrie
DO-do-Do-do...DO-do-Do-do...DO-do-Do-do...DO-do-Do-do...DO-do-Do-do...
Grab the chicken feet and get ready for Santeria, Maria.
Well, THAT was fun! :) :) Even a stopped clock is right twice a day,
as they say. :) :)
Be well - Pax
o~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~o
As Pogo said: "We has met thu enuhmy 'n' he is US!"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sherrie Lee
> Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <39cb2...@data.wt.net>,
> > "Pax" <pa...@whitesweb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Sherrie Lee" <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8qejrb$j6s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > > Could you tell me how alive the english-speaking cultures of prior
> > > centuries are? How alive is even the culture that carried us into
> > > the 20th century?
> >
> > I can neither tell you this nor tell you how alive the language
is. I
> > have only the questions for the moment.
>
> People tend to think past "culture" and "quaint" are synonymous.
> Indians sitting on the side of the road in beads and braids selling
> blankets, for instance, rather than the tribal leader in a business
> suit, aware of Now, educated at university as well as his father's
> knee, and dedicated to preserving his tribal autonomy and beliefs
> (the "old ways"). Respect for the past... seeing the value the mores
> (roots) of the past have when applied to the present and carried into
> the future... is the only thing that keeps culture alive.
yes, and I suspect that the language is not the same. I suspect the
language has been tainted and is not the original. Ex. An aquaintance
speaks Spanish and broken english. her daughter and son, schooled in
the US, speak Spanglish she tells me. that's where every other word is
Spanish and every other word is English. She often slips into a degree
of this herself when she talks to another Spanish speaking friend. She
asked me if I had noticed, and said it happens when the English word
comes to mind faster than the Spanish word.
We are talking mostly words here and less grammar, but I also suspect
grammar is affected.
> > > In just the 20th century:
> > > How about the culture of the 1910s and 1920s with World War I,
> > > Prohibition, flappers, and Einstein's Relativity? The 1930s with
> > > the Great Depression brought on by Black Thursday in 1929? The
> > > 1940s with World War II, rationing, Rosie the Riveters (the end of
> > > the "classic" single bread-winner family), and the Baby Boom? The
> > > 1950s with the Korean War, the advent of television, the Cold War,
> > > and the Space Race? The 1960s with Viet Nam, hippies, protests
> > > against anything and everything, the Great Society with its
> > > introduction of the modern Welfare System, the drug culture, the
> > > first Moon Landing, Women's Lib?
> > >
> > > Each generation has its own culture that dies with it, only the
> > > language surviving. How much of the culture of the 1890s is
> > > alive? Nothing to speak of. How much of the culture of the 1960s
> > > is alive? Less and less. They fought in the name of freedom and
> > > peace, then set up the most oppressive government America has ever
> > > known. When the spirit dies, the culture dies.
> >
> > I like the word spirit. I think it can be traced back to mean
breath.
>
> Right. More exactly: "breath of life". :
/spire/ respirate. aspirate. aspire. inspire. etc... /spirit/.
values, mores, all that are nature's way of ensuring survival of the
pack. then there's the concept of a leader of the pack. the pack's
instinct works this way. there cannot be two leaders. when there are
two the rule is to oust one of them. the one ousted is the one who
becomes like the snapped cable. the lone wolf so-to-speak.
tribes practice this ostracisation (ick! sp??). there is a fear of
losing one's pack and a fear of change. this is instinctual.
a "successful" leader uses this fear to /control/ his followers. his
followers may not even buy into his ideas, but fear of solitude is so
engrained in their chemical makeup that they are unable to stand up
against him. It takes another leader to change the rules of the pack.
it is risky to the individual, but it may be worth the risk to ensure
the future survival of the species.
site the Holocaust etc ...
> The Bible speaks of a "souless generation". For so long the meaning
of
> that escaped me. It doesn't anymore. "Soul" is another word
> for "spirit".
What Bible? There are so many. I think the meaning becomes more clear
when there is more of an understanding of derivatives.
you say her hopelessness isn't rooted in her faith.
> > > > I wonder how hope is being held. Is it the hope that the unseen
> > > > thing is there? is it the hope that this unseen thing that's
> > > > there for sure is harmless? is helpful? what? or is it that
> > > > this unseen thing offers hope? then what? hope exists yet it's
> > > > rejected on the basis of its relationship with humanity? or
does
> > > > this unseen thing offer no hope in relation to humanity?
> > >
> > > Well _you_ just danced off into a side-track of your own
design. :)
> > > Do I want to dance with you on this one? Nope. Don't think
so. :)
> >
> > Just questions regarding what you say about your sister.
>
> They were only sparked by what I said, they weren't about what I
> actually said. They're your questions, and only you can answer them
> for yourself. Don't think my answers would mean anything to you.
> Besides, I have a tendency not to argue Faith.
That's the interesting thing about faith I find dangerous. I find many
religions use the pack mentality and elicit fear by demanding that its
leaders not be questioned. There is a fear associated with questions
(threat of breaking up the pack) thus questioning its leader is
abhorred. Some religions use this hellfire and brimstone technique to
subdue their followers into a blind faith mentality. Powers of
reasoning become controlled by the rule "do not question". The ones
who hear voices, like the voice of God, are especially powerful and use
it to control those who operate on a level of fearing punishment. it's
not so much what is the truth. it's fear of pain and suffering. maybe
that's why the bdsm people are feared and looked at by society as "out
there". they go against the pain and suffering fear. they
are "evil". i don't think they can be controlled by the idea of
punishment in hell. they probably look at that as heaven.
We'd still be burning "witches" and those who questioned the christian
sadists were it not for the questioners becoming leaders.
I think our questions are our reasoning. "In the beginning there
was /Logos/". I think the greek word logos means Logic or reason. I
interpret this to mean that it is good to ask questions. And Jesus
himself questioned it would appear if you can go by the account of
those who documented his accounts a hundred or so years later based on
interpretations and the like. Jesus revolutionized the Hebrew faith.
busted the tribe or the pack, so-to-speak. and he didn't really want
it to happen that way, but, as you can imagine, some other leader got
in there and herded the sheep with his own staff and so on.
> > > > > > > Typed: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!" then thought better of it,
> > > > > > > and erased it. :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's good. I'd have your head examined were you to laugh
> > > > > > THAT hard at one of MY zingers!
> > > > >
> > > > > Examine away then. Unfortunately (I guess), quite a few
things
> > > > > you say hit me as hilarious. :) :)
> > > >
> > > > maybe unfortunately, maybe not. it would be fun to examine the
> > > > whys behind that. hilarity is a funny thing. I do write
> > > > occasionally with humour in mind. Maybe what I say works. or
> > > > maybe something else I say hits you that way.
> > >
> > > I think I just catch it right at times... primarily when you're
> > > being much more friendly and much less catty. :)
> >
> > this sounds like a projection too unless you aren't applying your
> > comment to these posts. I have been known to cat with the cats. I
> > rarely if never make the first move.
>
> Perhaps it's your tendency toward brutal honesty with your opinions at
> times. One of my best friends is like that. Took a while to learn
> her. :) Hard without body language to accompany.
body language can support a more accurate interpretation. then again,
body language simply adds dimension. I have a horrible tic that makes
me look as though I'm grinning at people. people get very self-
conscious due to their own insecurities i think. (partially kidding
about the tic, but can you imagine? I knew someone whose eyes twitched
and squinted ...)
you start somewhere, hopefully, with some good sense about the starting
point. or you pick a random point. in the case of which came first,
the chicken or the egg, it might be best to start here and go
backwards. but we just never may know the end of the beginning. this
sounds cute, yet you might get a kick out of applying it to alpha and
omega.
Survival instincts are not all vestigial. We are pack animals,
therefore, we retain the survival instincts of keeping the pack intact.
> Used-to-was like-for-like was the most certain way to insure survival
> of the species. It denoted a preponderance of common genes and,
> therefore, offered any offspring the best chance for survival in the
> native environment. Stil does, down the evolutionary scale. No,
guess
> that's not the right term, since bacteria and virus are _much_ more
> evolutionarily advanced than are we, kind-for-kind considered.
viruses have a way of killing their hosts sometimes thereby killing
themselves (not being a virologist, I assume). I extrapolate (?) that
man is doing just fine on the viral evolutionary scale where the
earth's environment is his host. ex. chernobyl
It hasn't happened again.
> > > > > Think that's what sets me off, in fact. Guess it's the
poets...
> > > > > but it's the afficionados as well. The king may've been taken
> > > > > in, but the crowd went right along with him (The Emperor's New
> > > > > Clothes). A voice in a vacuum isn't a danger, because no one
> > > > > hears it.
> > > >
> > > > a voice in a vacuum might also be dangerous because no one hears
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > True. But that's the people's choice, isn't it? Educated or
> > > totally ignorant though it may be. Sometimes it's not a game.
> >
> > I don't know where game comes from. Perhaps it's never a game. and
> > maybe the people don't have a choice.
>
> People get too caught up in chic. Many times the most critical things
> are very _NOT_ chic, macho, with-it, cool... whatever.
>
> People always have a choice. Perhaps it's not between any options
> they'd enjoy choosing, but the choice is still there.
one has no choice but to die no matter how much one wishes to live.
death is not an option.
why I'll be. good watson. good.
> > If not, and you were being catty for whatever reason, be careful
with
> > your witchy gift.
> >
>
> DO-do-Do-do...DO-do-Do-do...DO-do-Do-do...DO-do-Do-do...DO-do-Do-do...
one of my favorite tunes! take me aback! this was a muddy good time,
rod ...
Sherrie
Sherri F White
"Sherrie Lee" <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qhfpv$t0m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8qgg2i$pmq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Sherri F White <pa...@whitesweb.com> wrote:
> > In article <8qfqtv$uml$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Sherrie Lee <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <39cb2...@data.wt.net>,
> > > "Pax" <pa...@whitesweb.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Sherrie Lee" <sherr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8qejrb$j6s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> > > > Could you tell me how alive the english-speaking cultures of
> > > > prior centuries are? How alive is even the culture that
> > > > carried us into the 20th century?
> > >
> > > I can neither tell you this nor tell you how alive the language
> > > is. I have only the questions for the moment.
> >
> > People tend to think past "culture" and "quaint" are synonymous.
> > Indians sitting on the side of the road in beads and braids selling
> > blankets, for instance, rather than the tribal leader in a business
> > suit, aware of Now, educated at university as well as his father's
> > knee, and dedicated to preserving his tribal autonomy and beliefs
> > (the "old ways"). Respect for the past... seeing the value the
> > mores (roots) of the past have when applied to the present and
> > carried into the future... is the only thing that keeps culture
> > alive.
>
> yes, and I suspect that the language is not the same. I suspect the
> language has been tainted and is not the original. Ex. An
> acquaintance speaks Spanish and broken english. her daughter and
> son, schooled in the US, speak Spanglish she tells me. that's where
> every other word is Spanish and every other word is English. She
> often slips into a degree of this herself when she talks to another
> Spanish speaking friend. She asked me if I had noticed, and said it
> happens when the English word comes to mind faster than the Spanish
> word.
In any event, it's very doubtful Spanish is actually her native
language (unless she's actually from Spain). Most Mexicans are
Amerindians who speak the adopted language of their conquerors, the
Spanish. Some have Spanish blood, but usually it's very weak.
In case you think I'm speaking through my hat, I'm a Texacan, we tend
to learn things about the Mexicans as a result of our close and
constant interaction with them. An admirable people, in spite of their
lousy government. I'm the oldest of five, both my brothers and one
sister have married Mexicans.
> We are talking mostly words here and less grammar, but I also suspect
> grammar is affected.
Logical deduction. Seems to me grammar is the most malleable part of
(at least) the English language.
> > > I like the word spirit. I think it can be traced back to mean
> > > breath.
> >
> > Right. More exactly: "breath of life". :
>
> /spire/ respirate. aspirate. aspire. inspire. etc... /spirit/.
Below is the way I was using the word. By the way, when I give such a
definition, it's only to clarify my use of the term within discussion,
and _in_no_way_ indicates I think you don't understand the term. (Felt
as if you've gotten that idea from me a couple of times, and I never
meant any such thing. I find you extremely intelligent and
interesting.)
From:
http://www.dictionary.com/
spirit \Spir"it\, n.
[OF. espirit, esperit, F. esprit, L. spiritus, from spirare to breathe,
to blow. Cf. Conspire, Expire, Esprit, Sprite.]
1. Air set in motion by breathing; breath; hence, sometimes, life
itself.
2. N/A
3. Life, or living substance, considered independently of corporeal
existence; an intelligence conceived of apart from any physical
organization or embodiment; vital essence, force, or energy, as
distinct from matter.
4. The intelligent, immaterial and immortal part of man; the soul, in
distinction from the body in which it resides; the agent or subject of
vital and spiritual functions, whether spiritual or material.
> > > > > how do evolution and extinction relate to language and
> > > > > culture? differ?
> > > >
> > > > My opinion: A culture is marked by its mores. Everything that
> > > > embodies a culture, from its idioms to its art, is tied to its
> > > > mores. Environment may trigger mores, but the people of the
> > > > culture decide how they, as a social entity, will react to the
> > > > environment.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dictionary.com/
> > > > "mores n : (sociology) the conventions that embody the
> > > > fundamental values of a group"
> > > >
> > > > > how does a culture's language exist without the culture to
> > > > > keep it alive? who is speaking it? who understands it? is
> > > > > it the same language? how does a culture die without its
> > > > > language dying? I hadn't thought about this.
> > > >
> > > > See above. Of course, you can always go back to the simple
> > > > example of Latin.
> > >
> > > you have put some thought into this it appears.
> >
> > Guess I have. People interest me. Why people think as they think,
> > act as they act. I'm totally flummoxed by the "intellectual"
> > stance that the values of the past have no worth in the present.
> > Constantly, when this subject is broached, my mind is filled with
> > pictures of snapped cables flapping free, unanchored, writhing,
> > unattached and therefore primarily useless except for adding to the
> > chaos of movement without any real purpose.
>
> values, mores, all that are nature's way of ensuring survival of the
> pack. then there's the concept of a leader of the pack. the pack's
> instinct works this way. there cannot be two leaders. when there are
> two the rule is to oust one of them. the one ousted is the one who
> becomes like the snapped cable. the lone wolf so-to-speak.
Was talking in a more all-pervasive sense. Much that exemplifies
modern society strikes me as occurring spontaneously, rather like "The
Wave" at a sporting event; more-or-less a common reaction to an
immediate, extraneous stimulus, grounded in nothing more concrete than
the Now. Unstudied. Consequences not considered. Egocentric. Amoral.
> tribes practice this ostracism. there is a fear of losing one's pack
> and a fear of change. this is instinctual.
What I see is more a fear _NOT_ to change. A fear of being considered
the same as some former group and, therefore, not being "unique".
Extremely childish mindset. My generation (1960s) set a lot of that in
motion... "Don't trust anyone over 30." I thought it was stupid back
then, and my opinion hasn't changed.
> a "successful" leader uses this fear to /control/ his followers. his
> followers may not even buy into his ideas, but fear of solitude is so
> ingrained in their chemical makeup that they are unable to stand up
> against him. It takes another leader to change the rules of the pack.
> it is risky to the individual, but it may be worth the risk to ensure
> the future survival of the species.
>
> cite the Holocaust etc ...
You talk as if "survival of the species" was in evidence as a common
goal these days. Wish I could agree with you, but I can't. I see very
little indication there's much thought about the future, much less
survival into it, at least not in America. More and more people seem
to be in love with Death. When a person's in love with something, they
usually court it and eventually win it.
I know... jaded. Can't help it. Sorry. See it as a product of our
_very_ UNfree society. Rules, rules, RULES! Everywhere you look,
everywhere you step. No personal responsibility required. No
direction of conscience, no policing yourself. Just turn off your mind
and do as you're told.
Of course, people can't turn off their minds, so they rebel. But,
since they've been treated as children, they rebel as children would
rebel. Thoughtlessly, many times to their own destruction. ("If it
feels good and you can get away with it, DO IT!") Their main goal is
to be FREE! To make their OWN decisions for a change. To spit on the
sidewalk if they want to. To drive without a seatbelt. To be free to
choose on their own to go to Hell in a handbasket or stick around and
help build the future.
I'm really not an anarchist, but, DAMN! What we have today isn't the
answer to anarchy. No one needs the Thought Police. The answer is
education, not another ten-thousand new laws enacted.
For instance:
The government didn't teach me to love the environment, nature did that
all on her own. Learning what was happening to the environment alerted
me to the dangers it's facing. That's what fostered my commitment.
The government acts as if it's governing a nation of imbeciles. Treat
people like they're stupid and they're not likely to give a damn about
whatEVER the government tells them is important, because they don't
give a damn about the government, they just want it out of their faces.
It's all psychology. I've watched a lot of history go by. It looks
like it's all so very _planned_! Basic "divide and conquer" at work.
Working toward Haves, Have Nots, and a really huge prison population.
70% of Texas youth has some sort of criminal record. Permanently
scarred for being kids, not for doing anything heinous. Permanent
underclass. Unable to get decent jobs, unable to vote, unable to ever
be anything but "throw-aways".
Perfect reason for a Police State. "Such a bad CRIME problem, you
know. HAVE to, you know. For you own GOOD, you know. Just here to
HELP, you know." Oh, THANK YOU, Big Brother, whatever would we have
done without you?
> > The Bible speaks of a "soulless generation". For so long the
> > meaning of that escaped me. It doesn't anymore. "Soul" is another
> > word for "spirit".
>
> What Bible? There are so many. I think the meaning becomes more
> clear when there is more of an understanding of derivatives.
Don't "feign", it's unbecoming. :) The word "bible", in the broadest
sense, means something like "ultimate instruction manual" but, if
you're English-speaking, you know the capitalized use of the word
without any other descriptive words accompanying it denotes the Judeo-
Christian Bible.
I'm Christian, and have studied The Bible extensively. Is that the
stand you were looking for? :)
"understanding of derivatives." Clarify your direction please?
> > > > > > > I do not understand the concept of having faith without
> > > > > > > hope. Does hope leave room for doubt? If one feels
> > > > > > > hopeless, does this undermine one's faith? Perhaps faith
> > > > > > > is the absence of doubt therefore hope is unnecessary?? A
> > > > > > > faith in the hopelessness?
Most of these are very good questions, are they meant to be rhetorical?
> > > > > > "Faith is belief in things unseen." Her hopelessness is
> > > > > > rooted in Humanity, not Divinity. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > she's not totally hopeless. she holds hope rooted in
> > > > > something unseen as well as having faith in this same thing.
> > > >
> > > > No. She is certain. Hope isn't certain, that's why
> > > > it's "hope".
> > >
> > > that's what confuses me.
> >
> > In what way?
>
> you say her hopelessness isn't rooted in her faith.
Right. Why would it be? Faith is a cure for hopelessness... at least
if your hopelessness is rooted in your dealings with humanity. Man's
inhumanity to Man can be very disheartening. At times you feel no one
really cares about anything that's important to you unless the very
same problem happens to walk into their house and sit down in their
laps. That's poor criteria for caring, and not easily satisfied.
> > > > > I wonder how hope is being held. Is it the hope that the
> > > > > unseen thing is there? is it the hope that this unseen thing
> > > > > that's there for sure is harmless? is helpful? what? or is
> > > > > it that this unseen thing offers hope? then what? hope
> > > > > exists yet it's rejected on the basis of its relationship
> > > > > with humanity? or does this unseen thing offer no hope in
> > > > > relation to humanity?
These are very good questions, by the way. :) :) What are your answers?
> > > > Well _you_ just danced off into a side-track of your own
> > > > design. :) Do I want to dance with you on this one? Nope.
> > > > Don't think so. :)
> > >
> > > Just questions regarding what you say about your sister.
> >
> > They were only sparked by what I said, they weren't about what I
> > actually said. They're your questions, and only you can answer them
> > for yourself. Don't think my answers would mean anything to you.
> > Besides, I have a tendency not to argue Faith.
>
> That's the interesting thing about faith I find dangerous. I find
> many religions use the pack mentality and elicit fear by demanding
> that its leaders not be questioned. There is a fear associated with
> questions (threat of breaking up the pack) thus questioning its
> leader is abhorred. Some religions use this hellfire and brimstone
> technique to subdue their followers into a blind faith mentality.
> Powers of reasoning become controlled by the rule "do not question".
You must not be talking about Christianity. Christians constantly
catch flak about "forcing" their beliefs on others, that's why I
usually steer clear of any such actions. I'm sure you've heard
of "apologetics", it's _only_ concerned with "defending the Faith"
against "nonbelievers"; the very process of apologetics is one of
answering in depth, specific questions about and charges against one's
Faith. Apologetics addresses the hardest issues and tries to answer
them.
If you want an "in-depth" on this subject, I'll be glad to oblige you,
of course.
> The ones who hear voices, like the voice of God, are especially
> powerful and use it to control those who operate on a level of
> fearing punishment.
Where do you get your information? Which Faith are you talking about?
> it's not so much what is the truth. it's fear of pain and suffering.
> maybe that's why the bdsm people are feared and looked at by
> society as "out there". they go against the pain and suffering fear.
> they are "evil". i don't think they can be controlled by the idea of
> punishment in hell. they probably look at that as heaven.
Who/what is "bdsm"? Don't catch the reference, could you clarify?
OH! Did a Web search... "bondage/sado-masochism"? So, you think those
into bdsm are incapable of suffering? hmmm. Okay.
Do you think Hell is eternal? Perhaps the most quoted verse of The
Bible, John 3:16, says quite differently, as does Revelation 20:14-15.
> We'd still be burning "witches" and those who questioned the
> christian sadists were it not for the questioners becoming leaders.
They weren't "christian sadists", they were just sadists; better said,
they were powermongers milking the best "cash cow" they could find at
the time. Just because someone labels themselves as Christian, that
doesn't mean they are, any more than I'm a grandfather clock just
because I can say "tick-tock, tick-tock".
Lip-service is easy... "talking-the-talk"... anyone can do it,
it's "walking-the-walk" that tells the truth. A Christian is known
_as_ a Christian by their actions. So much Evil has been done under
the usurped banner of Good, but Evil is what it is, and easily seen for
what it is.
The definition of a true Christian is laid down in Galatians 5:22-23 --
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such
there is no law.
> I think our questions are our reasoning. "In the beginning there
> was /Logos/". I think the greek word logos means Logic or reason.
Among other things; it also means "word".
From Strong's Concordance:
Greek:
G3056. logos, log'-os; from G3004; something said (including the
thought); by impl. a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the
mental faculty) or motive; by extens. a computation; spec. (with the
art. in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):--account, cause,
communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent,
matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-
ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move
me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.
> I interpret this to mean that it is good to ask questions. And Jesus
> himself questioned it would appear if you can go by the account of
> those who documented his accounts a hundred or so years later
> based on interpretations and the like.
He questioned the practices of those who professed to be of the Faith
and followers of the Law, He did not question the Law as written.
Also, the Biblical accounts of Jesus in the New Testament were first-
hand writings by His disciples, written within their lifetimes, all
during the 1st Century AD (CE). Revelation dates to around 70-95AD
(CE). (There are numerous cross-references to back up the dates of
writing.)
> Jesus revolutionized the Hebrew faith. busted the tribe or the pack,
> so-to-speak. and he didn't really want it to happen that way, but,
> as you can imagine, some other leader got in there and herded the
> sheep with his own staff and so on.
I'm sorry, but you're misinformed. :) Jesus knew what He taught would
cause dissension in the Faith (read Matthew). He "revolutionized"
nothing, He merely taught a return to the "spirit of the Law" (by which
Abraham, who never had the Law, was counted righteous), which was
ignored in favor of the "letter of the Law" by the Jewish leaders.
> > Perhaps it's your tendency toward brutal honesty with your opinions
> > at times. One of my best friends is like that. Took a while to
> > learn her. :) Hard without body language to accompany.
>
> body language can support a more accurate interpretation. then again,
> body language simply adds dimension. I have a horrible tic that makes
> me look as though I'm grinning at people. people get very self-
> conscious due to their own insecurities i think. (partially kidding
> about the tic, but can you imagine? I knew someone whose eyes
> twitched and squinted ...)
Have been known to have an uncontrollable wink on rare occasions
myself. Gets a person in a bit of a tight spot once in awhile. :) :)
As much as 80% of face-to-face communication can be body language, and
some of us are much more inclined to rely on it to fully grasp what's
being communicated to us. I find the written word must go into a _lot_
of what I'd usually consider superfluous description because it's so
much more limited than even vocal communication (telephone) for getting
the correct meaning across.
> > > > > I don't have any answers. The question of art imitating life
> > > > > and life imitating art has been around for eons. I propose we
> > > > > throw out the idea of the which and the what in which imitates
> > > > > what, for the moment, and focus on imitation. It might lead
> > > > > us somewhere where we can pick up the pieces of which and
> > > > > what. It's a start at least.
> > > >
> > > > Try to find the start of a circle? :)
> > >
> > > exactly. i posit truth is that way.
> >
> > Why?
>
> you start somewhere, hopefully, with some good sense about the
> starting point. or you pick a random point. in the case of which
> came first, the chicken or the egg, it might be best to start here
> and go backwards. but we just never may know the end of the
> beginning. this sounds cute, yet you might get a kick out of
> applying it to alpha and omega.
I don't consider Truth a circle, I consider it scalar. It's a
foundation.
> > > > > Sometimes the gut offers an insight or an intuition. Since
> > > > > we're talking humans here, testing the offer might be
> > > > > well-advised.
> > > >
> > > > What offer?
> > >
> > > the insight or intuition.
> >
> > Got lost again. :) Then you were talking about the need for those
> > subsequent corrections being applied after the "truest response" I
> > spoke of earlier. I agree.
> >
> > If people understood how much "gut level" applies to territoriality
> > and other basic survival instincts that are really not applicable
> > today as more than vestigial drives (appendix reactions with no
> > use anywhere and a lot of harm resulting), perhaps it would help.
> > To know they're being driven by the same instincts that drive an
> > ant or a roach, even a bacteria, might cause some to rethink their
> > stance.
>
> Survival instincts are not all vestigial. We are pack animals,
> therefore, we retain the survival instincts of keeping the pack
> intact.
No, of course not _all_. :)
Define the "pack", then. How wide a pool should be acceptable to
choose from for the purpose of procreation? Is a black/white child
less likely to survive in the modern environment than a black/black
child (excluding societally-based racial biases from consideration)?
IF such biases are the only reason black/black is better able to
survive than black/white, then the survival instinct that fosters the
bias is vestigial (no longer useful), and actually harmful.
> > Used-to-was like-for-like was the most certain way to insure
> > survival of the species. It denoted a preponderance of common
> > genes and, therefore, offered any offspring the best chance for
> > survival in the native environment. Still does, down the
> > evolutionary scale. No, guess that's not the right term, since
> > bacteria and virus are _much_ more evolutionarily advanced than are
> > we, kind-for-kind considered.
>
> viruses have a way of killing their hosts sometimes thereby killing
> themselves (not being a virologist, I assume). I extrapolate (?) that
> man is doing just fine on the viral evolutionary scale where the
> earth's environment is his host. ex. Chernobyl
True. Another good observation. :) But I was speaking of the
comparative level of genetic "perfection" that has been attained by
viruses and bacteria.
> > > > > I think some people strive together to "rise above the
> > > > > barbaric". It seems to be taking a long time. The egalitarian
> > > > > ideal might work only with political truths. Politics like
> > > > > so many things is out of my league.
> > > >
> > > > The "egalitarian ideal" works least well in the political arena,
> > > > if modern politics are any standard. Politics is just like that
> > > > politician from the 1930s said (can't remember his name): Cats
> > > > ruling a kingdom of mice. We have a choice between this color
> > > > cat or that color cat, how does that help a bunch of mice? No
> > > > matter which cats are voted in, the cats still dine and the
> > > > mice still die.
> > >
> > > Like I said, I'm weak in politics. toss the cat and elect a
> > > mouse. it'll happen one day.
> >
> > That speech was made in the 1930s concerning "politics as usual"
> > back then. Still applies. What you suggest hasn't happened yet.
>
> It hasn't happened again.
Implying it has happened before? Are you alluding to Roman rule?
> > > > > > Think that's what sets me off, in fact. Guess it's the
> > > > > > poets... but it's the aficionados as well. The king may've
> > > > > > been taken in, but the crowd went right along with him (The
> > > > > > Emperor's New Clothes). A voice in a vacuum isn't a
> > > > > > danger, because no one hears it.
> > > > >
> > > > > a voice in a vacuum might also be dangerous because no one
> > > > > hears it.
> > > >
> > > > True. But that's the people's choice, isn't it? Educated or
> > > > totally ignorant though it may be. Sometimes it's not a game.
> > >
> > > I don't know where game comes from. Perhaps it's never a game.
> > > and maybe the people don't have a choice.
> >
> > People get too caught up in chic. Many times the most critical
> > things are very _NOT_ chic, macho, with-it, cool... whatever.
> >
> > People always have a choice. Perhaps it's not between any options
> > they'd enjoy choosing, but the choice is still there.
>
> one has no choice but to die no matter how much one wishes to live.
> death is not an option.
Not "final" death, anyway; "premature" death on the other hand...
> > > > > Ironically, the one piece of art I have hanging in my living
> > > > > room is quite rigid. It repeats color, zigzags and shell-like
> > > > > patterns. Yet, I relate to it. Rather it relates to me. It
> > > > > provides me certainty and order except that I have stared at
> > > > > it for so long that I think it no longer is predictable. It
> > > > > goes "white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-
> > > > > white-brown-brown-white-white-brown-brown-white-brown-
> > > > > brown-white-brown-brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-
> > > > > brown-brown-white-brown-brown-white-brown" Perhaps the
> > > > > piece was cut short of an obvious repetition.
> > > >
> > > > Catty remark:
> > > > Sounds like it should be named "Variations On A Muddy
> > > > Theme". :) :)
> > >
> > > I don't know why you'd want to make such a remark and associate
> > > it with being catty.
> >
> > Merely a loose, "Southern" definition of "catty". Was teasing,
> > actually. :) :) Don't do catty well either, I'm a failure as a
> > true "Suhthun Bell".
> >
> > > I rather project that it is quite an insightful remark!
> > >
> > > Did you know that my wall hanging was mud art? Do you have
> > > experience with African mud art? Is that what gave you the idea
> > > to use the word muddy?
> >
> > No, it was the preponderance of browns.
>
> why I'll be. good watson. good.
:) :)
> > > If not, and you were being catty for whatever reason, be careful
> > > with your witchy gift.
> >
> > DO-do-Do-do...DO-do-Do-do...DO-do-Do-do...
> > DO-do-Do-do...DO-do-Do-do...
>
> one of my favorite tunes! take me aback! this was a muddy good
> time, rod ...
>
> Sherrie
Glad you liked it. :) :)
Could you tell me... seems the only thing you cut was my "Santeria"
remark... any particular reason, or just "no comment" so no use
including?
Be well - Pax
PS - I am _really_ enjoying this conversation! Even been reading parts
of it to my husband. :) :)
o~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~oo~O~o
As Pogo said: "We has met thu enuhmy 'n' he is US!"
Sherrie Lee
In any event, it's very doubtful Spanish is actually her native
language (unless she's actually from Spain). Most Mexicans are
Amerindians who speak the adopted language of their conquerors, the
Spanish. Some have Spanish blood, but usually it's very weak.
In case you think I'm speaking through my hat, I'm a Texacan, we tend
to learn things about the Mexicans as a result of our close and
constant interaction with them. An admirable people, in spite of their
lousy government. I'm the oldest of five, both my brothers and one
sister have married Mexicans.
<>>>>>Sherrie Lee replies:>>>>>
>>>>>>"A woman from Texas and a socialite from New York meet at a
party. The woman from Texas says to the woman from New York; "Hi! Where
y'all from?"
The woman from New York replies, "Where I come from we don't end our
sentences with prepositions..."
>>>>>So the woman from Texas says, "Fine! Where y'all from, BITCH?!"
>>>>>Language and culture are huge topics.
Below is the way I was using the word. By the way, when I give such a
definition, it's only to clarify my use of the term within discussion,
and _in_no_way_ indicates I think you don't understand the term. (Felt
as if you've gotten that idea from me a couple of times, and I never
meant any such thing. I find you extremely intelligent and
interesting.)
>>>>>>>Didn't mean for you to feel that way. I meant for you to get
the joke (about my brain) was all.
Was talking in a more all-pervasive sense. Much that exemplifies
modern society strikes me as occurring spontaneously, rather like "The
Wave" at a sporting event; more-or-less a common reaction to an
immediate, extraneous stimulus, grounded in nothing more concrete than
the Now. Unstudied. Consequences not considered. Egocentric. Amoral.
>>>>>I don't see the wave as occuring spontaneously as much as I do the
guy whose turn is next tossing his beer as he throws up his arms. A
dreadful consequence to those around including the beer guy whose ass
gets kicked by an angry beer-drenched mob!
> tribes practice this ostracism. there is a fear of losing one's pack
> and a fear of change. this is instinctual.
What I see is more a fear _NOT_ to change. A fear of being considered
the same as some former group and, therefore, not being "unique".
Extremely childish mindset. My generation (1960s) set a lot of that in
motion... "Don't trust anyone over 30." I thought it was stupid back
then, and my opinion hasn't changed.
>>>>>Like the kid whose conservative parents excuse their boy's tattoos
and body piercings as "a stage; he's exercising his individuality
(apart from the family group)." Next, they visit the boy's school and
get a look at all the other kids.
You talk as if "survival of the species" was in evidence as a common
goal these days. Wish I could agree with you, but I can't. I see very
little indication there's much thought about the future, much less
survival into it, at least not in America. More and more people seem
to be in love with Death. When a person's in love with something, they
usually court it and eventually win it.
>>>>>I talk of something with which we are programmed. It has to do
with the function(s) of life and death. Look at our existence as a
facet of a bigger picture. Man is quite tiny in this perspective.
I know... jaded. Can't help it. Sorry. See it as a product of our
_very_ UNfree society. Rules, rules, RULES! Everywhere you look,
everywhere you step. No personal responsibility required. No
direction of conscience, no policing yourself. Just turn off your mind
and do as you're told.
>>>>>hmmm. yes. rules and sometimes the illusion of conscience where
one deludes himself into seeing himself as a thinker free from
influence...
Of course, people can't turn off their minds, so they rebel. But,
since they've been treated as children, they rebel as children would
rebel. Thoughtlessly, many times to their own destruction. ("If it
feels good and you can get away with it, DO IT!") Their main goal is
to be FREE! To make their OWN decisions for a change. To spit on the
sidewalk if they want to. To drive without a seatbelt. To be free to
choose on their own to go to Hell in a handbasket or stick around and
help build the future.
>>>>>Like a looting or rebuilding after an earthquake.
I'm really not an anarchist, but, DAMN! What we have today isn't the
answer to anarchy. No one needs the Thought Police. The answer is
education, not another ten-thousand new laws enacted.
For instance:
The government didn't teach me to love the environment, nature did that
all on her own. Learning what was happening to the environment alerted
me to the dangers it's facing. That's what fostered my commitment.
>>>>>I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or what. I see that the
influence of government brings environmental concerns to light.
>>>>>Education is a noble thought.
The government acts as if it's governing a nation of imbeciles. Treat
people like they're stupid and they're not likely to give a damn about
whatEVER the government tells them is important, because they don't
give a damn about the government, they just want it out of their faces.
>>>>>Frustrate people enough, and they'll problem solve in their very
own ways.
It's all psychology. I've watched a lot of history go by. It looks
like it's all so very _planned_! Basic "divide and conquer" at work.
Working toward Haves, Have Nots, and a really huge prison population.
70% of Texas youth has some sort of criminal record. Permanently
scarred for being kids, not for doing anything heinous. Permanent
underclass. Unable to get decent jobs, unable to vote, unable to ever
be anything but "throw-aways".
>>>>>Gosh, you go all over the place. I don't know about that stat,
but blame Bush. Y'all put him there. Nah. That was a tad inflamed.
There is certainly something happening.
>>>>>Perhaps it has to do w/ the absence of RU486? Maybe if unwanted
kids weren't born, they wouldn't grow up to be unwanted problems. Hard
to say, but it's another starting point in a system of problem solving.
Perfect reason for a Police State. "Such a bad CRIME problem, you
know. HAVE to, you know. For you own GOOD, you know. Just here to
HELP, you know." Oh, THANK YOU, Big Brother, whatever would we have
done without you?
>>>>>This sounds like ranting.
> What Bible? There are so many. I think the meaning becomes more
> clear when there is more of an understanding of derivatives.
Don't "feign", it's unbecoming. :) The word "bible", in the broadest
sense, means something like "ultimate instruction manual" but, if
you're English-speaking, you know the capitalized use of the word
without any other descriptive words accompanying it denotes the Judeo-
Christian Bible.
>>>>>Not feigning, babe. What bible are you talking about? King
James, NIV, The Children's Bible, Gideon, A beginner's Study Bible,
Thompson Chain Reference? Catholic New Revised Edition #IV? etc... I
don't know all of them, but they are copyrighted, therefore, might
deserve some credit.
>>>>>Why is the word of god copyrighted? It's to protect those who go
to such great lengths to translate and interpret the Hebrew and Greek I
suppose. So, a bunch of power is put into the hands of the few so-
called educated and privy to "divine intervention" as some are prone to
claim, and most of the others turn off their minds and do what they're
told so-to-speak.
I'm Christian, and have studied The Bible extensively. Is that the
stand you were looking for? :)
>>>>>No. I was looking for you to credit the bible of your choice.
Who holds its copyright? What version is it? Who are the "scholars"
responsible for translating what sources? This may provide more clues
about its and your perspectives.
"understanding of derivatives." Clarify your direction please?
>>>>>how are words born? how do we come to know them as they stand
now? how have they stood in the past? is an evil spirit the stink
from a decaying body thus spooking primitive man into believing in the
devil and burying it in a "hellhole" and such? I'm talking about going
way back. A very difficult process but one which involves education,
research, guess work, ...
> > > > > > > I do not understand the concept of having faith without
> > > > > > > hope. Does hope leave room for doubt? If one feels
> > > > > > > hopeless, does this undermine one's faith? Perhaps faith
> > > > > > > is the absence of doubt therefore hope is unnecessary?? A
> > > > > > > faith in the hopelessness?
Most of these are very good questions, are they meant to be rhetorical?
>>>>>They were aimed at understanding your sister.
> you say her hopelessness isn't rooted in her faith.
Right. Why would it be? Faith is a cure for hopelessness... at least
if your hopelessness is rooted in your dealings with humanity. Man's
inhumanity to Man can be very disheartening. At times you feel no one
really cares about anything that's important to you unless the very
same problem happens to walk into their house and sit down in their
laps. That's poor criteria for caring, and not easily satisfied.
>>>>>Faith cures hopelessness; you say she has faith yet no hope. I am
genuinely confused. Perhaps she is as well.
> > > > > I wonder how hope is being held. Is it the hope that the
> > > > > unseen thing is there? is it the hope that this unseen thing
> > > > > that's there for sure is harmless? is helpful? what? or is
> > > > > it that this unseen thing offers hope? then what? hope
> > > > > exists yet it's rejected on the basis of its relationship
> > > > > with humanity? or does this unseen thing offer no hope in
> > > > > relation to humanity?
These are very good questions, by the way. :) :) What are your answers?
>>>>>I do not know your sister. Your sister or you, who know her
better than I which is why I posed them to you, hold the answers or
neither of you know.
>>>>>I would have to believe in an unseen thing (and be your sister)in
order to apply these questions to myself, but for the fun of a
challenge ...
>>>>>Say I believe in the unseen thing and that it is the answer to the
question and that hope is the question. I am befuddled by the
complexity of this. Anyway, I replace the words /unseen thing/
with /answer/ and hope with /question/.
>>>>>Understand, my viewpoint regarding humanity differs from your
sister's and the original questions are meant for your sister or how
you see your sister. I have hope which is why I question. I seek
answers to, that which I have not seen hence my questions, the
questions I have about humanity.
>>>>>My questions and answers read as such after replacing "unseen
thing" with "answer" and hope with "question" and my answer, where I
may use the word hope as hope, follows each question:
>>>>>"I wonder how question is being held. Is it the /question/ that
the /answer/ is there?
>>>>>Yes (for me. I do not know about your sister), I hope for an
answer thus I question.
>>>>>is it the /question/ that this /answer/ that's there for sure is
harmless? is helpful? what?
>>>>>you bet. this too.
>>>>>or is it that this /answer/ offers /question/?
>>>>>this as well. hope triggers the question. the answer may offer
hope by triggering more questions or it may be the end of all hope
depending upon what the answer is. Sometimes an answer triggers more
questions. Perhaps answers don't exist without questions. I am
sensing a paradox.
>>>>>then what? question exists yet it's rejected on the basis of its
relationship with humanity?
>>>>>I do not reject questions, at least it's my goal not to. this
question is really for your sister. does she reject hope?
>>>>>or does this /answer/ offer no question in relation to humanity?
>>>>>for me, there would be no answer without the question.
>>>>>say your sister is question-less in this instance. she has the
answer relating to humanity. the answer raises no more questions in
her mind. she has ceased to question based upon an answer that
satisfies her.
>>>>>"say your sister is hopeless in this instance. She has the unseen
thing relating to humanity. the unseen thing raises no more hope in
her mind. she has ceased to hope based upon an unseen thing that
satisfies her."
>>>>>hmmm. is this valid?
>>>>>anyway, the context of my questions is connected to your sister.
>>>>>In case you're lost, here they are again:
> > > > > I wonder how hope is being held. Is it the hope that the
> > > > > unseen thing is there? is it the hope that this unseen thing
> > > > > that's there for sure is harmless? is helpful? what? or is
> > > > > it that this unseen thing offers hope? then what? hope
> > > > > exists yet it's rejected on the basis of its relationship
> > > > > with humanity? or does this unseen thing offer no hope in
> > > > > relation to humanity?
> > > Just questions regarding what you say about your sister.
> >
> > They were only sparked by what I said, they weren't about what I
> > actually said. They're your questions, and only you can answer them
> > for yourself. Don't think my answers would mean anything to you.
> > Besides, I have a tendency not to argue Faith.
>
> That's the interesting thing about faith I find dangerous. I find
> many religions use the pack mentality and elicit fear by demanding
> that its leaders not be questioned. There is a fear associated with
> questions (threat of breaking up the pack) thus questioning its
> leader is abhorred. Some religions use this hellfire and brimstone
> technique to subdue their followers into a blind faith mentality.
> Powers of reasoning become controlled by the rule "do not question".
You must not be talking about Christianity. Christians constantly
>>>>>no. I was talking about faith.
catch flak about "forcing" their beliefs on others, that's why I
usually steer clear of any such actions. I'm sure you've heard
of "apologetics", it's _only_ concerned with "defending the Faith"
against "nonbelievers"; the very process of apologetics is one of
answering in depth, specific questions about and charges against one's
Faith. Apologetics addresses the hardest issues and tries to answer
them.
If you want an "in-depth" on this subject, I'll be glad to oblige you,
of course.
>>>>>you are free to write as you choose. if I want an in-depth study,
I will consider a variety of resources. Thank you for your offer.
> The ones who hear voices, like the voice of God, are especially
> powerful and use it to control those who operate on a level of
> fearing punishment.
Where do you get your information? Which Faith are you talking about?
>>>>>I was talking about faith in general. A common example of the
above would be Oral Roberts who was told by God that he would die if he
didn't get X amount of money. Roberts's followers, fearing his death,
obliged supposedly. That's just a quick and dirty example. There are
so many.
> it's not so much what is the truth. it's fear of pain and suffering.
> maybe that's why the bdsm people are feared and looked at by
> society as "out there". they go against the pain and suffering fear.
> they are "evil". i don't think they can be controlled by the idea of
> punishment in hell. they probably look at that as heaven.
Who/what is "bdsm"? Don't catch the reference, could you clarify?
OH! Did a Web search... "bondage/sado-masochism"? So, you think those
into bdsm are incapable of suffering? hmmm. Okay.
>>>>>no. I think they are capable of suffering and relish it. Without
suffering, they would not exist.
Do you think Hell is eternal? Perhaps the most quoted verse of The
Bible, John 3:16, says quite differently, as does Revelation 20:14-15.
>>>>>I think hell is a concept made up by man to explain the unknown
and hideous and is a name for his fears and used in some instances to
control man via fear. The idea of hell offers no hope to some,
therefore, "abandon all hope all ye who enter". It has been
wonderfully developed in the realm of great literature, art, theatre
etc... and religion. It can be a concept which leads to thought. It
can also cause thought to stagnate. Thus, it is as much a stinky place
as heaven is at times.
> I interpret this to mean that it is good to ask questions. And Jesus
> himself questioned it would appear if you can go by the account of
> those who documented his accounts a hundred or so years later
> based on interpretations and the like.
He questioned the practices of those who professed to be of the Faith
and followers of the Law, He did not question the Law as written.
>>>>>Yes. Jesus questioned their faith. the justices and injustices.
and he questioned himself and his ideas by some accounts. "Father, why
have you foresaken me?" totally missing the point of Job it would
appear. but showing that he was truly human prone to err.
Also, the Biblical accounts of Jesus in the New Testament were first-
hand writings by His disciples, written within their lifetimes, all
during the 1st Century AD (CE). Revelation dates to around 70-95AD
(CE). (There are numerous cross-references to back up the dates of
writing.)
>>>>>They are translations pieced according to the rule of the/a time.
> Jesus revolutionized the Hebrew faith. busted the tribe or the pack,
> so-to-speak. and he didn't really want it to happen that way, but,
> as you can imagine, some other leader got in there and herded the
> sheep with his own staff and so on.
I'm sorry, but you're misinformed. :) Jesus knew what He taught would
cause dissension in the Faith (read Matthew). He "revolutionized"
nothing, He merely taught a return to the "spirit of the Law" (by which
Abraham, who never had the Law, was counted righteous), which was
ignored in favor of the "letter of the Law" by the Jewish leaders.
>>>>>He didn't want it to happen that way whether he knew it would
happen or not. Jesus is considered the leader, the focal point, the
foundation of the new testament. He blew the Hebrew faith as it was
known apart. In other words, his influence caused dissention,
defections, etcetera. Why else is there a new testament? Jesus
preached Torah as he saw it not the accounts of the new testament which
were written well after his death.
>>>>>There's a neat guy named Josephus who's an interesting read.
>>>>>Some people spend a lifetime on this stuff (historical accounts of
Jesus etc). It is quite archeologically/historically/anthropologically
involved.
>>>>>I venture that no one really knows what went on. All we have are
our "educated" guesses.
As much as 80% of face-to-face communication can be body language, and
some of us are much more inclined to rely on it to fully grasp what's
being communicated to us. I find the written word must go into a _lot_
of what I'd usually consider superfluous description because it's so
much more limited than even vocal communication (telephone) for getting
the correct meaning across.
>>>>>yes. therefore, why put so much credence in your bible of
limitations lacking vocal communication and body language for getting
the correct meaning across? Add to the lack of vocal communication and
lack of body language the translation after translation and cultural
transformation after cultural transformation, and you discover version
upon versions of copyrighted so-called scholarship.
>>>>>Is this what god wants? If not, why quote it? If so, then you
have what you have -- a mass of assorted perspectives.
>>>>>Literature can have a profound effect on people. There's
something Pavlovian about words.
I don't consider Truth a circle, I consider it scalar. It's a
foundation.
>>>>>you are entitled to your opinions.
>>>>>Pack is society. The instinct is to have society. Entropy occurs
but societies reform.
> > Used-to-was like-for-like was the most certain way to insure
> > survival of the species. It denoted a preponderance of common
> > genes and, therefore, offered any offspring the best chance for
> > survival in the native environment. Still does, down the
> > evolutionary scale. No, guess that's not the right term, since
> > bacteria and virus are _much_ more evolutionarily advanced than are
> > we, kind-for-kind considered.
>
> viruses have a way of killing their hosts sometimes thereby killing
> themselves (not being a virologist, I assume). I extrapolate (?) that
> man is doing just fine on the viral evolutionary scale where the
> earth's environment is his host. ex. Chernobyl
True. Another good observation. :) But I was speaking of the
comparative level of genetic "perfection" that has been attained by
viruses and bacteria.
>>>>>odd. perfection is dependent on how it's defined. some would say
that a virus is perfectly imperfect. that it is neither living nor
dead. it requires a host in order to mutate and multiply and that it
ends up killing or harming its host thus ending a cycle. I don't
understand viruolgy.
> > > Like I said, I'm weak in politics. toss the cat and elect a
> > > mouse. it'll happen one day.
> >
> > That speech was made in the 1930s concerning "politics as usual"
> > back then. Still applies. What you suggest hasn't happened yet.
>
> It hasn't happened again.
Implying it has happened before? Are you alluding to Roman rule?
>>>>>I do not allude to any particular rule. and, yes. many cats have
been tossed.
> one has no choice but to die no matter how much one wishes to live.
> death is not an option.
Not "final" death, anyway; "premature" death on the other hand...
>>>>>suicide is an option. eventually, death touches us all.
Glad you liked it. :) :)
Could you tell me... seems the only thing you cut was my "Santeria"
remark... any particular reason, or just "no comment" so no use
including?
>>>>>Sometimes I delete stuff following my signature. It was
thoughtless.
>>>>>Sherrie
Robert St. James (mei dominum Santiago Matamoros)
Sherrie Lee wrote in message <8qogvv$ilq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
:<Sherri F. White says: >
:
:
:In any event, it's very doubtful Spanish is actually her native
:language (unless she's actually from Spain). Most Mexicans are
:Amerindians who speak the adopted language of their conquerors, the
:Spanish. Some have Spanish blood, but usually it's very weak.
Not true. The criollos are often very Spanish as opposed to the Mestizos,
who are mixed. There are many families who came over late in the Colonial
Era and did not mix with the local population. Granted, they are a small (although
powerful) minority, but they are definitely there.
For some reason, people from Chihuahua always claim to have Spanish blood,
usually on tenous grounds. I don't know why. Might have something to do with
their proximity to the American Southwest and the purer Spanish colonial system
established there. Might just be local pride.
Robert St. James
(y mis padres eran de Espana, mas o menos)