"the very essence of nature is 'evil"does one need to embrace religion or theology to be persuaded that the very essence of nature is 'evil'?
...and your definition of evil ?
Before You're Sixty-Four.
Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.
...and your definition of evil ?
"Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart." San Juan de la Cruz.
Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.
I wrote:
>the very essence of nature is 'evil'
Mat james asked:
>...and your definition of evil?
Why should my definition vary from what one finds in a dictionary? I believe I used it in the same context as Andrew (hence the apostrophes), a man with associations to the Christian religion - like myself. Can you explain why you ask?
>the very essence of nature is 'evil'
Mat james asked:
>...and your definition of evil?
Why should my definition vary from what one finds in a dictionary? I believe I used it in the same context as Andrew (hence the apostrophes), a man with associations to the Christian religion - like myself. Can you explain why you ask?
Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.
Andrew Mcgeever wrote:
>In the passage I quote lies the germ of a poem. Geoffrey should do it.
That passage was an attempt to justify my criticism of your work, or how I see praise as being a destructive obstacle to poetic development - and you respond by saying it has poetic potential. Thank you for the encouragement!
>In the passage I quote lies the germ of a poem. Geoffrey should do it.
That passage was an attempt to justify my criticism of your work, or how I see praise as being a destructive obstacle to poetic development - and you respond by saying it has poetic potential. Thank you for the encouragement!
Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.
Geoffrey wrote (on 'evil'),
Something evil: a situation or thing that is very unpleasant, harmful, or morally wrong
Here is the first one that I stumbled upon, G.
"harmful?
unpleasant?
morally wrong?
not to go on about:
evil:
Morally bad: profoundly immoral or wrong.
harmful: deliberately causing great pain, or upset
causing misfortune
malicious: the desire to cause hurt or harm
devilish: connected with the devil or other powerful destructive forces
(nouns)
wickedness, malevolence, sin, iniquity, vice, immorality, good (Antonym)
wickedness: the quality of being profoundly immoral or wrong
Something evil: a situation or thing that is very unpleasant, harmful, or morally wrong"
Let's return to the first 3 Geoffrey.
Is it possible for 'nature' to be morally wrong?
or,
Is nature "morally wrong" because it includes situations that are harmful or unpleasant?
Is nature malicious?
Does nature 'desire' to cause hurt or harm?
and so on.
Which strangely corrupted perspective of Christ's message are you coming from Geoffrey, when you describe nature as 'evil'?
Are you suggesting nature is "morally wrong"?
MatbbgJ
(Encarta dictionary suggestions)Why should my definition vary from what one finds in a dictionary?
Something evil: a situation or thing that is very unpleasant, harmful, or morally wrong
Here is the first one that I stumbled upon, G.
"harmful?
unpleasant?
morally wrong?
not to go on about:
evil:
Morally bad: profoundly immoral or wrong.
harmful: deliberately causing great pain, or upset
causing misfortune
malicious: the desire to cause hurt or harm
devilish: connected with the devil or other powerful destructive forces
(nouns)
wickedness, malevolence, sin, iniquity, vice, immorality, good (Antonym)
wickedness: the quality of being profoundly immoral or wrong
Something evil: a situation or thing that is very unpleasant, harmful, or morally wrong"
Let's return to the first 3 Geoffrey.
Is it possible for 'nature' to be morally wrong?
or,
Is nature "morally wrong" because it includes situations that are harmful or unpleasant?
Is nature malicious?
Does nature 'desire' to cause hurt or harm?
and so on.
Satan has associations with the Christian religion, for I read all about him in that Book.'a man with associations to the Christian religion - like myself.'
Which strangely corrupted perspective of Christ's message are you coming from Geoffrey, when you describe nature as 'evil'?
Are you suggesting nature is "morally wrong"?
MatbbgJ
"Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart." San Juan de la Cruz.
Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.
listen, i dont know anything about none of that. all i know is that jesus tempts me to believe and satan tempts me not to, understand? all of them disciples were made saints, all of them except judas, naturally. all i know is that judas committed suicide, and so did jesus really. so what shall we say evil means then - you tell me cos i'm fucked if i know, mat.
-
Andrew McGeever
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 10:02 pm
Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.
all i know is that judas committed suicide, and so did jesus really. so what shall we say evil means then - you tell me cos i'm fucked if i know, mat.
Thus spoke Geoffrey, in reply to Mat James's considered comments on "the very essence of nature is evil".
Mat posed a question : "is nature morally wrong?"
Nature, as described in every Judeo-Christian text, exists for man to command, control.
It is neutral in this respect.
How Jews, Christians of all persuasions, and others choose to bend nature their will ,is the stuff of another thread.
"Before You're Sixty-Four" is becoming more life-affirming, especially set against the credit crunch......a B&B works out cheaper than a night in a hotel.
Andrew.
Thus spoke Geoffrey, in reply to Mat James's considered comments on "the very essence of nature is evil".
Mat posed a question : "is nature morally wrong?"
Nature, as described in every Judeo-Christian text, exists for man to command, control.
It is neutral in this respect.
How Jews, Christians of all persuasions, and others choose to bend nature their will ,is the stuff of another thread.
"Before You're Sixty-Four" is becoming more life-affirming, especially set against the credit crunch......a B&B works out cheaper than a night in a hotel.
Andrew.
-
mickey_one
- Posts: 1533
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:11 pm
- Location: Hello Lovely Flowers, Hello Lovely Trees
Re: Before You're Sixty-Four Thousand £ overdrawn
what's the "credit crunch"?
the reason this thread has attracted minimal interest and attracted no debate is because of your use of obscure references
Lord Mickey of One(% bank rate interest cut)
the reason this thread has attracted minimal interest and attracted no debate is because of your use of obscure references
Lord Mickey of One(% bank rate interest cut)
-
Andrew McGeever
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 10:02 pm
Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.
Michael,
I'm flattered, indeed inflated by your zero % interest rate.
Andrew.
P.S. I've never swimmed with dolphins, "like dolphins do swim" .
I'm flattered, indeed inflated by your zero % interest rate.
Andrew.
P.S. I've never swimmed with dolphins, "like dolphins do swim" .
Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.
Andrew McGeever, on 12 Feb. 2007, wrote:
>Dear Geoffrey . . .
>3. The "Poetry" section on the L.C. Files has produced thousands of posts, and some fine poetry too: long may it continue. In the nature of cyberspace poetry, there is an inordinate heap of rubbish too: it comes with the chosen territory.
Lion of Lions, in the 'A Lovers Dilemna' thread wrote:
>it's spooky that a poster doesn't bother to correct the mistakes in the title of his poem.
What should be done? As long as people get positive critiques for their poems they will hang around and post one after the other. This place will be filled up; no problem. If one gives an honest opinion that leans towards the negative, feelings are hurt and they indignantly disappear. As for myself, I tend to be tolerant - but only because I am a coward who doesn't dare to speak the truth. Tolerance is not necessarily a good thing; the Mayor of New York has become something of a hero after his 'zero tolerance' speech a while back, and nowhere in The Bible does it say that tolerance is good. On the contrary, one is taught the benefits of healthy discrimination. I value Michael's untiring work in this area, he genuinely tries to nudge people in the right direction, a talent I have not mastered. It's just so frustrating to see people who have not bothered to learn even the rudiments of writing, posting doggerel that one is not expected to criticise. Think, a poem with a three-word title - and two of the words are misspelt; that is when a limit is reached. Let us respect and protect the image and reputation of a literary figure of Leonard Cohen's calibre by occasionally weeding his garden. To me it doesn't matter if people cannot accept honesty, because new people will arrive and present their work and a healthy traffic is achieved. And in any case, it is better to have one good book to read than a whole library full of Mills and Boon.
>Dear Geoffrey . . .
>3. The "Poetry" section on the L.C. Files has produced thousands of posts, and some fine poetry too: long may it continue. In the nature of cyberspace poetry, there is an inordinate heap of rubbish too: it comes with the chosen territory.
Lion of Lions, in the 'A Lovers Dilemna' thread wrote:
>it's spooky that a poster doesn't bother to correct the mistakes in the title of his poem.
What should be done? As long as people get positive critiques for their poems they will hang around and post one after the other. This place will be filled up; no problem. If one gives an honest opinion that leans towards the negative, feelings are hurt and they indignantly disappear. As for myself, I tend to be tolerant - but only because I am a coward who doesn't dare to speak the truth. Tolerance is not necessarily a good thing; the Mayor of New York has become something of a hero after his 'zero tolerance' speech a while back, and nowhere in The Bible does it say that tolerance is good. On the contrary, one is taught the benefits of healthy discrimination. I value Michael's untiring work in this area, he genuinely tries to nudge people in the right direction, a talent I have not mastered. It's just so frustrating to see people who have not bothered to learn even the rudiments of writing, posting doggerel that one is not expected to criticise. Think, a poem with a three-word title - and two of the words are misspelt; that is when a limit is reached. Let us respect and protect the image and reputation of a literary figure of Leonard Cohen's calibre by occasionally weeding his garden. To me it doesn't matter if people cannot accept honesty, because new people will arrive and present their work and a healthy traffic is achieved. And in any case, it is better to have one good book to read than a whole library full of Mills and Boon.
-
Lion of Lions
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:49 pm
Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.
I blame a "culture" personified by people like Lizzytish. Her indulgence of laziness and mediocrity has driven away good writers over the years and misled posters like Philrose to think it acceptable not to correct his title. It is not acceptable. It is embarrassing or arrogant (or both). Phil dealt with some of the errors shown to him but has ran out of energy to bother with the rest. Leonard,if he ever glanced here, would be really impressed. *
* not
* not
-
imaginary friend
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:09 am
- Location: Vancouver, Canada
Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.
Geoffrey, you make a good point. I agree that critiquing poems posted here is beneficial. The desire for dialogue is implicit when poems (or responses to poems) are posted on a forum. 'If you can't take the heat, stay away from the kitchen, blah blah...'
...That said, there is a difference between objectively criticizing specifics of a poem (even harshly), and blanket dismissal of the poem or writer, which IMO kinda defeats any constructive intent, and puts people on the defensive. This thread of Andrew McGeever's was one of the first that I followed intently – many people are not as confident or articulate as Andrew in defense of their work.
Regarding Lion's reference to Lizzy (who I admire for the honesty of her approach, among other things), people who appreciate creative work have different standards. Some, like Lizzy, seek to enjoy and encourage, rather than criticize. Some, like Michael and Geoffrey, have very high standards, and are not interested in tolerating less – the forum is richer for their presence, but their responses will intimidate many, which may be a side effect of venturing into the kitchen. (Greg once said of Harry S, that he was attempting 'triage'...)
So in conclusion – ladies and gentlemen of the jury – women tend to nurture, men to pillage (except for Jack, of course)
...That said, there is a difference between objectively criticizing specifics of a poem (even harshly), and blanket dismissal of the poem or writer, which IMO kinda defeats any constructive intent, and puts people on the defensive. This thread of Andrew McGeever's was one of the first that I followed intently – many people are not as confident or articulate as Andrew in defense of their work.
Regarding Lion's reference to Lizzy (who I admire for the honesty of her approach, among other things), people who appreciate creative work have different standards. Some, like Lizzy, seek to enjoy and encourage, rather than criticize. Some, like Michael and Geoffrey, have very high standards, and are not interested in tolerating less – the forum is richer for their presence, but their responses will intimidate many, which may be a side effect of venturing into the kitchen. (Greg once said of Harry S, that he was attempting 'triage'...)
So in conclusion – ladies and gentlemen of the jury – women tend to nurture, men to pillage (except for Jack, of course)
-
Lion of Lions
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:49 pm
Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.
there may well be other things to admire about Lizzy's approach but honesty shouldn't be one of them. her posts are far too partial to the identity of the writer to be anywhere near "honest" in the sense I believe you mean. I consider her to be one of the least objective, and therefore least honest, posters here. She is far too concerned with shepherding others into her world candyfloss view than being objective.
I'm quite interested in your passage
whilst I took a friendly approach to philrose's poem, Geoffrey must be justified in then looking at Phil's response to my post. Phil made a poor effort to correct the text but simply ignored the embarrassment of his title. it's obvious to me which one of the 2 is arrogant or lazy, and makes the forum a less inviting place.
I'm quite interested in your passage
.That said, there is a difference between objectively criticizing specifics of a poem (even harshly), and blanket dismissal of the poem or writer, which IMO kinda defeats any constructive intent, and puts people on the defensive.
whilst I took a friendly approach to philrose's poem, Geoffrey must be justified in then looking at Phil's response to my post. Phil made a poor effort to correct the text but simply ignored the embarrassment of his title. it's obvious to me which one of the 2 is arrogant or lazy, and makes the forum a less inviting place.
-
Andrew McGeever
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 10:02 pm
Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.
It seems to me that the original "64" thread has been spliced with other poetry/individuals.
On message boards like this,I cannot separate the strands; best to return to the poem (which has no mistakes in the title, rather the content ).
Geoffrey, you are right to address basic issues like the spelling and punctuation in the title of a poem. I haven't read the piece, "A Lovers Dilemna" (sic) .
Yet literary standards of indencency must be maintained, especially if the writer gets away with it; something Geoffrey has spent tortured hours trying to prevent. I don't need to weed Leonard's garden to find ideas: I spent yesterday afternoon mowing/ chopping/ cutting/ raking/ weeding my shared back garden. It now looks better, on the surface, but the problem lies in the soil....and THAT is the stuff of a poem.
Andrew.
P.S. "spliced" (sic). Has anyone used this word in a poem? I'll add this to my vocabulary notebook, but not tonight, for it's getting late and I have miles to travel.
On message boards like this,I cannot separate the strands; best to return to the poem (which has no mistakes in the title, rather the content
).Geoffrey, you are right to address basic issues like the spelling and punctuation in the title of a poem. I haven't read the piece, "A Lovers Dilemna" (sic) .
Yet literary standards of indencency must be maintained, especially if the writer gets away with it; something Geoffrey has spent tortured hours trying to prevent. I don't need to weed Leonard's garden to find ideas: I spent yesterday afternoon mowing/ chopping/ cutting/ raking/ weeding my shared back garden. It now looks better, on the surface, but the problem lies in the soil....and THAT is the stuff of a poem.
Andrew.
P.S. "spliced" (sic). Has anyone used this word in a poem? I'll add this to my vocabulary notebook, but not tonight, for it's getting late and I have miles to travel.
Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.
Interesting thread, even if I am a bit late.
A true love affaire/commitment between monogamous partners
can be the best and most tender there are. A tryst in a hotel room
won't last and runs cold withing minutes. Whereas a committed,
trusting, and safe relationship, can unfold into much untold beauty,
passion, and remain so for life.
A true love affaire/commitment between monogamous partners
can be the best and most tender there are. A tryst in a hotel room
won't last and runs cold withing minutes. Whereas a committed,
trusting, and safe relationship, can unfold into much untold beauty,
passion, and remain so for life.
Re: Before You're Sixty-Four.
well said. it is my hope, and belief, that andrew has since disowned this filthy poem promoting illicit sex. i don't know who you are. indeed it has crossed my mind that you might even be he. If so, bravo andrew. we all make mistakes, and it is good to see that you have matured to a point where you are able to admit, albeit anonymously, the error of your ways. welcome back into the foldUffda1959 wrote:A tryst in a hotel room won't last and runs cold withing minutes.
