On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:49:06 PM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:30:27 AM UTC-7, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:23:57 PM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:03:40 AM UTC-7, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:52:20 PM UTC-4, George J.. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:39:14 AM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 11:40:56 AM UTC-7, rachel wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 10:51:15 AM UTC-7, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > Returning to Emerson's essay, "The Poet," one of my favorite poetry videos was based on it:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-H2KPqaHds
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As a poem, it's a failure insofar as I doubt that people are going to be able to understand it without knowing the story behind it.
> > > > > > > > Emerson wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "For poetry was all written before time was, and whenever we are so finely organized that we can penetrate into that region where the air is music, we hear those primal warblings and attempt to write them down, but we lose ever and anon a word or a verse and substitute something of our own, and thus miswrite the poem. The men of more delicate ear write down these cadences more faithfully, and these transcripts, though imperfect, become the songs of the nations."
> > > > > > > > My poem is about the poems that have existed before time that have yet to be/may never be divined by a prophet/poet.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since thousands of poems (perhaps even millions of poems) are being written every day, one assumes that the as yet unwritten "Lost Poems" must be virtually numberless.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And since humankind, the universe, and time are all finite, one may further surmise that the majority of these poems will remain forever unknown.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe that this is one of life's greatest tragedies -- and one that is rarely, if ever recognized -- that there are an infinite number of perfect poems, songs, novels, paintings, sculptures, etc., out there that will never be revealed to us.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Michael Pendragon
> > > > > > > > “Oh, don't be silly.
> > > > > > > > Dockery's trademark is a turd with a liplock on it.
> > > > > > > > (You've seen his other ‘drawings.’ It only /looks like/ he's
> > > > > > > > sucking cock.)”
> > > > > > > > -- Dennis M. Hammes on Will Dockery.
> > > > > > > what do you mean time is finite
> > > > > > i sort of forgot the definition of time....i guess i meant numbers....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > my natural aptitude for math abruptly halted at co-sine
> > > > > Numbers. I think he's roughly arguing:
> > > > > (1) Every person has a finite number (of seconds) to live.
> > > > > (2) Humanity as a whole (ie, past, present, and future) consists of a finite number of people.
> > > > > (3) Humanity as a whole has a finite number (of seconds) to live.
> > > > >
> > > > > That part of his argument is sound and valid.
> > > > I'm afraid that's not it.
> > > >
> > > > I'm saying that:
> > > >
> > > > 1) An infinite number of poems exist *outside of time* in some indefinable abstract plane (much like Platonic Ideals).
> > > > 2) The poet's task is to use his psychic vision to see these poems "through a glass darkly," and to transcribe them for others to read.
> > > > 3) The universe exists *within* time. It has a timeline with both a beginning and an end.
> > > > 4) When the universe ends, there will still be an infinite amount of poems in the abstract plane that have never been discovered and transcribed.
> > > > 5) These poems will forever remain unknown. Therefore, they may be considered "lost."
> > > > 6) That an infinite number of poems should remain forever undiscovered, unrealized, unknown... is one of life's greatest tragedies.
> >
> > > i like these last two posts thank you (good reading for one buried in 2many pounds of klippingzz 💡)
> > I'm glad you like it. We hardly ever discuss philosophy here, and when I bring it up it's usually ruled "off-topic" under Group A's Guidelines; so I'm glad it's been allowed here for now.
> >
> > Basically he's saying that an infinite number of poems exist, but that they don't exist in the universe; nor in any other universe.
> well, some of them do (exist in the universe), only the lost ones don't exist in the universe, as per their definition
That's what MMP is saying, but what that means [depends] on his definition of "universe." Does he mean (1) the space-time continuum, or (2) everything that exists? Given his point 3, he means the former, but then his point 5 doesn't follow; just because the 'lost poems' don't exist in the continuum, it doesn't follow that they'll never be written, as they could very well be written in some other universe.

> what about the ones which come to mind in dreaming ? is that considered "in"" the universe or not? it's in your brain....but what about the mind? my doctor said the mind was "nowhere" surely dreams are physical, and exist in energy as part of one's brain, and are thus "in" the universe as well.

Fair enough; there's no reason to think that minds exist in the continuum (Universe1). Your mind is experiencing things, caused by brain activity, but it doesn't follow that the experiences are the brain activity.
> UNLESS....well, in kabbalah it says that for dreaming, the truest dreams, which occur between 3:30 and 5:30 am, your soul ASCENDS to Heaven to receive them....so is that IN the universe or NOT??? and of course, if you can THINK of them, here on earth, like sort of remember dreaming them, does that mean they exist PHYSICALLY in your brain, i would think so, so that means they are *in* the universe, TOO.

That's true on the other definition of "universe" I gave, as everything that exists (Universe2). Gods and souls, like minds, do not exist in Universe1; but if they exist they exist in Universe2 by definition; everything that exists exists in Universe2.

>
> i would guess, since we have minds....here's where language fails me. "in your mind," is really an inferior expression, wouldn't it be, since the mind is NOWHERE according to my doctor, so does that mean our minds exist outside of space and time? but i just can't believe this, doesn't there have to be some kind of connection, to even think to know that it (or they, depending on your philosophy?) exist? unless it's all a delusion of our brains.
>
> sorry, i know i should be embarrassed to engage in such primitive discussions, being unschooled in these matters lacking any academic knowledge of them. thank you for indulging me.

I enjoy thinking and talking about philosophy. I'm glad you enjoy the discussion, but I'm talking about it for my own enjoyment.

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:18:18 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:03:40 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:52:20 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:39:14 AM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 11:40:56 AM UTC-7, rachel wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 10:51:15 AM UTC-7, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > Returning to Emerson's essay, "The Poet," one of my favorite poetry videos was based on it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-H2KPqaHds
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a poem, it's a failure insofar as I doubt that people are going to be able to understand it without knowing the story behind it.
> > > > > > Emerson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "For poetry was all written before time was, and whenever we are so finely organized that we can penetrate into that region where the air is music, we hear those primal warblings and attempt to write them down, but we lose ever and anon a word or a verse and substitute something of our own, and thus miswrite the poem. The men of more delicate ear write down these cadences more faithfully, and these transcripts, though imperfect, become the songs of the nations."
> > > > > > My poem is about the poems that have existed before time that have yet to be/may never be divined by a prophet/poet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since thousands of poems (perhaps even millions of poems) are being written every day, one assumes that the as yet unwritten "Lost Poems" must be virtually numberless.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And since humankind, the universe, and time are all finite, one may further surmise that the majority of these poems will remain forever unknown.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe that this is one of life's greatest tragedies -- and one that is rarely, if ever recognized -- that there are an infinite number of perfect poems, songs, novels, paintings, sculptures, etc., out there that will never be revealed to us.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Michael Pendragon
> > > > > > “Oh, don't be silly.
> > > > > > Dockery's trademark is a turd with a liplock on it.
> > > > > > (You've seen his other ‘drawings.’ It only /looks like/ he's
> > > > > > sucking cock.)”
> > > > > > -- Dennis M. Hammes on Will Dockery.
> > > > > what do you mean time is finite
> > > > i sort of forgot the definition of time....i guess i meant numbers.....
> > > >
> > > > my natural aptitude for math abruptly halted at co-sine
> > > Numbers. I think he's roughly arguing:
> > > (1) Every person has a finite number (of seconds) to live.
> > > (2) Humanity as a whole (ie, past, present, and future) consists of a finite number of people.
> > > (3) Humanity as a whole has a finite number (of seconds) to live.
> > >
> > > That part of his argument is sound and valid.
> > I'm afraid that's not it.
> >
> > I'm saying that:
> >
> > 1) An infinite number of poems exist *outside of time* in some indefinable abstract plane (much like Platonic Ideals).
> > 2) The poet's task is to use his psychic vision to see these poems "through a glass darkly," and to transcribe them for others to read.
> > 3) The universe exists *within* time. It has a timeline with both a beginning and an end.
> > 4) When the universe ends, there will still be an infinite amount of poems in the abstract plane that have never been discovered and transcribed.
> > 5) These poems will forever remain unknown. Therefore, they may be considered "lost."
> > 6) That an infinite number of poems should remain forever undiscovered, unrealized, unknown... is one of life's greatest tragedies.
> Fair enough; you're using your point (3) rather than the argument I gave Rachel.

I thought you were explaining *my* point to rachel.

> to show that "time is finite" - that's a premise you're stating, not arguing for.

In my argument, it's presented as a given. That's because I'm arguing for my theory that an infinite number of Emerson's Platonic poems (that predate, and presumably shall outlast time), shall never be rescued by visionary poets from the abstract plane in which they exist.

The argument that time is finite, is predicated upon "time" being a construct of the human mind, in order to help them survive in their physical environment.

It runs, loosely, as follows:

1) If something is "eternal," it is necessarily without change.
2) If our universe (rather, the greater "emptiness" of space that our universe is situated in) is to be considered "eternal," it must therefore be without change.
3) This presents the following conundrum: if the earth/universe are constantly changing, then the greater space that contains it is necessarily changing as is does; and, therefore, cannot be eternal.
4) The solution to the conundrum is that the earth/universe is *not* changing at all. It exists in a state of absolute stasis.

My analogy of choice for this concept is a reel of motion picture film (or a VHS tape, CD, electronic file, etc.). We view the film as a progression of images/sounds and scenes, with a beginning, a middle and an end. But in reality *all* of these coexist on the same reel of film. What we see as people moving is really just a series of still photographs being viewed in a particular order. The film appears to change/progress as we watch it, but in reality, it remains the same reel of still photographs.

That is how our live, our planet, and our universe exist. Each moment came into existence at the same time (on the same metaphorical reel of film). We experience our segment of it in a progressive manner; but nothing is ever changing or moving or acting in any conceivable way. Every moment of our universe, from the Big Bang to the final state of entropy, collapse, etc., co-exists in an unchanging "Now."

Time (which is the progression through space) would be meaningless in such a universe, and non-existent.

Time is an illusion that allows humans and other life forms on Earth to maintain the bigger illusion that they are progressing through space, acting upon things, creating, changing, dying.

> But that's your premise (3) assumes hat there's only one universe; whereas in fact there could be an infinite number of universes; in which case time would be infinite, and your point (5) would not follow.
>

As far as pertains to the Platonic poems, the existence of other universes would have not bearing on them -- unless these universes shared our history, our mythologies, our various species and environments, and (above all else) languages.

Nor would the existence of other universes have any effect upon my reel of film analogy. Other universes would exist within the same greater emptiness of space as ours. Since that greater space must be eternal, these universes must exist in a state of absolute stasis as well.

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:49:06 PM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:30:27 AM UTC-7, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:23:57 PM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:03:40 AM UTC-7, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:52:20 PM UTC-4, George J.. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:39:14 AM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 11:40:56 AM UTC-7, rachel wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 10:51:15 AM UTC-7, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > Returning to Emerson's essay, "The Poet," one of my favorite poetry videos was based on it:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-H2KPqaHds
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As a poem, it's a failure insofar as I doubt that people are going to be able to understand it without knowing the story behind it.
> > > > > > > > Emerson wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "For poetry was all written before time was, and whenever we are so finely organized that we can penetrate into that region where the air is music, we hear those primal warblings and attempt to write them down, but we lose ever and anon a word or a verse and substitute something of our own, and thus miswrite the poem. The men of more delicate ear write down these cadences more faithfully, and these transcripts, though imperfect, become the songs of the nations."
> > > > > > > > My poem is about the poems that have existed before time that have yet to be/may never be divined by a prophet/poet.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since thousands of poems (perhaps even millions of poems) are being written every day, one assumes that the as yet unwritten "Lost Poems" must be virtually numberless.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And since humankind, the universe, and time are all finite, one may further surmise that the majority of these poems will remain forever unknown.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe that this is one of life's greatest tragedies -- and one that is rarely, if ever recognized -- that there are an infinite number of perfect poems, songs, novels, paintings, sculptures, etc., out there that will never be revealed to us.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Michael Pendragon
> > > > > > > > “Oh, don't be silly.
> > > > > > > > Dockery's trademark is a turd with a liplock on it.
> > > > > > > > (You've seen his other ‘drawings.’ It only /looks like/ he's
> > > > > > > > sucking cock.)”
> > > > > > > > -- Dennis M. Hammes on Will Dockery.
> > > > > > > what do you mean time is finite
> > > > > > i sort of forgot the definition of time....i guess i meant numbers....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > my natural aptitude for math abruptly halted at co-sine
> > > > > Numbers. I think he's roughly arguing:
> > > > > (1) Every person has a finite number (of seconds) to live.
> > > > > (2) Humanity as a whole (ie, past, present, and future) consists of a finite number of people.
> > > > > (3) Humanity as a whole has a finite number (of seconds) to live.
> > > > >
> > > > > That part of his argument is sound and valid.
> > > > I'm afraid that's not it.
> > > >
> > > > I'm saying that:
> > > >
> > > > 1) An infinite number of poems exist *outside of time* in some indefinable abstract plane (much like Platonic Ideals).
> > > > 2) The poet's task is to use his psychic vision to see these poems "through a glass darkly," and to transcribe them for others to read.
> > > > 3) The universe exists *within* time. It has a timeline with both a beginning and an end.
> > > > 4) When the universe ends, there will still be an infinite amount of poems in the abstract plane that have never been discovered and transcribed.
> > > > 5) These poems will forever remain unknown. Therefore, they may be considered "lost."
> > > > 6) That an infinite number of poems should remain forever undiscovered, unrealized, unknown... is one of life's greatest tragedies.
> >
> > > i like these last two posts thank you (good reading for one buried in 2many pounds of klippingzz 💡)
> > I'm glad you like it. We hardly ever discuss philosophy here, and when I bring it up it's usually ruled "off-topic" under Group A's Guidelines; so I'm glad it's been allowed here for now.
> >
> > Basically he's saying that an infinite number of poems exist, but that they don't exist in the universe; nor in any other universe.
> well, some of them do (exist in the universe), only the lost ones don't exist in the universe, as per their definition
>
> what about the ones which come to mind in dreaming ? is that considered "in"" the universe or not? it's in your brain....but what about the mind? my doctor said the mind was "nowhere" surely dreams are physical, and exist in energy as part of one's brain, and are thus "in" the universe as well.
>

If the dream poem is forgotten upon waking, and left unwritten/unshared, it is lost to humankind as a whole.

It is, however, not quite as lost as the poems that have never revealed themselves in dreams.

> UNLESS....well, in kabbalah it says that for dreaming, the truest dreams, which occur between 3:30 and 5:30 am, your soul ASCENDS to Heaven to receive them....so is that IN the universe or NOT???
>

Mixing theology and philosophy can be tricky.

In both Kabbalah and my personal philosophy the universe and "God" are one and the same. Kabbalah teaches that God was originally complete, perfect, and omniscient. But God experienced a desire to impart his knowledge to others, so he stepped back and created a universe out of himself. The human soul is on a journey to reunite with God (of which it is part). However, when it is absorbed back into God, it be part of the God-conciousness while retaining its individual consciousness as well.

The big question here becomes: as part of a universe that exists in a state of absolute stasis, wouldn't God necessarily be in a state of absolute stasis as well? And the answer to that is "yes."

The universe (other universes/multiverses included) would be analogous to a huge reel of motion picture film depicting the life of God.

> and of course, if you can THINK of them, here on earth, like sort of remember dreaming them, does that mean they exist PHYSICALLY in your brain, i would think so, so that means they are *in* the universe, TOO.
>

Thoughts and dreams have no physical existence in one's brain. They would have some form of existence within our illusory perception of the world/life/time, but it would be a more indefinite form of existence than that of a poem that had been written down and (especially) published.

> i would guess, since we have minds....here's where language fails me. "in your mind," is really an inferior expression, wouldn't it be, since the mind is NOWHERE according to my doctor, so does that mean our minds exist outside of space and time?
>

Minds have no existence. Consciousness ("mind") is an illusion created by human brain in order for us to perceive ourselves as individual, and sentient, beings.

> but i just can't believe this, doesn't there have to be some kind of connection, to even think to know that it (or they, depending on your philosophy?) exist? unless it's all a delusion of our brains.
>

Everything of this world is a delusion (or, rather, illusion) of our brain -- including the illusion of human existence. The poems, however, are not of this, or any other, world. They exist *outside* of space and time, and are therefore (like the Platonic Ideals upon which they are based) the only reality.

> sorry, i know i should be embarrassed to engage in such primitive discussions, being unschooled in these matters lacking any academic knowledge of them. thank you for indulging me.
>

You're doing fine.

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 3:11:18 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:49:06 PM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:30:27 AM UTC-7, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:23:57 PM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:03:40 AM UTC-7, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:52:20 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:39:14 AM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 11:40:56 AM UTC-7, rachel wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 10:51:15 AM UTC-7, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Returning to Emerson's essay, "The Poet," one of my favorite poetry videos was based on it:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-H2KPqaHds
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As a poem, it's a failure insofar as I doubt that people are going to be able to understand it without knowing the story behind it.
> > > > > > > > > Emerson wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "For poetry was all written before time was, and whenever we are so finely organized that we can penetrate into that region where the air is music, we hear those primal warblings and attempt to write them down, but we lose ever and anon a word or a verse and substitute something of our own, and thus miswrite the poem. The men of more delicate ear write down these cadences more faithfully, and these transcripts, though imperfect, become the songs of the nations."
> > > > > > > > > My poem is about the poems that have existed before time that have yet to be/may never be divined by a prophet/poet.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Since thousands of poems (perhaps even millions of poems) are being written every day, one assumes that the as yet unwritten "Lost Poems" must be virtually numberless.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And since humankind, the universe, and time are all finite, one may further surmise that the majority of these poems will remain forever unknown.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I believe that this is one of life's greatest tragedies -- and one that is rarely, if ever recognized -- that there are an infinite number of perfect poems, songs, novels, paintings, sculptures, etc., out there that will never be revealed to us.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Michael Pendragon
> > > > > > > > > “Oh, don't be silly.
> > > > > > > > > Dockery's trademark is a turd with a liplock on it.
> > > > > > > > > (You've seen his other ‘drawings.’ It only /looks like/ he's
> > > > > > > > > sucking cock.)”
> > > > > > > > > -- Dennis M. Hammes on Will Dockery.
> > > > > > > > what do you mean time is finite
> > > > > > > i sort of forgot the definition of time....i guess i meant numbers....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > my natural aptitude for math abruptly halted at co-sine
> > > > > > Numbers. I think he's roughly arguing:
> > > > > > (1) Every person has a finite number (of seconds) to live.
> > > > > > (2) Humanity as a whole (ie, past, present, and future) consists of a finite number of people.
> > > > > > (3) Humanity as a whole has a finite number (of seconds) to live.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That part of his argument is sound and valid.
> > > > > I'm afraid that's not it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm saying that:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) An infinite number of poems exist *outside of time* in some indefinable abstract plane (much like Platonic Ideals).
> > > > > 2) The poet's task is to use his psychic vision to see these poems "through a glass darkly," and to transcribe them for others to read.
> > > > > 3) The universe exists *within* time. It has a timeline with both a beginning and an end.
> > > > > 4) When the universe ends, there will still be an infinite amount of poems in the abstract plane that have never been discovered and transcribed.
> > > > > 5) These poems will forever remain unknown. Therefore, they may be considered "lost."
> > > > > 6) That an infinite number of poems should remain forever undiscovered, unrealized, unknown... is one of life's greatest tragedies.
> > >
> > > > i like these last two posts thank you (good reading for one buried in 2many pounds of klippingzz 💡)
> > > I'm glad you like it. We hardly ever discuss philosophy here, and when I bring it up it's usually ruled "off-topic" under Group A's Guidelines; so I'm glad it's been allowed here for now.
> > >
> > > Basically he's saying that an infinite number of poems exist, but that they don't exist in the universe; nor in any other universe.
> > well, some of them do (exist in the universe), only the lost ones don't exist in the universe, as per their definition
> That's what MMP is saying, but what that means [depends] on his definition of "universe." Does he mean (1) the space-time continuum, or (2) everything that exists? Given his point 3, he means the former, but then his point 5 doesn't follow; just because the 'lost poems' don't exist in the continuum, it doesn't follow that they'll never be written, as they could very well be written in some other universe.
>

I mean both. The space-time continuum doesn't exist (cannot exist) apart from a physical universe.

So, dropping your either/or interpretation entirely, I mean our physical universe of which the space-time continuum is merely a part.

> > what about the ones which come to mind in dreaming ? is that considered "in"" the universe or not? it's in your brain....but what about the mind? my doctor said the mind was "nowhere" surely dreams are physical, and exist in energy as part of one's brain, and are thus "in" the universe as well.
> Fair enough; there's no reason to think that minds exist in the continuum (Universe1). Your mind is experiencing things, caused by brain activity, but it doesn't follow that the experiences are the brain activity.
>

Yes. Although that explanation only skims the surface (as, for purposes of my argument, does my own description).

> > UNLESS....well, in kabbalah it says that for dreaming, the truest dreams, which occur between 3:30 and 5:30 am, your soul ASCENDS to Heaven to receive them....so is that IN the universe or NOT??? and of course, if you can THINK of them, here on earth, like sort of remember dreaming them, does that mean they exist PHYSICALLY in your brain, i would think so, so that means they are *in* the universe, TOO.
> That's true on the other definition of "universe" I gave, as everything that exists (Universe2). Gods and souls, like minds, do not exist in Universe1; but if they exist they exist in Universe2 by definition; everything that exists exists in Universe2.
> >

God is the universe and, conversely, the universe is God. You cannot separate them. You can argue as to whether the God/Universe is a sentient being, but they remain two names/conceptions of the same thing.

> > i would guess, since we have minds....here's where language fails me. "in your mind," is really an inferior expression, wouldn't it be, since the mind is NOWHERE according to my doctor, so does that mean our minds exist outside of space and time? but i just can't believe this, doesn't there have to be some kind of connection, to even think to know that it (or they, depending on your philosophy?) exist? unless it's all a delusion of our brains..
> >
> > sorry, i know i should be embarrassed to engage in such primitive discussions, being unschooled in these matters lacking any academic knowledge of them. thank you for indulging me.
> I enjoy thinking and talking about philosophy. I'm glad you enjoy the discussion, but I'm talking about it for my own enjoyment.

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 5:08:04 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 3:11:18 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:49:06 PM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:30:27 AM UTC-7, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:23:57 PM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:03:40 AM UTC-7, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:52:20 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:39:14 AM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 11:40:56 AM UTC-7, rachel wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 10:51:15 AM UTC-7, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Returning to Emerson's essay, "The Poet," one of my favorite poetry videos was based on it:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-H2KPqaHds
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As a poem, it's a failure insofar as I doubt that people are going to be able to understand it without knowing the story behind it..
> > > > > > > > > > Emerson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "For poetry was all written before time was, and whenever we are so finely organized that we can penetrate into that region where the air is music, we hear those primal warblings and attempt to write them down, but we lose ever and anon a word or a verse and substitute something of our own, and thus miswrite the poem. The men of more delicate ear write down these cadences more faithfully, and these transcripts, though imperfect, become the songs of the nations."
> > > > > > > > > > My poem is about the poems that have existed before time that have yet to be/may never be divined by a prophet/poet.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Since thousands of poems (perhaps even millions of poems) are being written every day, one assumes that the as yet unwritten "Lost Poems" must be virtually numberless.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And since humankind, the universe, and time are all finite, one may further surmise that the majority of these poems will remain forever unknown.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I believe that this is one of life's greatest tragedies -- and one that is rarely, if ever recognized -- that there are an infinite number of perfect poems, songs, novels, paintings, sculptures, etc., out there that will never be revealed to us.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Michael Pendragon
> > > > > > > > > > “Oh, don't be silly.
> > > > > > > > > > Dockery's trademark is a turd with a liplock on it.
> > > > > > > > > > (You've seen his other ‘drawings.’ It only /looks like/ he's
> > > > > > > > > > sucking cock.)”
> > > > > > > > > > -- Dennis M. Hammes on Will Dockery.
> > > > > > > > > what do you mean time is finite
> > > > > > > > i sort of forgot the definition of time....i guess i meant numbers....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > my natural aptitude for math abruptly halted at co-sine
> > > > > > > Numbers. I think he's roughly arguing:
> > > > > > > (1) Every person has a finite number (of seconds) to live.
> > > > > > > (2) Humanity as a whole (ie, past, present, and future) consists of a finite number of people.
> > > > > > > (3) Humanity as a whole has a finite number (of seconds) to live.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That part of his argument is sound and valid.
> > > > > > I'm afraid that's not it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm saying that:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) An infinite number of poems exist *outside of time* in some indefinable abstract plane (much like Platonic Ideals).
> > > > > > 2) The poet's task is to use his psychic vision to see these poems "through a glass darkly," and to transcribe them for others to read.
> > > > > > 3) The universe exists *within* time. It has a timeline with both a beginning and an end.
> > > > > > 4) When the universe ends, there will still be an infinite amount of poems in the abstract plane that have never been discovered and transcribed.
> > > > > > 5) These poems will forever remain unknown. Therefore, they may be considered "lost."
> > > > > > 6) That an infinite number of poems should remain forever undiscovered, unrealized, unknown... is one of life's greatest tragedies.
> > > >
> > > > > i like these last two posts thank you (good reading for one buried in 2many pounds of klippingzz 💡)
> > > > I'm glad you like it. We hardly ever discuss philosophy here, and when I bring it up it's usually ruled "off-topic" under Group A's Guidelines; so I'm glad it's been allowed here for now.
> > > >
> > > > Basically he's saying that an infinite number of poems exist, but that they don't exist in the universe; nor in any other universe.
> > > well, some of them do (exist in the universe), only the lost ones don't exist in the universe, as per their definition
> > That's what MMP is saying, but what that means [depends] on his definition of "universe." Does he mean (1) the space-time continuum, or (2) everything that exists? Given his point 3, he means the former, but then his point 5 doesn't follow; just because the 'lost poems' don't exist in the continuum, it doesn't follow that they'll never be written, as they could very well be written in some other universe.
> >
> I mean both. The space-time continuum doesn't exist (cannot exist) apart from a physical universe.
>
> So, dropping your either/or interpretation entirely, I mean our physical universe of which the space-time continuum is merely a part.
> > > what about the ones which come to mind in dreaming ? is that considered "in"" the universe or not? it's in your brain....but what about the mind? my doctor said the mind was "nowhere" surely dreams are physical, and exist in energy as part of one's brain, and are thus "in" the universe as well..
> > Fair enough; there's no reason to think that minds exist in the continuum (Universe1). Your mind is experiencing things, caused by brain activity, but it doesn't follow that the experiences are the brain activity.
> >
> Yes. Although that explanation only skims the surface (as, for purposes of my argument, does my own description).
> > > UNLESS....well, in kabbalah it says that for dreaming, the truest dreams, which occur between 3:30 and 5:30 am, your soul ASCENDS to Heaven to receive them....so is that IN the universe or NOT??? and of course, if you can THINK of them, here on earth, like sort of remember dreaming them, does that mean they exist PHYSICALLY in your brain, i would think so, so that means they are *in* the universe, TOO.
> > That's true on the other definition of "universe" I gave, as everything that exists (Universe2). Gods and souls, like minds, do not exist in Universe1; but if they exist they exist in Universe2 by definition; everything that exists exists in Universe2.
> > >
> God is the universe and, conversely, the universe is God. You cannot separate them. You can argue as to whether the God/Universe is a sentient being, but they remain two names/conceptions of the same thing.
> > > i would guess, since we have minds....here's where language fails me. "in your mind," is really an inferior expression, wouldn't it be, since the mind is NOWHERE according to my doctor, so does that mean our minds exist outside of space and time? but i just can't believe this, doesn't there have to be some kind of connection, to even think to know that it (or they, depending on your philosophy?) exist? unless it's all a delusion of our brains.
> > >
> > > sorry, i know i should be embarrassed to engage in such primitive discussions, being unschooled in these matters lacking any academic knowledge of them. thank you for indulging me.
> > I enjoy thinking and talking about philosophy. I'm glad you enjoy the discussion, but I'm talking about it for my own enjoyment.

On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 6:41:03 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 5:08:04 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 3:11:18 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:49:06 PM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:30:27 AM UTC-7, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:23:57 PM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:03:40 AM UTC-7, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:52:20 PM UTC-4, George J. Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 11:39:14 AM UTC-4, rachel wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 11:40:56 AM UTC-7, rachel wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 10:51:15 AM UTC-7, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Returning to Emerson's essay, "The Poet," one of my favorite poetry videos was based on it:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-H2KPqaHds
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As a poem, it's a failure insofar as I doubt that people are going to be able to understand it without knowing the story behind it.
> > > > > > > > > > > Emerson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "For poetry was all written before time was, and whenever we are so finely organized that we can penetrate into that region where the air is music, we hear those primal warblings and attempt to write them down, but we lose ever and anon a word or a verse and substitute something of our own, and thus miswrite the poem. The men of more delicate ear write down these cadences more faithfully, and these transcripts, though imperfect, become the songs of the nations."
> > > > > > > > > > > My poem is about the poems that have existed before time that have yet to be/may never be divined by a prophet/poet.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Since thousands of poems (perhaps even millions of poems) are being written every day, one assumes that the as yet unwritten "Lost Poems" must be virtually numberless.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And since humankind, the universe, and time are all finite, one may further surmise that the majority of these poems will remain forever unknown.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe that this is one of life's greatest tragedies -- and one that is rarely, if ever recognized -- that there are an infinite number of perfect poems, songs, novels, paintings, sculptures, etc., out there that will never be revealed to us.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Michael Pendragon
> > > > > > > > > > > “Oh, don't be silly.
> > > > > > > > > > > Dockery's trademark is a turd with a liplock on it.
> > > > > > > > > > > (You've seen his other ‘drawings.’ It only /looks like/ he's
> > > > > > > > > > > sucking cock.)”
> > > > > > > > > > > -- Dennis M. Hammes on Will Dockery.
> > > > > > > > > > what do you mean time is finite
> > > > > > > > > i sort of forgot the definition of time....i guess i meant numbers....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > my natural aptitude for math abruptly halted at co-sine
> > > > > > > > Numbers. I think he's roughly arguing:
> > > > > > > > (1) Every person has a finite number (of seconds) to live.
> > > > > > > > (2) Humanity as a whole (ie, past, present, and future) consists of a finite number of people.
> > > > > > > > (3) Humanity as a whole has a finite number (of seconds) to live.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That part of his argument is sound and valid.
> > > > > > > I'm afraid that's not it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm saying that:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) An infinite number of poems exist *outside of time* in some indefinable abstract plane (much like Platonic Ideals).
> > > > > > > 2) The poet's task is to use his psychic vision to see these poems "through a glass darkly," and to transcribe them for others to read.
> > > > > > > 3) The universe exists *within* time. It has a timeline with both a beginning and an end.
> > > > > > > 4) When the universe ends, there will still be an infinite amount of poems in the abstract plane that have never been discovered and transcribed.
> > > > > > > 5) These poems will forever remain unknown. Therefore, they may be considered "lost."
> > > > > > > 6) That an infinite number of poems should remain forever undiscovered, unrealized, unknown... is one of life's greatest tragedies.
> > > > >
> > > > > > i like these last two posts thank you (good reading for one buried in 2many pounds of klippingzz 💡)
> > > > > I'm glad you like it. We hardly ever discuss philosophy here, and when I bring it up it's usually ruled "off-topic" under Group A's Guidelines; so I'm glad it's been allowed here for now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Basically he's saying that an infinite number of poems exist, but that they don't exist in the universe; nor in any other universe.
> > > > well, some of them do (exist in the universe), only the lost ones don't exist in the universe, as per their definition
> > > That's what MMP is saying, but what that means [depends] on his definition of "universe." Does he mean (1) the space-time continuum, or (2) everything that exists? Given his point 3, he means the former, but then his point 5 doesn't follow; just because the 'lost poems' don't exist in the continuum, it doesn't follow that they'll never be written, as they could very well be written in some other universe.
> > >
> > I mean both. The space-time continuum doesn't exist (cannot exist) apart from a physical universe.
> >
> > So, dropping your either/or interpretation entirely, I mean our physical universe of which the space-time continuum is merely a part.
> > > > what about the ones which come to mind in dreaming ? is that considered "in"" the universe or not? it's in your brain....but what about the mind? my doctor said the mind was "nowhere" surely dreams are physical, and exist in energy as part of one's brain, and are thus "in" the universe as well.
> > > Fair enough; there's no reason to think that minds exist in the continuum (Universe1). Your mind is experiencing things, caused by brain activity, but it doesn't follow that the experiences are the brain activity.
> > >
> > Yes. Although that explanation only skims the surface (as, for purposes of my argument, does my own description).
> > > > UNLESS....well, in kabbalah it says that for dreaming, the truest dreams, which occur between 3:30 and 5:30 am, your soul ASCENDS to Heaven to receive them....so is that IN the universe or NOT??? and of course, if you can THINK of them, here on earth, like sort of remember dreaming them, does that mean they exist PHYSICALLY in your brain, i would think so, so that means they are *in* the universe, TOO.
> > > That's true on the other definition of "universe" I gave, as everything that exists (Universe2). Gods and souls, like minds, do not exist in Universe1; but if they exist they exist in Universe2 by definition; everything that exists exists in Universe2.
> > > >
> > God is the universe and, conversely, the universe is God. You cannot separate them. You can argue as to whether the God/Universe is a sentient being, but they remain two names/conceptions of the same thing.
> > > > i would guess, since we have minds....here's where language fails me. "in your mind," is really an inferior expression, wouldn't it be, since the mind is NOWHERE according to my doctor, so does that mean our minds exist outside of space and time? but i just can't believe this, doesn't there have to be some kind of connection, to even think to know that it (or they, depending on your philosophy?) exist? unless it's all a delusion of our brains.
> > > >
> > > > sorry, i know i should be embarrassed to engage in such primitive discussions, being unschooled in these matters lacking any academic knowledge of them. thank you for indulging me.
> > > I enjoy thinking and talking about philosophy. I'm glad you enjoy the discussion, but I'm talking about it for my own enjoyment.
> Some interesting things I came across in my ramblings through poetry:
>
> "Those who practice poetry search for and love only the perfection that is God Himself. And will this divine grace, this supreme perfection depart those for whom life exists only to discover and glorify them? That seems impossible, and, to my mind, poets have the right to hope after their death for the everlasting happiness that obtains complete knowledge of God, that is to say of the sublime beauty."
> Alcools, Guillaume Apollinaire
> https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/French/Apollinaire.php#anchor_Toc24461582
>
> "The ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with Gods or Geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the properties of woods, rivers, mountains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever their enlarged & numerous senses could perceive.
>
> And particularly they studied the genius of each city & country, placing it under its mental deity.
>
> Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of & enslav'd the vulgar by attempting to realize or abstract the mental deities from their objects: thus began Priesthood.
>
> Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.
>
> And at length they pronounced that the Gods had orderd such things.
>
> Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast."
> -?Plate 11, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell", William Blake
>
> I believe they're echoing what you have said...

Will Dockery wrote:

> General-Zod wrote:

>> Will Dockery wrote:

>>> Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:

>>>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 12:04:19 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:07:02 AM UTC-4, fake Jordy C forged:
>>>>> > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 6:08:21 AM UTC-4, roach wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > > beauty sleep i see.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > i apologize if my comment offended anybody. it was just a dumb joke..
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > i make food and fat jokes, too, you know.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > fat, the bane of my existence,.
>>>>> > > i'm sure if i were male, i would still make "fag jokes," forgive my PI nomenclature.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > i like
>>>>> > I love
>>>>> Sleazy impostor troll post noted. ^^^^^

>>>> True. Jordy *is* a good fag joke.

>>> The homophobia of Michael Pendragon is noted.

>>> HTH and HAND.

>> Yes, sadly enough some things never change...

> Not here on the poetry newsgroup, obviously.

> And so it goes.

Actually things are changing here for the better..!