01-28-2012, 05:42 PM
i though Enihil was a female? She /they are.
"let Enihil then hold," ---act as a womb.
---------------------------------------------------
"to the divine raise up his mind, thus in him spring the soul.""
E.G. raise the mind up towards the divine. In other words make he more like the "gods" and less like an animal.
--------------------------------------------------------
"the 200,000 years aren't long enough."
Yes, that is the point. No other species has progressed even half as quickly as man has. The implication is that man had help. This is also addressed in the idea of the sudden appearance of technologies. Since mankind split from the common ancestor with the great apes, his brain size has doubled several times. From Wiki
"Homo is the genus that includes modern humans and species closely related to them. The genus is estimated to be about 2.3 to 2.4 million years old,[1][2] evolving from australopithecine ancestors with the appearance of Homo habilis. Specifically, H. habilis is assumed to be the direct descendant of Australopithecus garhi which lived about 2.5 million years ago. However in May 2010, H. gautengensis was discovered, a species believed to be even older than H. habilis.[3]
Homo--
The most salient physiological development between the two species is the increase in cranial capacity, from about 450 cc (27 cu in) in A. garhi to 600 cc (37 cu in) in H. habilis. Within the Homo genus, cranial capacity again doubled from H. habilis through H. Ergaster or H. Erectus to H. heidelbergensis by 0.6 million years ago. The cranial capacity of H. heidelbergensis overlaps with the range found in modern humans."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"i'm getting a feelling of god and satan , good and bad etc. and i'm sure i'm supposed to."
Yes and no. Yes you are but it is not what you think it is, or who you think it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"from my last comment to here the beginnings in the christian sense is evident, the transition from the non christian flowed smoothly (if that what it was"
The idea here is to set the record straight,so to speak. I use the Judeo/Christian as it is the most significant to western man.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"i know my feedback isn't good or professional but i enjoyed getting out of my depth"
If a reader is at least half intelligent (and I would say you are at least half if not a tad more
) Then he can give feedback related to clarity, which for me is the area in which one needs feedback the most. Of course technical help and suggestion are always appreciated, but that is probably a lot less beneficial than one might think. Basically, if one can tell me what parts seem to work, and even better why or why not. I do not really need someone to agree or disagree with me in the path I choose to go poetically (philosophically), that discussion ended thirty years or more ago. No, the areas I need help in, are the same areas that any writer needs help in, his blind spots. I know I approach things from a different point philosophically from a lot of others, but my thought is, if it is unclear to you, or you don't get it, or however you wish to phrase it, then I have failed in some way. But I cannot know if I have failed unless someone tells me they don't get it. And sure, sometimes the reason a person doesn't get it can have more to do with their own blind spots, but still, I think it nearly always points to something that is problematic in the writing, and when it does, the fault lies with the writer. But I also realize what I am asking of someone, when I ask them to tell me if they "don't get it". Such and admission leaves one feeling vulnerable to he charge that they don't get it because they are not intelligent enough to do so. Unfortunately, that is an attitude that has been fostered since the advent of Modernism, as a way to defend against legitimate criticism. What it really is, is just a new version of the emperor's new clothes. I try and foster the idea that if one finds something disruptive about a piece, then it is because in some way the piece fails, and that failure is laid at the feet of the writer, not the reader. To address further your comment, I also believe that as one because a better critic, one also becomes a better writer, because what informs the critic is also the same thing that informs the writer. I mean, to me it seems that most "poets" haven't even a clear understanding that poetry is about Truth, but that it could care less about facts. Most people don't even understand to what degree "Determinism" has affected their outlook, since they accept it as reality, yet what poetry would convey can not be arrived at from that sort of outlook, or mind set. Yet, even in physic, especially at the ends (cosmology and subatomic), we cannot even make the assumption (although many do so anyway) that were we capable of comprehending all the factors that go into an event (which we are not), would we be able to say the outcome which occurred, was the only one that could occur. And if science is so far away from what it professes as it's philosophic ground, how much further must poetry be? Do people even understand that there have been periods in our history when admitting that one did not understand was the door into understanding, rather than something one should be ashamed to admit, for doing so admits to something lacking in one's self? This current paradigm is no more reality than any of it's predecessors, it is simply the nearest approximation that we are able to achieve at the current time, but it is an illusion. Science can no more tell you why you should not beat your wife to death when she pisses you off, than poetry can do differential calculus, anymore than science can explain, or even admit that a flag manifold has strange properties when compared to the behavior of a bee (for true absurdity in science read the article at the other end of his link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABumblebee
it seems to be part of human nature to make totally unsupported inferences, and represent these as facts. It at least is responsible for the selling of many books, the type of which whose author's appear on the Art Bell show). BTW if you ever wonder how much truth is in that email you just got warning of beautiful women used as bait to entrap men to become unwilling organ donors, there is snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/
which researches such stuff, and determines just how much is true and how much is fiction, so you don't have too. It has saved me many weeks worth of time. I don't know how often, but it is fairly frequent, that someone sends me an email that states so and so said such and such, and I can tell by what is be attributed to the person, it is not characteristic of them. Thanks to snoops, it takes only a few minutes to check out what was the facts. By being able to rapidly respond and show that the person who sent me the email had been taken in, I have now trained such friends to do my research for me, so they will not be embarrassed. I place a high value on getting other people to do the work so I don't have to!
Dale
"let Enihil then hold," ---act as a womb.
---------------------------------------------------
"to the divine raise up his mind, thus in him spring the soul.""
E.G. raise the mind up towards the divine. In other words make he more like the "gods" and less like an animal.
--------------------------------------------------------
"the 200,000 years aren't long enough."
Yes, that is the point. No other species has progressed even half as quickly as man has. The implication is that man had help. This is also addressed in the idea of the sudden appearance of technologies. Since mankind split from the common ancestor with the great apes, his brain size has doubled several times. From Wiki
"Homo is the genus that includes modern humans and species closely related to them. The genus is estimated to be about 2.3 to 2.4 million years old,[1][2] evolving from australopithecine ancestors with the appearance of Homo habilis. Specifically, H. habilis is assumed to be the direct descendant of Australopithecus garhi which lived about 2.5 million years ago. However in May 2010, H. gautengensis was discovered, a species believed to be even older than H. habilis.[3]
Homo--
The most salient physiological development between the two species is the increase in cranial capacity, from about 450 cc (27 cu in) in A. garhi to 600 cc (37 cu in) in H. habilis. Within the Homo genus, cranial capacity again doubled from H. habilis through H. Ergaster or H. Erectus to H. heidelbergensis by 0.6 million years ago. The cranial capacity of H. heidelbergensis overlaps with the range found in modern humans."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"i'm getting a feelling of god and satan , good and bad etc. and i'm sure i'm supposed to."
Yes and no. Yes you are but it is not what you think it is, or who you think it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"from my last comment to here the beginnings in the christian sense is evident, the transition from the non christian flowed smoothly (if that what it was"
The idea here is to set the record straight,so to speak. I use the Judeo/Christian as it is the most significant to western man.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"i know my feedback isn't good or professional but i enjoyed getting out of my depth"
If a reader is at least half intelligent (and I would say you are at least half if not a tad more
) Then he can give feedback related to clarity, which for me is the area in which one needs feedback the most. Of course technical help and suggestion are always appreciated, but that is probably a lot less beneficial than one might think. Basically, if one can tell me what parts seem to work, and even better why or why not. I do not really need someone to agree or disagree with me in the path I choose to go poetically (philosophically), that discussion ended thirty years or more ago. No, the areas I need help in, are the same areas that any writer needs help in, his blind spots. I know I approach things from a different point philosophically from a lot of others, but my thought is, if it is unclear to you, or you don't get it, or however you wish to phrase it, then I have failed in some way. But I cannot know if I have failed unless someone tells me they don't get it. And sure, sometimes the reason a person doesn't get it can have more to do with their own blind spots, but still, I think it nearly always points to something that is problematic in the writing, and when it does, the fault lies with the writer. But I also realize what I am asking of someone, when I ask them to tell me if they "don't get it". Such and admission leaves one feeling vulnerable to he charge that they don't get it because they are not intelligent enough to do so. Unfortunately, that is an attitude that has been fostered since the advent of Modernism, as a way to defend against legitimate criticism. What it really is, is just a new version of the emperor's new clothes. I try and foster the idea that if one finds something disruptive about a piece, then it is because in some way the piece fails, and that failure is laid at the feet of the writer, not the reader. To address further your comment, I also believe that as one because a better critic, one also becomes a better writer, because what informs the critic is also the same thing that informs the writer. I mean, to me it seems that most "poets" haven't even a clear understanding that poetry is about Truth, but that it could care less about facts. Most people don't even understand to what degree "Determinism" has affected their outlook, since they accept it as reality, yet what poetry would convey can not be arrived at from that sort of outlook, or mind set. Yet, even in physic, especially at the ends (cosmology and subatomic), we cannot even make the assumption (although many do so anyway) that were we capable of comprehending all the factors that go into an event (which we are not), would we be able to say the outcome which occurred, was the only one that could occur. And if science is so far away from what it professes as it's philosophic ground, how much further must poetry be? Do people even understand that there have been periods in our history when admitting that one did not understand was the door into understanding, rather than something one should be ashamed to admit, for doing so admits to something lacking in one's self? This current paradigm is no more reality than any of it's predecessors, it is simply the nearest approximation that we are able to achieve at the current time, but it is an illusion. Science can no more tell you why you should not beat your wife to death when she pisses you off, than poetry can do differential calculus, anymore than science can explain, or even admit that a flag manifold has strange properties when compared to the behavior of a bee (for true absurdity in science read the article at the other end of his linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABumblebee
it seems to be part of human nature to make totally unsupported inferences, and represent these as facts. It at least is responsible for the selling of many books, the type of which whose author's appear on the Art Bell show). BTW if you ever wonder how much truth is in that email you just got warning of beautiful women used as bait to entrap men to become unwilling organ donors, there is snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/
which researches such stuff, and determines just how much is true and how much is fiction, so you don't have too. It has saved me many weeks worth of time. I don't know how often, but it is fairly frequent, that someone sends me an email that states so and so said such and such, and I can tell by what is be attributed to the person, it is not characteristic of them. Thanks to snoops, it takes only a few minutes to check out what was the facts. By being able to rapidly respond and show that the person who sent me the email had been taken in, I have now trained such friends to do my research for me, so they will not be embarrassed. I place a high value on getting other people to do the work so I don't have to!
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.