What are the ways to make your poems spread to the audience?

[Ralath]

Ah Ralath, I was comparing prose and poetry because both are written using text. A picture cannot be satisfactorily explained using words. However, if you started to describe "Saturn ripping his son's head off and causing blood to stream down to the floor", you would just about begin to describe the picture.

Begin being the keyword. BEGIN to describe the picture. But there's no way that can communicate the same thing as the picture itself. I am not revolted by those words the same way I am revolted by the picture.

Now, I think "I am sad" says about the same thing as "My sadness is as deep as the ocean". Only thing is that the latter shows that you have verbal/literary skills. It doesn't cause the meaning of the sentence to change in any way. If the meaning is inherently different and deep, it should surely be noticeable, if not quantifiable.

But the meaning IS inherently different and deep. People experience different levels of happiness and sadness. But they most definitely do not quantify it. People don't go around say, "Oh, I'm twice as happy as I was yesterday." Or, "I'm sad plus two about the death of my dog as I was sad about the death of my cat." I mean, what the heck does that even mean?

The reason we have analogies and metaphors and figurative language (and prose and poetry) is because these things can communicate to use better and in a way that direct phrasing cannot. Heck, I bet if you looked through your own writing, I bet you would find a ton of instances where you use metaphor or simile where you could have been direct. Why didn't you? Because the metaphor and simile communicated something better.

Not everything of worth is quantifiable.

The reason that a lawyer's job changed from proving that someone was guilty/innocent according to law to arguing what the law meant was because law was written so subjectively. Law should mean the same thing to everyone.

No one means to write law subjectively. No one goes to write a law and says, "I want this law to mean different things to different people so we can have lots of court battle over the meaning."

There is no "inherent" flaw in law. That's like saying "This guy is a human. But he has this inherent flaw which makes him not a human but something else." Similarly, lack of objectivity cannot be an "inherent" flaw of law, because law itself is a set of objective, legally enforceable rules.

Terrible, terrible analogy. You don't specify what you mean by inherent flaw. If a "human" was flawed enough (say he was made out of a different material--metal and wiring), then that most definitely does not make him human.

And you are arguing in circles. You are basically stating:

"Law is objective because law cannot lack objectivity."

Circular argument. Not credible.

I'm not sure what you definition of law proves either since it doesn't mention anything about objectivity/subjectivity. But I do think there is an interesting part of the definition:

Law
–noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

If law was truly objective, they wouldn't need to be enforced by a judicial decision

Once it is someone's decision, it is definitely not objective.

But instead, you are trying to bend the law to suit your means i.e arguing with what intention the law was written. The thing about law is, it should be unbendable. What should be done here is further laws introduced such as "Nobody is permitted to build houses greater than 2 storeys, and the aforementioned house should not be taller than 20 feet (or whatever). Extensions to the house will not be treated as storeys."

I am not arguing about what the law should be or how the law should be interpreted. I'm talking about how the law is and how the law is interpreted.

Even in your modified law, we can splice it further. What is a house? Does someone have to be living in it to be considered a house? Is a trailer considered a house? What are extensions? What about basements? Do they count into the height of the house? Do they count as one of two stories?

A direct statement? No. It does not cover instigating someone to suicide directly or indirectly. So we extend the law to cover all such scenarios. We do not sit in court and try to figure out what the "intention" of the writer was. The thing about writing law is, whatever the writer has intended, should come out onto that paper. That is true objectivity.

Wait. HOLD UP!

"whatever the writer has intended, should come out onto that paper."

Let's analyze this statement.

Whatever the writer has intended????? Really?? A writer's intent is objective now???

You even contradict yourself with this argument.

First you say that we shouldn't figure out what the intention of the writer was. And then you say that we should follow the intention of the writer.

Really? Really?!

And that doesn't even count the fact that there is no possible way to write a law "that covers all scenarios." Believe it or not, the world is not made up of black or white.

[Vasu]

Begin being the keyword. BEGIN to describe the picture. But there's no way that can communicate the same thing as the picture itself. I am not revolted by those words the same way I am revolted by the picture.

Like I said, words cannot satisfactorily describe a picture. But simple direct words can definitely explain satisfactorily anything that was ever written in a poem.

[quote}But the meaning IS inherently different and deep. People experience different levels of happiness and sadness. But they most definitely do not quantify it. People don't go around say, "Oh, I'm twice as happy as I was yesterday." Or, "I'm sad plus two about the death of my dog as I was sad about the death of my cat." I mean, what the heck does that even mean?[/quote]


Oh so do they say, "my sadness was as deep as the ocean yesterday, and it's a bit deeper now." Even what you did was quantification of the emotion, even if it was rather vaguely quantified. If the meaning IS inherebtly different as you put it, then WHAT is the difference?

The reason we have analogies and metaphors and figurative language (and prose and poetry) is because these things can communicate to use better and in a way that direct phrasing cannot. Heck, I bet if you looked through your own writing, I bet you would find a ton of instances where you use metaphor or simile where you could have been direct. Why didn't you? Because the metaphor and simile communicated something better.

Yes they conveyed something more effectively to the reader than a direct statement. But they certainly didn't uplift anyone's spirit.

No one means to write law subjectively. No one goes to write a law and says, "I want this law to mean different things to different people so we can have lots of court battle over the meaning."

So they mean to do something and end up doing something else? I'd call that inefficiency.

Terrible, terrible analogy. You don't specify what you mean by inherent flaw. If a "human" was flawed enough (say he was made out of a different material--metal and wiring), then that most definitely does not make him human.

Yes that does not make him human. There fore you cannot state "This guy is human but he's flawed enough to not be a human." That's a contradiction.

And you are arguing in circles. You are basically stating:

"Law is objective because law cannot lack objectivity."

Circular argument. Not credible.

I'm not sure what you definition of law proves either since it doesn't mention anything about objectivity/subjectivity. But I do think there is an interesting part of the definition:

Quote:

Law –noun 1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

If law was truly objective, they wouldn't need to be enforced by a judicial decision

Once it is someone's decision, it is definitely not objective.

Applicable to all it's people, regardless of their interpretation of it.

I think all that is "enforced" is the sentence. The law states that murder is not allowed. So what to do with the murderer? That is the judicial decision.

I am not arguing about what the law should be or how the law should be interpreted. I'm talking about how the law is and how the law is interpreted.

Even in your modified law, we can splice it further. What is a house? Does someone have to be living in it to be considered a house? Is a trailer considered a house? What are extensions? What about basements? Do they count into the height of the house? Do they count as one of two stories?

Those are generally accepted definitions. What is a house? Come on. A house is a structure intended for inhabitation. But only "intended" for inhabitation. Even if no one is in it, it remains a structure intended for inhabitation. Basements go downwards not upwards, and since "height" and not "depth" were mentioned in the law, it is perfectly legal to have basements.

Wait. HOLD UP!

"whatever the writer has intended, should come out onto that paper."

Let's analyze this statement.

Whatever the writer has intended????? Really?? A writer's intent is objective now???

You even contradict yourself with this argument.

First you say that we shouldn't figure out what the intention of the writer was. And then you say that we should follow the intention of the writer.

Really? Really?!

And that doesn't even count the fact that there is no possible way to write a law "that covers all scenarios." Believe it or not, the world is not made up of black or white.

Law has to be written by someone. It doesn't pop out of the machine of objective fairness. If the law is written objectively, and the writer is a fair, objective thinker, then the everything the author intends is on the paper, and means the exact same thing to everyone.

What I'm saying is, we shouldn't have to sit in court and argue about what the law means, because it should mean the same thing to everyone. We shouldn't have to worry about the intention of the law writer, because he was being objective. If he wasn't being objective, then we discard those laws.

[Ralath]

Oh so do they say, "my sadness was as deep as the ocean yesterday, and it's a bit deeper now."

I never said that. You're just adding your own words to my phrases in order to quantify them for your own purposes.

Even what you did was quantification of the emotion, even if it was rather vaguely quantified.

I could have said anything else. I could have said "My happiness is like a ray of sunshine."

If the meaning IS inherently different as you put it, then WHAT is the difference?

I can't quantify that difference for you, if that's what you're wanting. But heck, why wait for me to explain it for you when you understand it perfectly well in your next sentence:

Yes they conveyed something more effectively to the reader than a direct statement.

Obviously, if one thing conveyed something more effectively than another, then they are different. You obviously recognize that the two phrases are different meaning-wise, and not just syntax.

But they certainly didn't uplift anyone's spirit.

I don't know why the heck are you so caught up in the phrase, "uplifting the spirit." They didn't "uplift the spirit" because they weren't meant to uplift the spirit.

If, like you say, direct prose is just the same thing as lyrical prose, then why did you use them?

Because they manage to convey something in a way that direct prose cannot.

~~~~

At any rate, I think we've now (finally) established the purpose of art and poetry and their worth, even though there is no objective way to measure the "best."

Hooray for progress. =.=

~~~~

So they mean to do something and end up doing something else? I'd call that inefficiency.

I never said laws were efficient. Dunno who you're arguing with.

In fact, government as a whole is inefficient. And at times, I'd like to keep it that way.

I think all that is "enforced" is the sentence. The law states that murder is not allowed. So what to do with the murderer? That is the judicial decision.

No. Most definitely not. Cases do not make it up to the Supreme Court just so the Supreme Court can decide what to "do with the murderer." I don't know about the highest courts in other countries but the Supreme Court of the United States (and other courts) is deciding the interpretation of the law.

In fact, the question about what to do with the murderer is ever left up to a judicial decision. There are usually laws already set in place for the procedure. It is only when these laws are challenged (such as the death penalty) in court that the courts must decide what to do with these laws themselves, not the murderers specifically.

Those are generally accepted definitions. What is a house? Come on. A house is a structure intended for inhabitation. But only "intended" for inhabitation. Even if no one is in it, it remains a structure intended for inhabitation. Basements go downwards not upwards, and since "height" and not "depth" were mentioned in the law, it is perfectly legal to have basements.

Sure. Fair enough. There are some things that have common definitions. But what happens when you replace a word like... "house" with words like... "equality" or "property" or "right" or "freedom"...?

Those words aren't so easily definable.

Law has to be written by someone. It doesn't pop out of the machine of objective fairness. If the law is written objectively, and the writer is a fair, objective thinker, then the everything the author intends is on the paper, and means the exact same thing to everyone.

What I'm saying is, we shouldn't have to sit in court and argue about what the law means, because it should mean the same thing to everyone. We shouldn't have to worry about the intention of the law writer, because he was being objective. If he wasn't being objective, then we discard those laws.

I think you have a misconception of what objectivity is. I'm going to reference Wikipedia because (no matter what other people say) Wikipedia is still one the best places for easy to understand explanations. I think these sentences are pertinent:

Objectivism, or metaphysical objectivism, is the view that there is a reality or realm of objects and facts existing wholly independent of the mind.

While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.

Now, with that in mind, let's consider law.

Law is meditated on by humans. Not looking any more beyond that, that violates the definition of objectivity.

A human cannot be objective because the way he perceives the world (through the five senses) and the way he thinks rely on his interpretation.

Also, as a side-note, I think your concept about how laws are written is wrong as well.

There is no such thing as a singular writer when it comes to laws. There are often many, many writers editing, re-editing, adding in, and deleting. This is not objective.

[Hraesvelg]

If we're getting into the metaphysical, there can be no true objectivity, but that's really getting far afield from how this started...

[Ralath]

If we're getting into the metaphysical, there can be no true objectivity, but that's really getting far afield from how this started...

Agreed.




And LOL at your sig quote...? XDX

[Vasu]

You're right. I have been mistaken about what exactly objectivity. I was getting it confused with objectivism, a theory that is almost opposite to what you said.

Objectivism holds that reality exists independent from consciousness; that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform humankind's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond.

Objectivism derives its name from its conception of knowledge and values as objective: neither intrinsic nor subjective. According to Rand, concepts and values are not intrinsic to external reality, nor are they merely subjective (by which Rand means "arbitrary" or "created by [one's] feelings, desires, 'intuitions,' or whims"; like wishful thinking). Rather, valid concepts and values are, as she wrote, "determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind."[6]

The bold parts show that she said objectivity is directly dependent on the state of mind i.e. objectivity is not independent of mind, but independent of consciousness. So I guess I was rather mislead. *bows*

You win round 1 Ralath.

[Hraesvelg]

Eesh. By all means, read Ayn Rand, but please don't become a Ranroid. She had some interesting ideas, but not enough to fully inform a worldview. I've known a few people who totally subscribe to objectivism...it can really ruin a person. Beware any -ism.