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

[Hraesvelg]

If you can't read the US Declaration of Independence and see that it is also a work of art, then I'm sorry for you. You have this almost obsessive desire to quantify and label subjective experiences. Which is "better"? (Note, I'm not asking which you prefer. I'm asking which is, objectively, as you want to label everything, better). A sunrise or a sunset? A daisy or an orchid? Michelangelo's Pieta or Jackson Pollock's One: Number 31, 1950? How can one even begin to quantify such things? It is impossible and misses the point completely.

Even you say "Then I'd go with whichever cause seemed more worthy of appreciation." This raises the question...seems to whom? To you? To me? To Ralath? It is an unquantifiable term, "seems."

[Ralath]

Then I'd go with whichever cause seemed more worthy of appreciation.

Aha. You would say the better one is "more worthy of appreciation." That's a vague term if I ever heard one. How do you measure which is more worthy of appreciation? I would say you would have to measure it subjectively. I think that's a definition of art--subjectively measuring the worth of appreciation.

And documents aren't art. They're simple statements of facts. You can't ask - Which facts are truer?

I would definitely say the Declaration of Independence is art. It's not just a simple statement of fact. It's pretty subjective in itself. Other documents might be a little drier and might lay down law, but... law might be an art form as well.

But that's not really relevant.


On a different tact, I would say visual art is just an amalgamation of facts, viewed subjectively.

[Vasu]

It is partly because they are not quantifiable that I do not like them. I suppose it is impossible to objectively name any single work of art as "better" or "best", as the vagaries of individual opinions always play a role, as you say, it misses the point. But what then, is the point? How does expressing yourself in poetry or prose uplift your spirit? How does drawing a picture of a human body circumscribed by a circle provide you with great ecstasy? How does it matter whether what you said is direct or described with a great variety of metaphors, allusions or anything? If it was a contest of literary expertise, it would seem alright (Is this spelling right? For some reason my spellcheck is underlining "alright"). But it's not. It's rather a means of "enriching humanity", "uplifting the soul" and other such vague terms.

You deliver a speech. Why? Because you feel strongly about an issue, and wish to let others know that and also to let them know why you feel strongly about the issue. It was not done with an intention of personal pleasure.

And you're right. I don't like the Declaration of Independence, but that's because of the frequent references it makes to "the Creator" or "God", which are not definable objectively, but that's a different matter.


EDIT: (Ralath posted before I could finish)

I intend to say more worthy of impression to me. Not to others, as I cannot speak for others. Therefore it is subjective, but only to me. And the moment it is subjective to only a single person, it ceases to be subjective.


Law is meant to be objective. The moment it becomes subjective and open to interpretation, you get loopholes, "ways-out" and other such things.

[Hraesvelg]

I intend to say more worthy of impression to me. Not to others, as I cannot speak for others. Therefore it is subjective, but only to me. And the moment it is subjective to only a single person, it ceases to be subjective.

That is the very definition of subjectivity. I don't understand what point you're trying to make there.

Have you never read a poem, heard a song, or even watched a movie and felt your emotions soar? Felt the creators joy or sorrow? Been stirred to strive for something better for yourself or others? Do you derive no benefit from any artistic endeavor? I genuinely hope this is not the case.

[Vasu]

I'm saying that a simple text of prose can my make my emotions soar as well as any poem.

[Leesa]

Heres a poem:

I like stupid things
omg look! waffle kings!

I see dead things
ah!! each one of them sings!

I've never liked mustard
its color is a retard!!

Goodbye and Farewell
I will go hide back in my shell.

Yay me XD

[Ralath]

How does expressing yourself in poetry or prose uplift your spirit? How does drawing a picture of a human body circumscribed by a circle provide you with great ecstasy? How does it matter whether what you said is direct or described with a great variety of metaphors, allusions or anything?

Here's the difference:

• I am sad.
  
• My sadness is as deep as an ocean.

Because you like to quantify so much, I think that's as quantifiable as it's going to get. There is an inherent difference in direct speech and the world of metaphor and lyrical language. How do people understand emotion better if all you say is, "I am sad." or "I am very sad." I can't tell you what the exact differences are between the two above quotes because they aren't quantifiable. But there is an inherently different, and deeper meaning in the second one.

I think the part of the problem lies in the examples you give. You ask how a da Vinci's Vitruvian Man is supposed to get great ecstasy.

Well.

It doesn't.

Vitriuvian Man isn't famous because it conjures some amazing emotion in people. Rather, it was a study in human proportions.

However, I think if you look at other paintings, then there is (hopefully) something within them that causes emotion within you.

Can I suggest Goya's Saturn Devouring His Son? The painting is a LOT
more revolting than me just saying, "Saturn devouring his son."

And you're right. I don't like the Declaration of Independence, but that's because of the frequent references it makes to "the Creator" or "God", which are not definable objectively, but that's a different matter.

I think it's irrelevant whether you like the DoI or not. Disliking something doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as art. Or not "worthy of appreciation."

Law is meant to be objective. The moment it becomes subjective and open to interpretation, you get loopholes, "ways-out" and other such things.

I would agree that law is meant to be objective. But I would also say that it is always subjective. A lawyer's entire job is to argue about what a law "means." That's why there's a Supreme Court in the United States that tells people what the law means.

The language of the law is interpreted subjectively because it is not precise enough to be objective (and that's an inherent flaw that isn't so easy to change). For instance:

A law states that people cannot build 2-story houses anymore.

That seems like a fairly straightforward law. But does that mean that people can't build 3-story houses anymore because to build a 3-story house, you have to build a 2-story house first? What about 1-story houses that are as tall or taller than 2-story houses? What about 1-story houses with an attic? Do attics count as a story? What about one-and-a-half level houses?

So a law that appears to be objective, is challenged in court and it's in court where it's decided according to how the judge interprets the law (subjectivity).

[Vasu]

Can I suggest Goya's Saturn Devouring His Son? The painting is a LOT
more revolting than me just saying, "Saturn devouring his son."

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 (And it doesn't matter if you said the blood was streaming down like a thousand rivers. It doesn't change things. Say it that way if you like it).

Here's the difference:
I am sad.
My sadness is as deep as an ocean.

Because you like to quantify so much, I think that's as quantifiable as it's going to get. There is an inherent difference in direct speech and the world of metaphor and lyrical language. How do people understand emotion better if all you say is, "I am sad." or "I am very sad." I can't tell you what the exact differences are between the two above quotes because they aren't quantifiable. But there is an inherently different, and deeper meaning in the second one.

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.

I think it's irrelevant whether you like the DoI or not. Disliking something doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as art. Or not "worthy of appreciation."

No, I was just explaining to Hraevelg why I disliked it. No, that doesn't discount it as a work of art. I just find it unfortunate, that something that needs to be as precise and doubtless as law, is written in such a roundabout fashion.

I would agree that law is meant to be objective. But I would also say that it is always subjective. A lawyer's entire job is to argue about what a law "means." That's why there's a Supreme Court in the United States that tells people what the law means.

The language of the law is interpreted subjectively because it is not precise enough to be objective (and that's an inherent flaw that isn't so easy to change).

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. Only then can justice be delivered.

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.

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.

A law states that people cannot build 2-story houses anymore.

That seems like a fairly straightforward law. But does that mean that people can't build 3-story houses anymore because to build a 3-story house, you have to build a 2-story house first? What about 1-story houses that are as tall or taller than 2-story houses? What about 1-story houses with an attic? Do attics count as a story? What about one-and-a-half level houses?

Obviously here the law is insufficient to explain the questions you posed. The next logical step to me would be to discuss and decide on a law to help explain these things. 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 shoulod 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." Let me give you an example.

"Nobody is allowed to murder others."

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.

[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.