The Thinker of the Thought
The Thinker of the Thought
The Thinker of the Thought by Michael Levy
Reflections of the mind
in a life beyond earths green meadows,
My, how a seasons dramas pass by
like wind driven clouds,
And how congested the thinker of the thought.
Oceans shimmer like diamond starlight,
Mountain tops hide in silvery mystical haze,
Shadows stretch, tinted by crimson sunsets
varnishing the deep forests of pleasure,
Laughter and color frolic in twilight skies.
Beauty and joy dance in ever increasing circles
around the genius of fresh life,
Animals and plants live here
feeding each others existence,
Streams of exotic light infuse all.
But; how did it all slip by unnoticed?
Divine emptiness now fills the eternal voids,
A speck of mysterious nothingness reminisces,
Gazing,
Towards a place, of awe and wonderment.
Reflections of the mind
in a life beyond earths green meadows,
My, how a seasons dramas pass by
like wind driven clouds,
And how congested the thinker of the thought.
Oceans shimmer like diamond starlight,
Mountain tops hide in silvery mystical haze,
Shadows stretch, tinted by crimson sunsets
varnishing the deep forests of pleasure,
Laughter and color frolic in twilight skies.
Beauty and joy dance in ever increasing circles
around the genius of fresh life,
Animals and plants live here
feeding each others existence,
Streams of exotic light infuse all.
But; how did it all slip by unnoticed?
Divine emptiness now fills the eternal voids,
A speck of mysterious nothingness reminisces,
Gazing,
Towards a place, of awe and wonderment.
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
Is there a point to this? I don't see any room for discussion; unless you pose a question, I don't imagine this thread will have a longer life than an advertisement or spam.
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
I understand your instant response, however read the poem a few more times and ask you self if you understand it before jumping in with your auto-pilot reply that has controled your mind most of your adult life.
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
Opening posts that are not discussable topics are not appropriate for discussion forums. Perhaps if you framed the point of the poem in the form of a debatable question, this thread might have a chance.
I do not take pretention seriously, so you might prefer it if you left assumptions about me outside of your reply. It is wasted breath.
I do not take pretention seriously, so you might prefer it if you left assumptions about me outside of your reply. It is wasted breath.
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
OK, let's try another color and approach ... Have you ever discussed the meaning of a poem when you attended school or university?
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
Certainly. In English class -- not philosophy class. It was an exercise in determining the author's message through all the techniques he used to obscure his intention.
However, the discussion on this forum is geared toward debate. I have never attended an English class where the meaning of the poem was criticized, and the poet's worldview was torn apart, with his delusions unravelled piece by piece.
Poetic license is a fallacy for a reason. It allows the author to sidestep criticisms and fake depth. However, by framing your intention and message in simple, direct language -- or as a question -- you will be unable to engage in this fallacy. You will not be able to be pretentious. If you truly are a man of depth, this will only make it far easier for you to successfully argue your case.
However, the discussion on this forum is geared toward debate. I have never attended an English class where the meaning of the poem was criticized, and the poet's worldview was torn apart, with his delusions unravelled piece by piece.
Poetic license is a fallacy for a reason. It allows the author to sidestep criticisms and fake depth. However, by framing your intention and message in simple, direct language -- or as a question -- you will be unable to engage in this fallacy. You will not be able to be pretentious. If you truly are a man of depth, this will only make it far easier for you to successfully argue your case.
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
Trev, the last thing I ever wish to do is argue my case with anyone. Most great philosphers were poets and most great poets were philosophers... They go hand in glove with each other.
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
You sound pretty confident that your beliefs are true, tossing around words like "great philosopher" like that. Now, if that's true, when you present these beliefs without argument and no desire for argument, I start to wonder if you have some motive for avoiding debate. Is it too plebian?
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
If I knew what Pibrian meant I could find a way not to argue about it!
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
Plebian: "of the common people" (dictionary.com)
It's the only reason I can think of why you might not want to argue: it's below you. I think that an argument, nitpicky as it may be, is the best way there is for breaking down a belief and figuring out whether or not it's true. It exposes everything, even the uncomfortable parts that you might not be able to see on your own.
But maybe by not arguing at all someone gains more insight? This nasty tick keeps making me believe that a failure to argue leads to sheepishness and cult behaviour, but who am I to argue... with your non-arguments?
It's the only reason I can think of why you might not want to argue: it's below you. I think that an argument, nitpicky as it may be, is the best way there is for breaking down a belief and figuring out whether or not it's true. It exposes everything, even the uncomfortable parts that you might not be able to see on your own.
But maybe by not arguing at all someone gains more insight? This nasty tick keeps making me believe that a failure to argue leads to sheepishness and cult behaviour, but who am I to argue... with your non-arguments?
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
Trevor what you say may have a hint of truth about it, however, I always tell folks not to place any trust in what I say or write until they prove it for themsleves.
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
Well, that's pretty easy if you don't actually say anything.
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
I guess that is why they say "Silence is Golden."
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
It's also why they say, "If you don't really say anything, you can't get caught out."
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
Yes, unless we break the silence and we say a whole lot of nothing and then we may get scolded for being evasive.
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
Come on, stop arguing and answer the questions in Truth Vs Belief.
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
things more fantabulous than themselves are expressed through Art when our selves are expressed in them.Poetic license is a fallacy for a reason. It allows the author to sidestep criticisms and fake depth. However, by framing your intention and message in simple, direct language -- or as a question -- you will be unable to engage in this fallacy. You will not be able to be pretentious. If you truly are a man of depth, this will only make it far easier for you to successfully argue your case.
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
That would be a problem. If you express the self in something -- let's say, a metaphor -- and through that metaphor, you end up expressing something other than the self, you have failed to communicate accurately.bert wrote:things more fantabulous than themselves are expressed through Art when our selves are expressed in them.
Re: The Thinker of the Thought
Art may be a means of experiencing by abstracts,symbols,etc., what can not be conveyed by other means; but not by equivocation or by something contrary to our healthy feelings and intelligence. at least it has to have pattern and give intimitation of its genetic truth - and should be technically competent.Trevor Salyzyn wrote:That would be a problem. If you express the self in something -- let's say, a metaphor -- and through that metaphor, you end up expressing something other than the self, you have failed to communicate accurately.bert wrote:things more fantabulous than themselves are expressed through Art when our selves are expressed in them.
when I see something that might be a vomit of small ingenuity, called 'Portrait of my Mother', then - as in the method of 'psychoanalytic free-association' - it could be called 'God', 'The Soul','The Rape of Helen', or any damn thing you please. this sewerage is served up to the public as deep abstract! well, they are the best argument I know for the credence of psychology, the smutty-romantic pathology of St. Fraud, Junk and Co..
anything badly out of alignment or grossly distorted must have merit - seems to be their first maxim. their stuff is not vital or grotesque; but a disintegration, flaccid,stinking, and of lost meaning. they are necrophagous. fortunately, this decay quickly dessicates and becomes the manure for something different. (for Beauty, vitality and inventiveness in the chimerical, horrific, grotesque,etc., see the works of Bosch, Grunewald, Graf, Breughel, Durer, Michaelangelo, and another few.)
Let us have Art where we can look at twice; if not beautiful, something that stimulates towards an illusive significance, and in a style that does not involve the poster's tricks for effectiveness - always the sensationalism out to arrest attention by kicking, or other means of shock. the most compellingly dynamic works I know are archaic - a static simplicity that is vital if not beautiful. like my cat, I always judge a thing in this wise: is it true? (genetical or actual); can I breed from it?; does it smell good (to eat)? new idioms are easy and abundant, but ability...well,that's recollected.
____________________________
what is Art?
the function of Art is the ornamentation of things and of life for pleasure or intrest. it has this paradox, that it can make anything appear possible, and is the most justifiable form of lying. fundamentally, all art is an essential and natural graphic syllogism without antithesis. that is:'idea,form and composition' - (someone once asked me to sum up Art in one word, I replied: 'Composition' - with the proviso that successful coitus needs sufficient libido) - with spatial parenthetical embellishments never accurately indexed.
Yes, but this content does not qualify it as great art or anything very much; indeed, quite elementary patterns are significantly all this and still quite commonplace. hence, of the fundaments: the 'Idea' should be original or a fresh interpretation of the familiar. 'Form' should be aesthetic and, however rhythmic, logical and vital. 'Composition' should have balance, however asymmetrical or inventive, and always geocentric.