The great debate  

alright so I've split you up into groups of three:

Group 1

matthew bass
lightbaron
kriticool

group 2

onlywakingexists
Lord Viddax
Jon rot

group 3

MadameLavender
jvp
souladareatease

group 4

Missy.
DystopianMelody
M.Abbot

group 5

Vi
exe
AspiringLibrarian


The concept is simple enough. the first name on your group, let's take group 1: the first name is Mathew so he will post a statement for his group:

" society is drowning in greed, adultery, crime and evil. the only way to turn it around is through a worldwide use of mandatory eugenics"

lightbaron and kriticool will then post an argument for or against. Mathew will make a note of scores between 1 and 5 for the two arguments and pm them to me. he will then respond to the two arguments with his own opinion.

lightbaron will be up next and post his own statement and Mathew and Kriticool will post their arguments, after making a note of his scores, lightbaron will then respond to the two posts.

Kriticool will then do the same. the scores will be posted when the three have made their statements, responded and scored. the highest scorers from each group will go forward to a final, or semi final, depending on the numbers.


the groups can play simultaneously. it would make life a lot easier if you kept your group within a quote box. ie when Mathew post his statement Lightbaron will use the quote thing then Kritocool will quote the two and so forth.

if you want to go down the route of abortion, religion and wars, that's fine but I would urge you to think outside the box  and post a statement that would warrant some passion.

I've set the limit to 400 words. feel free to use analogies, metaphors and quotes etc but make sure to explain your belief in whoever's quote you use.

I think I've covered everything 'cept throw up a few sample statements, I'll get to that as soon as I can.

I'd be happy to see the first rounds over within a week, see how it goes.

there's still a small opening for any others that might want to play, stick your name down here:

http://deepundergroundpoetry.com/forum/discuss/read/7016/

any questions, please keep them to yourself  


the first names of each group are welcome to start at any time


thank you kindly, your normal programming should resume momentarily
   

Ok I'll start for my group--going with an old adage:  "The Grass Is Always Greener On The Other Side Of The Fence"

Soul & JVP--you're up;  write your response/dissertation on that statement, thoughts, for or against, etc.  

Statement:

"We spend our lives searching for when all sounds become a music. People usually feel the present when they're shocked into life, and it's so intense they can't notice until afterwards. The real art of life is to be aware of it. Without shocks. Without memories. No tricks -- just the continual/equable death."


Viddax, Rot: given the broadness of the statement, I'll expect a broad response, but detailed. References, examples, etc. Convince me it's bullshit, or that it's gospel, or show me the maybes. New thinking and creativity over formality. Cheers.

I think I shall wait until someone else posts a response first so as to er... copy their good layout. Owe (can I call you that to keep it short?) where in the seven blummin hells bells did you drag that up from? But seriously my question before I reply is what is the purpose of the bracketed happiness? Should I pay attention to it or not?

Yours rather confusedly (as always?).

MadameLavender said:Ok I'll start for my group--going with an old adage:  "The Grass Is Always Greener On The Other Side Of The Fence"

Soul & JVP--you're up;  write your response/dissertation on that statement, thoughts, for or against, etc.  


The fly saw the spider and thought what a fine spinner
The fly swooped down for a closer look
The spider enjoyed his lunch

The spider saw the eagle and thought what a fine flier
The spider spun a thread and caught a wind
The eagle enjoyed his snack

The eagle saw the fish and thought what a fine swimmer
The eagle dove in to take a dip
The shark enjoyed his bite

The shark saw the flies and thought what fine aviators
The shark swam fast to sail though the air
The beach flies enjoyed their banquette

Back home,
the neighbor's grass looks greener,
his barbecue smells better,
his circumstances look happier,
and his paint looks fresher.

Out in the country,
the neighbor's harvest seems richer
and his apples taste sweeter.

So, how is this related to "the grass is always greener on the other side"?
To start, we have to see something that we admire and desire, and it is something that can not easily be obtained .
It may be that the other person has skills, resources, or time to apply to the situation that we don't have.
In which case, we may be obtain similar results given sufficient time, resources, and training.
But sometimes, when someone else person possessing something, or something is difficult to obtain, the perceived value artificially increases.  Chinese have a good applicable saying, "The other mountain is always higher".

In conclusion
When others appear to have it better, or something is difficult to obtain, carefully consider the time, skill, and resources required.  Sometimes, it is better to just relax and enjoy the sunset.

Viddax said:I think I shall wait until someone else posts a response first so as to er... copy their good layout. Owe (can I call you that to keep it short?) where in the seven blummin hells bells did you drag that up from? But seriously my question before I reply is what is the purpose of the bracketed happiness? Should I pay attention to it or not?

Yours rather confusedly (as always?).

I cropped it a little. Just take what you can from it.

"The question of good and evil remains in irremediable chaos for those who seek to fathom it in reality. It is mere mental sport to the disputants, who are captives that play with their chains."


There we go, exe & AspiringLibrarian. Looking forward to reading what ya got.

Checking in

Anonymous said:<< post removed >>

Thanks for the "hisclaimer" Matthew...

MadameLavender said:Ok I'll start for my group--going with an old adage:  "The Grass Is Always Greener On The Other Side Of The Fence"

Soul & JVP--you're up;  write your response/dissertation on that statement, thoughts, for or against, etc.  

(sorry for the wait good folks-Busy with country brunch said the pig)


Keep Your chemical lawn
I'll watch what weeds
bloom through
this tangled tango
as you hide behind
your painted doorway
what screams in the night
sighs
I care not
deaf and blind
excepting
only my beating heart
You gift the gild
to a plastic existence
worn on the sleeve by a dollar bill
pray not for rain
no not I
for it will spill
into a pool
mucking my step
making me
foot soldier
to the Ortho man
keep me in greensleeves
'll sing You a jaunty tune
my worries my cares
owned
by know body else

Anonymous said:<< post removed >>


If They Say Why, Why...Tell ‘Em
by kriticool


Someone once said
Humans Beings
Their “nature” is inherently good
That eventually MAN-kind
He does exactly what he should
The Right Thing...The Best Thing, but
MAN, sometimes can be a joke...because
MAN and his kind will throw you off the boat
The Human Being
He can be a very dubious bloke

Him living trife, causing strife
With or without his best friend’s wife
See another’s “nature”
It can jack-up another’s whole life
They can be some cunning folk
You’ll find another one, like this one
Plotting for his wife to croak
Her Insurance paid up...
The score being exactly what the broker wrote
That bank note, Hubby,
Him “naturally” looking to collect
Could be for his little kids but
Them he won’t protect

See this is human “nature” where
He’ll reach for every penny
The kind of bloke who takes tokes
On top of shots of Henny
Out to be the “best”
Grabbing all he calls his
His human “nature” telling him
That’s all that there is
This so-called Human,
His “nature” says Get Over
Not unlike other beings
A few we call Rover

violet said:"The question of good and evil remains in irremediable chaos for those who seek to fathom it in reality. It is mere mental sport to the disputants, who are captives that play with their chains."


There we go, exe & AspiringLibrarian. Looking forward to reading what ya got.



"The question of good and evil remains in irremediable chaos for those who seek to fathom it in reality. It is mere mental sport to the disputants, who are captives that play with their chains."

The dichotomy of “good and evil” has troubled humanity since the very first civilizations, and it has bothered philosophers even longer. The chaos apparent is in part due to its scope; “good and evil”, as it stands, is not a simple, singular question and should not be treated as such. Semantically, it is not a question at all, it is a common collocation, like “land and sea” or “birth and death”; but unlike these physical antitheses, “good and evil” seems to lack a verifiable scientific construct, and it is left to those with little else but time and lube on their hands to ponder the various vagaries the words imply. The very phrasing of the statement places me, disputant, in manacles, disparaging my admiration for the chain work.

Pretty chain work it is. To analyze good and evil, separately or in opposition, we must first abstract them from reality, to the hypothetical “ultimate good” and “ultimate evil.” This is analogous to the Platonic world of mathematics; the “perfect square” may not exist in the real world, but mathematicians must assume it exists regardless of whether it can be reproduced in reality. So it is with good and evil, eros and thanatos, God and Satan. Here, the would-be philosopher promptly hits a stumbling block. Many of us have only the vaguest concept of “ultimate good”, and while humanity is sharper at condemnation than accreditation, and the depravity of humankind is not to be taken lightly, when considered dispassionately “ultimate evil” is really as unreachable as ultimate good. Therefore we accept this as we accept the impossibility of constructing a perfect 90˚angle.

Continuing in the Ancient Greek tradition, we now should try to find examples of the closest approximation to each extreme occurring in nature.  This presents an even greater hurdle fraught with social, ethical, and moral minefields. Even through an anal retentive system of quantification, we can never truly know how close any thought, word or deed is to the concept of ultimate good or ultimate evil. The common solution to this is to redefine “good” and “evil” as mere perceptions of the human mind, not existing externally but present only to the extent that we consider them to be present. “for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” This is convenient and seems, at face value, to make ‘common sense’ particularly in terms of our self-involved culture, but it places the thinker in a quandary regarding the ultimate good / ultimate evil hypothesis. It supposes that there is no such thing; the “ultimate truth” is, like relative perceptions of good, bad, and evil, a figment of the human mind.

Moral relativism, of itself, has a vast array of anthropological support- there do factually exist wide-ranging differences in moral decision-making across cultures. It also has laboratory studies to back it- the famous Zimbardo prison experiment and the Milgram shock experiment both seem to indicate that environment shapes our understanding of what is acceptable behavior. Another satisfyingly scientific conjecture is that human designs of “good” and “evil” are biologically determined. Brain imaging of institutionalized psychopaths shows deficiencies in amygdala function as well as other structural ‘abnormalities’. Oxytocin release in the brain prompts feelings of love and generosity. For completeness sake I include that beyond the individual, morality makes an evolutionary logic (although most evolutionary explanations should be heavily seasoned with skepticism as they are all post-hoc  rationale).

However, if we believe in the metaphysical “ultimate good” and “ultimate evil”, differences in considerations of good and evil occur because we do not perceive good and evil precisely or perfectly.

This is a trap. One should never make the mistake of assuming that one’s own culture or personal viewpoint is normative. On the contrary, this view holds that “good” and “evil” as they ought to be, do not exist to be perceived; that is, we cannot observe them in any existing culture. So then, you ask, (I heard you) what relevance, pray tell, has this for real life good and evil? What can we take from this masturbatory cognition to apply to, say, the Nazis, or serial killers, or rapists?  The answer is, of course, nothing. All this, when adequately thought about, has zero real-world value.

As of yet, the truth about “good and evil” is not known. For the present moment, we content ourselves with the idea that it exists in entropy somewhere in the median of the didactic absolutes presented here. In that sense it is chaos, in the ‘chaos theory’ sense, possessing an order unmappable by current systems.

And I play with my chains.

onlywakingexists said:[quote-268733-Viddax]I think I shall wait until someone else posts a response first so as to er... copy their good layout. Owe (can I call you that to keep it short?) where in the seven blummin hells bells did you drag that up from? But seriously my question before I reply is what is the purpose of the bracketed happiness? Should I pay attention to it or not?

Yours rather confusedly (as always?).

I cropped it a little. Just take what you can from it.[/quote]

What I have got from it so far is a blank page waiting to  be filled. The problem is not answering it but from which direction. Its not in the cards to be a poem and an essay on it forces me into exam style answering: point example explain. All I can promise so far is a monstrosity about people living only for the moment, and let me tell you that won't be clear.

I will write a damnable reply I just don't quite know how. So yes, more procrastination from me teach.