»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Epics
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Epics |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Whatever happened to a desire in poetry for writing epics and chivalric pieces? The kind of poems that used cantos, and would take not just a few minutes but hours to read? Is there no more time in today's world for poets or readers to be as devoted and pursue that kind of loftiness anymore? When I look at the vers of Poets like Pope, Scott, or Dryden I wish I could write more like them more than like any modern poet. I feel many previous manners of language were much better and more conductive to wisdom. But now a days styles are on individual "islands" detached from tradition for the sake of originality. But in seeking a modern originality I feel we have lost much majesty in the language. Scott specifically calls some of his poems "imitations" and does with pride. I feel Imitation and emulation of style are not evil. It is better to excersise thus with openness and emulate and have that direct influence stated behind you than write freeverse and act as if you are are not emulating and imitating. There is none that is free, we always must follow the ways and forms of the past even if most distantly or contrasting. In short I just feel poetry was better when it kept more tradition in its character. Is it because there is not that kind of time available to study history and language when business and technology are held more important than civilization and nature in our culture. Why don't we raze away excess business and technology that distract and corrupt the world and restore morals and the arts again? I guess people wish to just make money more than anything. It is unfortunate. [This message has been edited by Essorant (03-13-2003 02:22 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
http://www.msnusers.com/ArtisticStylingsofTwistedSerenity/Documents/Midi%20Music/shineonyoucrazydiamond%2Emid Not sure if this is what you meant? and it IS a private community, but you are most welcome. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Serenity, the link you provided won't let the reader view the page. Essorant, for long[er] poetry, some of us here seem to break things down into "series", simply to give the readers some time to take in each part. Go back through the archives - there are a few of us here who will label Parts I, II, III etc. by our poetry so people know there's a storyline to follow... And enjoy the archives. It's not too dusty in there! |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Serenity- Is that a music file? It won't download to my computer either. Sunshine- It is more the approach and mannerism. I enjoy excellent poems here and elsewhere that pursue styles sometimes not completly contemporary--which is refreshing. But I still don't feel there is that kind of devout and constant practice given today to poetry by artists that existed in previous ages, reflecting deeper studies in history, tradition and language--preservation of styles and meanings. Once you can preserve, then add new devices. If you can't preserve there's no point in creating new devices, or they will just quickly as or quicker than old. In many cases I think artists need to be more patient with learning and progress. Patience is graced, sooner than haste. [This message has been edited by Essorant (03-16-2003 06:28 PM).] |
||
|
Whippoorwill Member
since 2003-03-12
Posts 60Arizona |
Hi, just browsing around and I found myself here. You said a mouthful. I think you were commenting on where are the epics. If I'm not reading it right then forget this. If I am understanding at least a littl, well then, I thought I was doing something wrong because I could not write a poem without the end result being a long poem. I could not tell the story from start to finish and leave out information I need to tell the reader. Sometimes I feel I am a storyteller, amongst other gifts God has given me, it just looks like a poem. Are you saying epics are good? I do not have many but the ones I do have tell the whole story. LOL Thanks for listening. In the Spirit, Whippoorwill |
||
bsquirrel
since 2000-01-03
Posts 7855 |
To me, it looks like Sen was linking to Pink Floyd's "Shine On You Crazy Diamond." I have no problem with that.  |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Essorant- 'Why don't we raze away excess business and technology that distract and corrupt the world' Seems like the type of argument we've had before in here... what do you consider excess business and technology? How far is too far? You're on a computer... you are obviously benefiting from these excess businesses and technologies... and they are profiting from your use of their products. While I think there are fundamental prolems with the way American commerce often operates, it's not a bad thing. Commodities and luxury items and the internet and... say... I dunno, the possibility for cures for diseases like AIDS and cancer seem like good arguments for the validity of the things you deems excess. 'But I still don't feel there is that kind of devout and constant practice given today to poetry by artists that existed in previous ages, reflecting deeper studies in history, tradition and language' I think maybe this has more to do with the fact that there are 'lay' poets everywhere- poetry is a hobby to more people than it is a way of life, a means of survival- I mean that in both economic and spiritual senses. How many 'professional' poets are there on this website? I don't know about the rest of us, but I ain't quitting my day job! Don't get me wrong, I take my poetry very seriously. I'm not sure if you meant this or not, but your posts are implying that people who write in more modern forms don't have to same care and passion and dedication to their poetry that older writers of more traditional forms did. I take offense to that- they wrote within the parameters of their own culture, and in language they were accustomed to... why should modern writers be expected to do any different? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Hush, "How far is too far?" I don't need to think or use mathematics to tell that things are in excess in our culture--I sense it very truly. Populations, machines and information are too much and too many today in our world. We need to educate our impulses more and multiply less! If we were in excess of health, peace, natural surroundings, space, and privacy, perhaps I would say the opposite to reach a moderation point because things would probably be too forced, but we are in the opposite--an excess again, which makes things to be confused and obscure. Humans corrupt them for money and hedonism. We make actors and sports stars millionaires and billionaires for toys, while there are people in the world who don't even have homes. Whole nations that probably don't even have a million dollars. We give them more attention while they play drama and games while many don't even know the names of the poor countries, or states of the people. They are simply uncouth to us. While we exempt watch TV models, eat pizza (with extra cheese), invested in namebrands clothing, remotte in hand, cell phone in pocket, etc. We are giving too much to ourselves and not enough to others. Too much money and timber too our own endevours and not enough to friends elswhere in the world so they can create as well. Money and attentions are not being distributed fairly. If I were the ruler of the world no one should be able to have over a million dollars while there are poor people in the world. I would divert all the money exceeding a million from all bank accounts and send them duly and proportionatly by their need to the rest of the world. "your posts are implying that people who write in more modern forms don't have to same care and passion and dedication to their poetry that older writers of more traditional forms did." I thought I said that straight. That is exactly what I feel. Poetry used to be read earnestly by all society. But now it is just a toy that most will fiddle with and then let go of now and then. People are distracted by too many other things; the same attention is not given. There is no denying it. "why should modern writers be expected to do any different?" Because writers of old were not as distracted! [This message has been edited by Essorant (03-25-2003 11:05 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Look, I'm not going to argue with you anymore about 'hedonism' and so forth... we're not going to agree. I personally think (notice that I think, I do not merely expect everyone else to go along with my feelings and senses as I provide no reason for them to) that you are too self-righteous with your personal beliefs, and while we all tend to be self-righteous in that sense, I think the beliefs I support (personal freedoms, a certain cultural relativism) are much more fair and realistic than those that you seem to support, such as the eradication of all art you deem not pure enough and the enforcement of your personal tastes. That said: '"your posts are implying that people who write in more modern forms don't have to same care and passion and dedication to their poetry that older writers of more traditional forms did." I thought I said that straight. That is exactly what I feel.' So, are Shakespeare's sonnets less valuable than epics by Homer and Virgil? Those are two vastly different forms of poetry... is one or the other better? I don't think you'll get too far trying to argue Shakespeare's lack of worth or dedication to his craft. 'Poetry used to be read earnestly by all society. But now it is just a toy that most will fiddle with and then let go of now and then.' Yeah, and the Roman Catholic Church used to literally control most of the known world. Greek city-states used to function primarily as breeding grounds for warriors. What's your point? Prove to me that all people actually read poetry... I mean, wasn't a good portion of the working class in most societies illiterate for quite some time? Tell me why a thoroughly poetry-reading populace is better than one that doesn't. (I might agree with you, but the fact that you simply assume that your premise can stand without any backup irritates me.) 'People are distracted by too many other things; the same attention is not given. There is no denying it.' Who's to say the things we're 'distracted' by aren't now more important? I mean, poetry might make your heart dance, but it's not gonna cure AIDS anytime soon. '"why should modern writers be expected to do any different?" Because writers of old were not as distracted!' You took my question out of context, and besides, you didn't even answer the tiny bit your quoted. The question was: 'they [older writers of more traditional forms] wrote within the parameters of their own culture, and in language they were accustomed to... why should modern writers be expected to do any different?' Shakespeare didn't write Greek epics. My, what an arrogant man! If you could actually answer my question instead of reiterating another point, we could actually talk about this. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"I think the beliefs I support (personal freedoms, a certain cultural relativism) are much more fair and realistic than those that you seem to support, such as the eradication of all art you deem not pure enough and the enforcement of your personal tastes." What is beautiful and admirable, or art, in a depraved subculture-- perhaps on some privy island, may only be so in the depraved and isolated sense and I will only acknowledge it as being so in that and there. It is not in a noble, social or worldly sense. It is often just mischief and malice toward them. If it reflects the island so be it, but let it not reflect the world. Let the island be obscure and go to hell, not the world. I believe art needs to feel beauty, beauty virtue, virtue morals, morals respect, respect nature--obscure corrupts these, and the more obscure the less something holds or is of these. There are social things, and worldly things, and these must be civilized if we want a civilized society and world. I try most of all to judge from senses of these things, not from isolated, exempt, individual senses because if the individual or isolated place is influenced other things are, potentially all society, or even all the world. This is my standpoint, and I just wanted to express it before I try to express anymore. I will be back a little later. [This message has been edited by Essorant (03-27-2003 02:13 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I didn't really understand the first part of your reply. However: 'I believe art needs to feel beauty, beauty virtue, virtue morals, morals respect, respect nature' Define beauty. Define virtue, morals, respect, and nature. Now define all these terms in a way that everyone will agree with them. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Cliche? Yeah... but there's a reason the phrase stuck around. Virtue and morals? We all consider different qualities about ourselves to be virtue... we all have different morals. Respect? To me, it's the golden rule... but to some, it's holding the aged in reverence. Who am I to look down upon someone who caters to some cantankerous old fart just because he happens to be their elder? Good for them... but I don't feel I owe respect to anyone who doesn't respect me. Am I wrong? Maybe to you. Maybe to a Native American, or a Japanese immigrant, or someone with more traditional ideals. But the whole point is that you can't define that for everybody, and neither can I. There has to be room for differences in opinion and taste... or it's not even an approximate democracy we live in. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
I think I understood the first part. In a lesser subculture anything held up as art reflects the subculture, the art of an immoral culture reflects immorality in its art but such art should not be accepted just because it’s claimed to be art by the members of that subculture. Then again maybe I don’t understand it, is that what you’re saying Essorant? |
||
|
brian madden Member Elite
since 2000-05-06
Posts 4374ireland |
I too had trouble with the clarity of your reply to Hush Essorant, I mean how do you define a subculture. You could see film as a sub culture of Theatre. What is classed as a subculture can often over time become part of mainstream culture. When I read your reply, I had this image of early man’s cave paintings. These painting are something that a child could mimic, but one could argue that they are the early beginnings of storytelling. As for your question where are the epics gone? Anyone can write an epic, it doesn’t mean it is going to be a good poem, a good poem is not defined by its stylisation but by its context, and how it connects with the reader. "Aboard a shipwreck train, give my umbrella to the rain dogs For I am a rain dog, too" Tom Waits |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Art-- Expression beautiful and civilized Beauty-- Virtuousness Virtue-- Goodness; and moralfastness Morals-- Respectfulness; and faithfastness Respect-- Regardfulness to natures of the people and the world. Nature-- Ability to feel I try to use my senses more than my definitions! Crazy Eddy--That's is exactly what I was trying to say. And I wish I could've said it that way. I'm sorry for being so brief. But I have to go have a hotbath right now and then head to bed. Talk to you later, Essorant. [This message has been edited by Essorant (03-29-2003 11:15 PM).] |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Though Essorant may be saying this in somewhat of a pell mell kind of way, I see his point. He seems to be addressing the element of "romance" or lack of it, in culture and art in particular. When I say romance, I mean something broader than the sexual aspect. It's more of a mixture of idealism, heroism, adventure, and nobility than anything else. It's a flavor that has been to a large degree forgotten, due to many factors I think. Emphasis upon individualism, and moral relativism has had a profound impact upon art and culture. And I just happen to agree with Essorant that a certain winsomeness has been lost. Is that across the board? No. But trends are pretty anti-traditional. Take for example surrealism in poetry ... sure certain restraints were cast away and much "freedom" was gained I suppose. But coherence, meaning and message were forfeited for the experiential aspect of poetry. And to be honest, I think alot of what has come of this "unshackling" has been extremely insipid art. Sure we departed from traditional forms and rules (which can be a good and healthy way to grow), but we also discarded values, time tested insights, and beauties along with them. We threw out the baby with the bath, to use a cliche. Just compare ancient architecture with modern or postmodern architecture. You will see a great movement away from regal stylism into sterile geometries of glass and steel, juxtapositioned angles and features which reflect absurdity, isolation, and uncertainty ... and when real culture, or styles are employed they are often caricatured. I'm not complaining that all contemporary art, or architecture is bad. But there is something to what Essorant is saying. It is easier felt than explained. But to make my case with the world of art, I will leave you with a quote from "The Art and Culture Network", an online resource centered around contemporary art ... "But the art of the twentieth century is unlike that of other times and places. Its particular and fundamental characteristics are not based on some set of stylistic innovations or a consistency of interest or influence or even any kind of cohesion. The twentieth century is a dirty century, a period that absorbs everything around it and comes up with a scatology -- the study or focus on the bodily -- rather than an eschatology, a story or narrative with direction: a fall from grace, a movement towards utopia or destruction. The twentieth century has issued products of mixed and confused origins, fashioned of parts no longer distinct from one another. Sometimes it is an art of desperation, sometimes of utopia, sometimes of cynicism: only this messy century could have produced a Malevich, a Pollock, and a Warhol and claimed all of them to be modern." And this coming not from a critic, but an advocate of modern artistic trends, says it all. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-31-2003 02:13 AM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
But Essorant- you aren't really saying anything! I could accuse you of being just as obscure and unfocussed as you claim modern art is! My whole point is that my sense of beauty and virtue and morals are different than yours... there are going to be differences. Can you accept that? Go ahead, write your own epics, read all the old epics you want... that's really great that you're interested in that. Can't you say the same to those of us who prefer more modern forms and styles of writing? Stephan- 'Emphasis upon individualism, and moral relativism has had a profound impact upon art and culture.' But, the thing is, I believe very strongly in individualism, and to a great degree, in moral relativism. To me, that impact is a really good thing... because now people can write about things that they would be socially ostracized for about half a century ago (think beat generation). 'And I just happen to agree with Essorant that a certain winsomeness has been lost.' Err... would you call the stories of Oedipus or Medea winsome? Romeo and Juliet? Sure, there were swords and adventure and cool stuff like that, but in the end they were all tragic stories... and the fact that stories such as Romeo and Juliet or the Oddesy (I spelled it wrong, I think) are construed as winsome really bothers me. I mean... uh... last time I checked two kids committing suicide together wasn't exactly romantic, right? And just how many times did Odysseus cheat on Penelope? Let's see... Oedipus ended up sleeping with his mother and (did he tear his eyes out? I forget exactly the ending) because fate is inescapable... right, now that's not a killjoy! And Medea... she sure was a helluva mom. Winsome? I disagree strongly. I think the differences in style highlight a bit of a paradigm shift... which I would say is pretty bound to happen over the course of hundreds of years. I mean, we don't torch midwives as witches anymore (although a woman is sentenced to a death by stoning in Nigeria for having had a baby out of wedlock... should we be more winsome about it?) and we don't lynch blacks in the south anymore (although there will be the occasional Matthew Shepard... we have to have someone to pick on, right?). It's called progress. I really can't understand the argument that's being presented, because it's sounding more and more like stagnation to me than anything else. Regarding the quote: 'The twentieth century has issued products of mixed and confused origins, fashioned of parts no longer distinct from one another.' I think that has a lot to do with the nature of America (presuming we're focusing on American art here). People came from all over the place, and a lot of families had just become rooted in America as a home... with that there comes an intermingling of cultures. I'm pretty whitebread (in color, anyway) and I just had a henna tattoo done today by a girl who was born in India. Is there something wrong with this kind of cultural sharing? Can this girl be both Indian and American? [This message has been edited by hush (04-01-2003 12:54 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush, Pointing out the examples of Oedipus, Medea, etc... shows that there were tragedies written, and some of them with disturbing and macabre themes. Who ever said that all things that art portrays are good things? But even tragedy involves a struggle and resolution in the plot, and some degree of coherence. There was at least the concept of nobility and heroism, even if the characters failed to achieve it. Actually, that's what the tragic element is ... a failure, a coming short of an ideal. There is a trend in modern art and literature to move away from coherence and any semblance of meaning. And ideals of any kind are viewed as backward and obsolete. This is the quality (or lack of) that I'm referring to. Sure, you can point out instances that I will concede are not winsome in literature from previous times. But I'm speaking generally here. I'm really talking about a kind of canopy which overarches both the winsome and profane, of whichever time period. A canopy which makes it possible for there to exist things honorable and dishonorable, versus one which calls such concepts outmoded and accepts both honor and dishonor as long as it's about individual expression. There is a vast difference between a work which involves incest and murder such as "Oedipus the King", and those which glorify them such as "Blow-up" by M. Antonioni, and "The Silence" by Ingmar Bergman. A lot of this ties in to another thread where we talked about art. What is the difference between art recognized by virtue of what it presents, and art that is recognized by it's bizarre qualities and simply because someone said, "this is art. This is deep". I saw a piece of art the other day ... two mannequin heads were facing each other, stuck together by raw hamburger meat. What is that? And it's not a point to be argued. It's just something that some have seen, and maybe some haven't. I was merely replying to say that Essorant's view, though vague somewhat in his articulation, is not an invalid view. There are many others who have expressed a similar critique of modern culture as expressed through art. Francis Shaeffer presents such a critique in his book "How should we then live". I think it's worth listening to. Can former ages be critiqued? Of course. There was a lot of wrong to be pointed out. I'll be one of the first to side with you in saying that burning midwives and lynching people wasn't right. But we shouldn't be exempt from the same scrutiny. Are we somehow special or different? Is there still a danger in blind pride? Consider that views which seem so self-righteous to you, could be reactions to something else which might be percieved as worse. Which is more self righteous, an age which is perhaps willing to see it's faults or one which denies them and touts it's "progress"? Sure we've made great advances, but it's my opinion (and many others' as well) that we've made some serious retreats ... the aesthetic realm just happens to be the one we're discussing here. If you disagree, okay. But I don't think Essorant's view should be made out to seem outmoded and grotesque. He's got some points, as do you. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-01-2003 11:01 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"But Essorant- you aren't really saying anything! I could accuse you of being just as obscure and unfocussed as you claim modern art is! My whole point is that my sense of beauty and virtue and morals are different than yours... there are going to be differences. Can you accept that? Go ahead, write your own epics, read all the old epics you want... that's really great that you're interested in that. Can't you say the same to those of us who prefer more modern forms and styles of writing?" Hush, I am working from this core---I believe we need nature and civilization. If we don't preserve these, but make these to decrease, what is life? How can we feel, feel each other, and feel better? Preserving nature and civilization is the only ground upon which we will find increasement--otherwise we will be unnatural, obscure and with less and less ground upon which to realize anythings in a moral way. What should the world do? Put nature and civilization on a higher priority than technology and business. Our ancestors sought cultivation and we should too. I just don't follow the whole modern fashion of today--to seek MORE of everything all the time. It gives us little time to be thorougly what we are at any time. This is a lot of why the art is lacking because often it is not really artful purposes--but money and mischief. Creators need to be cultivators and edifiers of nature and civilization to be artists...otherwise they are just creators, and if they create against preservation and prosperity--they are the opposite of artists. People seem less and less trying to be cultivators and edifiers, thus they are little artists. But that doesn't bother them as long as they have mediums to money and MORE. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-07-2003 04:33 PM).] |
||
|
Bohemianaus Member
since 2003-01-05
Posts 69Australia (South Gippsland) |
Not sure what I have just been reading but there ya go God bless and keep you, Namaste! |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Sorry ,Its hard to keep your wits when almost all modern culture is your opposite. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Essorant: Why are business and technology necessarily antithetical to nature and civilization? I don't go a day without seeing an example of how business and technology are improving our natural surroundings AND civilization. For example, there is a big enough push for clean fuels to convince companies there is profit to be made in researching and developing hydrogen fuel cell technology as an alternative to fossil fuel use. The market drives demand and business responds to it. And he who builds the best widget for the right price makes a profit. Another example are stormwater and wastewater system designs that reduce runoff and promote the recharging of aquifers. The designs are a result of technological advancement and are marketed by businesses. So, then, doesn't nature sometimes benefit from both technology and business? Also, don't you think there are certain phenomena in nature we could probably do without (e.g., tornados)? I don't have a problem with your assertion if you are saying that business and technology can be harmful, but if you are looking at nature/civilization vs. business technology as some form of dualism, then we're not seeing eye-to-eye. Regarding epics, I liked Beowulf. I also liked the movie, "The Thirteenth Warrior" with Antonio Banderas that seemed to be inspired by the epic. I think there is much we can learn about past works, but don't you think that if nobody ever pushed the bar, we'd all still be scratching crude pictures on the walls of caves? Just a few thoughts at the end of a long day. I apologize if they lack coherence. Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (04-08-2003 06:05 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Jim, I've never read anything of you that has lacked coherence. Of course technology and business can confer and aid nature and civilization in certain ways. I look at the technology in medics, and in tracking weather systems, in letting us see events worldwide from in our homes through media. With business as well, giving us a service and letting us serve society as best we can, giving to charities, and helping people be part of something daily. There verily are many good things; however, the level of excess and corruption happening at the point where business and technology are today creates a contradiction that very much goes against nature and civilization that in its primitial native place tried to increase--it decreases. Nature and civilization have decreased and are decreasing in my mind right now. The top priorities are now seem money and luxury or we would be more natural and civilized. It is as simple as that... All I know for sure in my mind is something needs to be toned down. We need less of something...and its hard to put a finger on...I only have this vague sense, and I know it is not completly wrong. Perhaps we simply need to control and moderate ourselves with our senses more, senses of good and wisdom--which are educated against what history has told us to avoid. Money and luxury, and especially excess, can corrupt and they are. I see and sense so much lechery and immodesty today that it makes me lose faith in humans and my own thoughts that fall as well. I'm not excluding myself, I haven't been able to complely avoid what I want to, and be the kind of person I wish most to be. I just wonder why I can't and why others can't. Oh well, perhaps it is a waste of time... [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-09-2003 11:43 PM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Essorant: Maybe I need to better understand what you mean by "nature" and "civilization", but I think I'm starting to see what you are wrestling with. More later. Jim |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Jim, With nature and civilization I just mean what is natural and what is civilized. Most often technology and business are neither. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Essorant: Ironically, then, technology and business are results of two hallmarks of civilization: (1) scientific achievement and (2) political institutions that recognize the economic advantages of free societies. Arguably, it is just as much in man's nature to learn to manipulate natural elements to develop a less expensive, more efficient fuel, as it is for him to manipulate sounds to produce a poem or song. I disagree with your assertion that technology and business are contrary to nature because I don't think you and I share the opinion that man is a part of nature. If anything "created" by man is unnatural, then I think you must continue down the slippery slope and proclaim the philosophical sciences and the arts unnatural also. Reading and writing are unnatural. Cooking food is unnatural. Civilization, ultimately, is unnatural. Where I think we do agree is that the overemphasis of the physical and economic sciences over philosophy and the arts has the potential of being harmful to society, but I would add that the reverse is also true. All I have time for at the moment. Jim |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't feel it the same. Humans mostwhat only care about human and their thoughts, what is human more than the rest of the world, the state of native earth, and other fellow earthlings/beasts, and having care and spare for all things around; and this is because we follow the agenda now a day more for business and technology--the highmost priority is MORE, more money and conviences and entertainment. People aren't worried about the lack of nature and civilization how these are being put only into the most isolated areas where technology and business are the main landscape, they are worried about amounts of money, getting more and doing more quicker. We should slow down and appreciate and cultivate what we already are, do, and have.. The pace is really destructive for that we aren't able to very much...This is what I mean when I say unnatural--it is the hindership of selfishness and excess. It is not really worldly plan, it is a human plan, but eventually we will just have to realize we will have to think more of the rest of the world aside from our own for its not going to get larger to accomodate more humanworld--we are going to have to downsize our human settings to revive nature and civilization...when things are in excess nothing is natural and civilized, nothing is healthy. It would be better to just have some spare to begin with...but people aren't interested. We don't want to change the human world for the rest of the world, we want to change the rest of the world for the human world. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-17-2003 11:51 AM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Essorant- I think the biggest problem I'm having with you assertions about the humanity of today vs. the humanity of yesteryear is that you seem to think there's really a difference. "Our ancestors sought cultivation and we should too. I just don't follow the whole modern fashion of today--to seek MORE of everything all the time." I really don't see how you think this is only a modern concept. All those great men we read about in history books- Marco Polo, Christopher Columbus, Henry Hudson, Magellen, etc., etc... they wanted MORE. More glory, more money, more land. I mean, the imperialistic nature of humans has long been apparent, and if you have a problem with that tendency, I can see that as a valid complaint- it bothers me too. But to assert that the good ol' days were free of such activities and intentions doesn't jibe with me. "Humans mostwhat only care about human and their thoughts, what is human more than the rest of the world" Why do you think this is wrong? I'm not trying to say that it is or isn't, just wondering why you state it in such a way that it seems presupposed that we'll all agree that it's wrong. Does a lion care for a gazelle over itself? Does a gazelle care enough for a lion to donate its life for the lion? I would say that because humans have the capacity to destroy the world, we have a vested interest in preserving it- for our own well-being, if for nothing else. Self-interest is natural and, in my opinion, healthy- it's when greed masks our ability to see what is our self interest, both individually and, to whatever extent, collectively, that we become self destructive. |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
This is in reply to the original post that started the thread... I used to enjoy the epic poetry of days gone past, and had made several attempts at replicating the form... right up until I was assigned the task of analyzing the poetry of William Wordsworth. That boy didn't know the meaning of brevity. After spending 4 months reading everything he had written, and analyzing the what's why's who's and everything else, I came to realize that I couldn't care any less if I never saw a poem that was more than 2 lines long. Perhaps one day I'll attempt the form again, however that is why I have never attempted it. When the morning cries and you don't know why... |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
Karilea - If I whisper, will you listen?...
