Why Do We Exist?

The wind never asked the trees
although they endlessly talk.
Or the sunrise an eye
in daily majesty.

So I cipher at the sun
and feel for the air.
Aptitude divining, blundering!
Tangled in prodigal hues.


Jonathan 4-25-09

In article ,
Jonathan wrote:



The wind never asked the trees
although they endlessly talk.
Or the sunrise an eye
in daily majesty.

So I cipher at the sun
and feel for the air.
Aptitude divining, blundering!
Tangled in prodigal hues.


Jonathan 4-25-09


Please see my recent comment to the thread titled "My stomach
hurts," with reference to Shelley.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.

"Dorothy J Heydt" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Jonathan wrote:



The wind never asked the trees
although they endlessly talk.
Or the sunrise an eye
in daily majesty.

So I cipher at the sun
and feel for the air.
Aptitude divining, blundering!
Tangled in prodigal hues.


Jonathan 4-25-09


Please see my recent comment to the thread titled "My
stomach
hurts," with reference to Shelley.


Could you repeat your comment please Dorothy for those of us
at alt.philosophy who have not yet had the privilege or
pleasure of hearing why your stomach should hurt in
reference to Shelley.

We much enjoyed this short piece on alt.philosophy and there
was talk of it being a quote from the famous Jonathan
Livingstone Seagull who we know quite well.
But as the authors name is Jonathan and the short piece was
written very recently - then our logical deduction circuitry
concluded that it was an original piece.
THE BORG

THE BORG wrote:
Could you repeat your comment please Dorothy for those of us at
alt.philosophy who have not yet had the privilege or pleasure of hearing
why your stomach should hurt in reference to Shelley.

We much enjoyed this short piece on alt.philosophy and there was talk of
it being a quote from the famous Jonathan Livingstone Seagull who we
know quite well.
But as the authors name is Jonathan and the short piece was written very
recently - then our logical deduction circuitry concluded that it was an
original piece.

Strange haunts you have, BORG, baby.

In any case... Shelly took laudanum and arsenic to get high. But he's
listed as not quite the most stoned poet of his age.

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...



The wind never asked the trees
although they endlessly talk.
Or the sunrise an eye
in daily majesty.

So I cipher at the sun
and feel for the air.
Aptitude divining, blundering!
Tangled in prodigal hues.


Jonathan 4-25-09



On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:21:13 -0500, Jonathan Schattke
wrote:

THE BORG wrote:

....Would you people please remove the two sci.space
newsgroups from
your followups? We're not the least bit interested in what
appears to
be a thread responding to a troll.

Thanks. Really.

OM

--
Did you take a survey and ask ALL the members of the two
groups - or are you merely speaking on behalf of yourself?

THE BORG

"THE BORG" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...



The wind never asked the trees
although they endlessly talk.
Or the sunrise an eye
in daily majesty.

So I cipher at the sun
and feel for the air.
Aptitude divining, blundering!
Tangled in prodigal hues.


Jonathan 4-25-09



On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:21:13 -0500, Jonathan Schattke
wrote:

THE BORG wrote:

...Would you people please remove the two sci.space
newsgroups from
your followups? We're not the least bit interested in what
appears to
be a thread responding to a troll.

Thanks. Really.

OM

--
Did you take a survey and ask ALL the members of the two
groups - or are you merely speaking on behalf of yourself?

THE BORG


Sorry. Just having a laugh and winding you up.
Will remove the two groups of cissy namby pamby fussy boys
if you like.
Was the message too rude for you? Was the language
atrocious?
Or were the words THE BORG too sccccccarrrrrry????
He he he he he!!!
THE BORG

On Apr 26, 3:32*am, "Jonathan" wrote:
* * * The wind never asked the trees
* * * * although they endlessly talk.
* * * *Or the sunrise an eye
* * * * *in daily majesty.

* * * * So I cipher at the sun
* * * * * and feel for the air.
* * * * Aptitude divining, blundering!
* * * * Tangled in prodigal hues.

* * * * * * Jonathan *4-25-09

42

"Dorothy J Heydt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jonathan wrote:



The wind never asked the trees
although they endlessly talk.
Or the sunrise an eye
in daily majesty.

So I cipher at the sun
and feel for the air.
Aptitude divining, blundering!
Tangled in prodigal hues.


Jonathan 4-25-09


Please see my recent comment to the thread titled "My stomach
hurts," with reference to Shelley.


Thanks for responding.

It may turn your stomach, most poetry does the same to me.
But I was trying to convey a very specific thought concerning
the difficulties of understanding the source of our existence.

Perhaps I should expand the poem into plain English for
further discussion. Then perhaps we can discuss how
poetry can be a very concise way of expressing scientific
or philosophical questions. As a math major, I value concise
and accurate language, and I believe poetry can define
the /highest possible level/ of communication and ideas.


The wind never asked the trees
although they endlessly talk.


The above line was meant to convey the overwhelming
complexity inherent in the coevolutionary relationship
between the earth and life.


Or the sunrise an eye
in daily majesty.

This was meant to describe our instinctive reactions, and
attraction to, our environment. Such as our curiosity
and desire to explore. These four realms referenced;
earth, life, the universe and our instincts, must all
be understood in order to answer the original questions.
Yet, all four are currently modeled by sciences that
are /entirely different/ from each other. The four can't
really communicate with each other in a scientific way.

Until we have a ...single...scientific language which can
deal with all the realms of reality, life, the physical universe
and ideas at once, how can we possibly answer
the question of existence?


So I cipher at the sun
and feel for the air.


So the above line is meant to say our current scientific
situation lacks the needed simplicity or elegance to answer
questions of meaning. Without a unified theory, we're still
grasping at straws. We're still living in the Dark Ages.

Aptitude divining, blundering!


This above line is means to say it's difficult to decide if I should
use science, religion or philosophy, or some combination, to
answer such question.


Tangled in prodigal hues.


Because we are currently mired in countless ever narrower disciplines
each defining an ever smaller piece of the whole.


We must find a single science that can deal with all the different
realms of reality with a single scientific language. So we can
.....at last...see what is common to them all.

Just such a new science is here. A universal language which moves
across the disciplines with ease, simplicity and consistency.
See links below.

As to which form of communication is best for such questions of
meaning, questions which must necessarily cross all the
disciplines of science, religion and philosophy.

Which is the best?

Mathematical equations which are limited to a blackboard
reality, and few can grasp?

Religious revelations, metaphors and their tainted origins?

Or all the competing philosophies, which seem to fall into
and out of favor like the wind?

Or the form, poetry, which can take full advantage of all
of them while using the most information rich medium
possible, human language?

It's like my chosen mentor, Emily Dickinson said so well below.

Fifty years before the uncertainty principle was discovered
she understood the concept and also diagnosed it's basic flaw
and solution. Which is that objective methods, reducing
to the smallest parts, takes us ultimately to the brick wall of
uncertainty. And that only by a balance between objective
and subjective methods can we hope to answer any questions
of meaning. She was saying we need a science which can unify
objective and subjective methods.


"Perception of an
Object costs
Precise the Object's loss.
Perception in itself a gain
Replying to its price;
The Object Absolute is nought,
Perception sets it fair,
And then upbraids a Perfectness
That situates so far."



As she said, in this blistering commentary below on the modern
scientific method, we need to figure this stuff out for ourselves.
Not rely on the 'Great Minds' of modern science. As reducing
to parts (alone) brings only an endless sequence of questions
with no end. 'T was best imperfect," As a result, no answers, no
meaning without a merger with the subjective 'sciences'.


" Their height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I 'm finite, I can't see.

The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.

The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes

Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."


Emily Dickinson (1830-86).



How to unify all....ALL the disciplines, from science
to religion to philosophy and even poetry.
And all between.


Here is the textbook in complete (too much) detail.
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/

Here is a nice intro faq
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

And here is a great site that explains the concepts
in plain English, for the math challenged
http://www.calresco.org/


Jonathan


Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:32:42 -0400, Jonathan wrote:

The wind never asked the trees

Presumption.

If trees then wind should be winds or trees should be tree. As is, the
demand is concept (wind) interacting with objects (trees). 'The' wind
never asked 'the' tree is better. "The wind(s) in my back yard never
asked the tree(s) in my back yard".. better still.

As it is, isn't claiming to know every interaction of all winds with all
trees clearly too presumptive, given both trees and winds have been in
existence long before humans?

Clearly. winds in bags ask. I have just given example of this.

ZerkonXXXX wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:32:42 -0400, Jonathan wrote:

The wind never asked the trees

Presumption.

If trees then wind should be winds or trees should be tree. As is, the
demand is concept (wind) interacting with objects (trees). 'The' wind
never asked 'the' tree is better. "The wind(s) in my back yard never
asked the tree(s) in my back yard".. better still.

As it is, isn't claiming to know every interaction of all winds with all
trees clearly too presumptive, given both trees and winds have been in
existence long before humans?

"The wind(s) [of which I have specific information, either recorded by
others or witnessed by me] never asked the tree(s) [at least directly or
in a form that I could percieve, or which has been recorded in reliable
form].."

I dunno. Might be a bit wordy for what the poet is trying to accomplish.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com