================================================ Subject: Tried Poetry?... Not visualizing From: "Creed - 7M3 - Live" To: Date: Mon 28 May 2001 18:41:55 -0400 ================================================ The only public "poetry" that i did to my knowledge was a poem that I sent to the Creed list. Before Jagar was born and they were collecting poetry for a scrapbook that they wanted to make for Jaggar. I don't think that it made the scrapbook or not. But it was not flamed or anything. That was before Scott created the family oriented foundation and directed people to donate the money that they wanted to donate on Jaggar's behalf. fmn wrote: > Hey Jim! > > coming back to electronic communication as a sort of a sixth sense.. > < brain uses to detect the outside world. But, we are "talking", with our > hands/eyes. We are "seeing" what was just "touched" in. _You > are percieving me touching with my hands and making words you may > understand. Since i can't hear you. Also, I can't see you. So I am > blind in a way to see who i'm communicating with_.>> > > Wow!! I liked that bit veeeeeery much.. it even sounded a bit like > poetry.. especially the underlined part (I'm into poetry btw and I > write stuff from time to time) and to me what you just wrote really > had a touch of poetry in it.. have you ever tried writing poetry, btw? > but coming back to the subject, yes I agree with you here... and > that's what I think about /an awful lot/ - I mean, the virual > world which is in its beginnings of evolution (humans playing God, > here btw.. ;-). Virtual world as in the internet and e-mail etc., of > course. I very much doubt that this virtual world could (in a way) > replace our real world, concerning friends above all. Just because (as > you've mentioned) we are blind to who the people we talk on the net > really are (not solely to how they look like, but also how they behave > in real life.. I mean this sort of communication is very limited if > you look at it from this perspective, don't you think?) And this is > why I chose this kind of virtual interaction with people (--> creed > discussion list) because I'm out for discussion on certain topics and > not really getting involved in any sort of senseless chat! (this is > why I was so sceptical about this list in the beginning).. I know that > this may sound strange, but I don't mean it the > "I-hate-people-in-general-attitude" kinda way.. It's more of a > "I-want-deep-people-to-be-my-friends" way.. so as you see I am veeery > selective and demanding > Could you ask a blind person to whom you sometimes talk on the net if > he/she minded talking to me? I'd really be glad to get into a > discussion with a blind person > I'll see if I could send a letter to the person to see if they would talk about being blind. But it would be better to just talk to the person as to what they can do. People that are blind usually bring up thier seeing eye dogs. Brail scanners and that sort of thing. That is when you talk with them at the same level that you talk to any other person on the net. I guess my thought is that they don't inquire into my typing skills. Just on the subjects that they are interested in. (Mostly music). About being skeptical about those that you talk to on the internet. It is good advice, since you are more able to decieve people. Since we are limited to just messages. (however "read") But, that leads to things that the unseeing have to do without getting taken advantage by, by the seeing. (Folding money a certain way, etc). It just means to not give out very personal information and keep subject related or perspective related, instead of "hunting" for friendships. Though you can be friends with whatever you see of what a person is "saying". > Jackson wrote: > > < Siembieda, "...(...) What we humans do isn't survival. It's conquest! It's > complete domination of all life forms. And when there are no others to > dominate, we turn against each other, killing in anger and on whim." > Well, that was a long quote and might even have been a little ways off > topic, but I think that it illustrates pray well why man and not some > physically stronger species dominates the planet.>> yep I pretty much > agree with you Jackson, although Siembieda mentions not the kinds of > things I'd mention to show that we are the dominant species - I'd > probably go more for the positive aspects.. but I guess the negative > ones are more realistc, huh? > > Nonetheless, I am trying to be "something like human" ;-) (in the > positive way, of course) > > anyway, dobranoc - hope I haven't bored you to death (?) And even if I > did, I have no mercy ;-) more is coming on other topics.. like the > "sacrifice"-topic (I'll definitely post something on this one!) > > Ewa > > /wandering through worlds of definitions but failing to spell my own > existenc//e,/ > > /defining the world with words that need to be defined > - does it make sense?/ > -- "Yo, Mike!" "Yeah, Gabe?" "We got a problem down on Earth. In Utah." "I thought you fixed that last century!" "No, no, not that. Someone's found a security problem in the physics program. They're getting energy out of nowhere." "Blessit! Lemme look... Hey, it's there all right! OK, just a sec... There, that ought to patch it. Dist it out, wouldja?" -- Cold Fusion, 1989 To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp