I am but a spectre of this forgotten past

[vespuleth]

A little about myself that i have yet to post anywhere: (seems like a reasonable place to start)

My name is Randy Brown. I have a diverse compilation of past employment (construction, teaching, programming, convenience store clerk, landscaping to name a few) and am currently a medical lab technician, but completely unhappy with the job. I am currently going back to school to get a so that i may again change occupations. When will i ever learn...

I spent some time programming a long time ago, and my language knowledge includes java, c++, c, basic, html, php, mysql, and enough javascript to get me by.

I love to write. I love to read. I personally believe that one must continue to learn their entire lives, lest they lose the ability to (learn/live).

I played DnD long ago. I used to DM two groups, both of which walked through the world of Asthar, where I have returned to create my current work (Fawleh: Pheonix Pinion). the name vespuleth has existed in two capacities from those games: one as a great mage who proclaimed himself the god of History and Knowledge, and the other time as that god. There is an interesting story there that begs to be told another time.

I am a conservative, though i really cannot stand Fox News. I am a christian, although i do not readily identify with any of the plethora of denominations. I go to a baptist church at the moment, where I teach sunday school. I try my best to be open to anything, and my love for learning and information has more than once challenged my faith. but most often, it serves to confirm it. (being a man of small faith, i find it takes the least to believe that God is Sovereign.)

I am something of a social psychologist. I love to watch people, and my love of reading does not stop at books. I love to read people as well, and I enjoy philosophy. I just got through reading both the Tao Te Ching and The Prince, both of which were interesting, if not somewhat ecclectic reads. Oh, and the Declaration of Independance. Which leads me to my question for this post:

If you could change one thing about the constitution, what would it be? (I'd love to hear your opinion regardless of age, nationality, or anything else that excludes you from answering) I'll let you know mine last.

[Rodak]

If you mean changing the way the Original was written (and thus altering History) I'd have to say I wish they'd have let Jefferson keep his clause abolishing slavery. George W (the original) vetoed that clause so he could have slaves to run his Hemp farm! It's true!! Our first President grew pot!! Yeah, he called it hemp and claimed it was for fibers for rope... but what do you think happened to all that bud like by-product?

I think you meant change it tomorrow though... so:

I'd make an amendment that requires our laws be enforced!

Before trying to change things it would be nice to know if things could work under our current system were it used as intended.

Examples: It is illegal to do business with Cuba because they are a Communist Nation. So why do we have trillion dollar debts to China, another Communist Nation.

Why not fund "No Child Left Behind?"

Why not hire the Border Patrol guards required by a law recently passed in Congress instead of only 10% of that number?

Why not prosecute the Executive Branch for failing to enforce their own laws?

Hell, Why was The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allowed to sell me a House that is NOT legally habitable? I knew about "as is" and expected work, but things missed by hired inspectors and undisclosed by HUD (improper winterization of pipes comes to mind). I could have forgiven these things if they took responsibility, but they told me I was on my own. They said it was strictly as is. When I tried to point out the fair housing laws they invoked Sovereign Immunity (in other words, they said "4Q!").

After we get them doing what they are supposed to do we can worry about things like allowing Post-Natal Abortion for the first 18 years and doing away with the internal combustion engine.

That's enough on that point (for now).

But about The Book of Tao... which translation did you read?

I have about a dozen. Only The Peter Pauper Press translation with it's tinyness and succinct translations works for me.

Those huge books calling themselves The Book of Tao are not The Book of Tao. It is a short collection of sayings Lao Tsu was forced to write at spearpoint by the Emperor when it became known that his beloved Philosopher was leaving the palace.

Ain't history fun?

Peace.

[The Final Rune]

Deep within the shadows of the abyss the mystery of the man finally speaks. You have been a integral part of the Domain since its beginning, and it's about time you put yourself out here with the rest of us.

There is a limited minority of us who know you personally, at least at some level, and I for one am over joyed that you have taken this leap into the mud. Bring on the outside looking in all this time gave you a pseudo (I told you I loved that word) image of smugness. Like you were almost to good to drop to our level of interaction. And while I still feel you are an overly righteous ass sometimes, I know this assumption to be false.

Your insight into art, be it verbal, non-verbal, drawn, or written, is a gift to us all. I for one couldn't think you enough for all the help that you have so generously offered me. And, I have hopes that your new outlet of expression will lead others in need to a place where you are more readily able to offer assistance, whatever that need may be.

I look forward to finally hearing the full story (or at least as much as you'll share) of Fawleh: Phoenix Pinion with sincere hopes that venturing into the gaming void will give you the boost you need to return your attention to RPG Maker 2 and all things related to it. I know, better than most, how overly draining and complex life has been for you and I wish the best for you by finally welcoming you into the gaming world.

P.S. What took you so long? And Phoenix is spelled OE, not EO.

[vespuleth]

I read the version translated by Stephen Mitchell. It was an interesting read, and gave me much to think about. my question is did Solomon read the way to life/power/enlightenment, or did Lau Tzu read Proverbs?

ill comment on the rest of everything said later, but i just wanted to put that out there.

[vespuleth]

indeed, it has taken me a while. my mystique is something of a purposeful presentation, both here and in the real world. why? the parts of my life that are in the past are there for a reason, and while they shape who i am, I will not readily reveal them or the traits they exhibit. also, i do not like to just poor info out about myself as it often seems self indulged, and giving info out about other things often seems cocky. i answer the questions asked of me, when i can, and my knowledge base remains behind the curtain. im sad that i did not get more insight into our crowd than i did. thanks to those who posted. I would clarify the first amendmant right. there is too much abuse of it by the media, and anyone who wishes to smother religion (specifically christianity). not that i would do away with it. i would make the media tell the truth (under some goodwill clause or something) and just flat out clarify the issue of seperation of church and state. (this wall must have doors). never fear though; im not out to ban gay marraige (its unconstitutional to do so).

so i offer no insight into myself this week, but leave this question, or whatever.

what does the title of this thread mean? what is a critical translation, and what is it trying to get across?

[Rodak]

vespuleth said:

I would clarify the first amendmant right. there is too much abuse of it by the media, and anyone who wishes to smother religion (specifically christianity). not that i would do away with it. i would make the media tell the truth (under some goodwill clause or something)

Funny, I think there is too much abuse of it by people trying to promote religion (specifically christianity).

I maintain that organized religion is the single most destructive force ever unleashed upon this planet. It must be abolished.

Personal religion is fine, but when these groups get together it is evil incarnate. Examples abound in your History books.

In fact, this is what I got from reading the Bible. I fail to see how Christ's teachings bred Christianity. He wanted to abolish churches. My favorite bit was his rant about if you want to pray and you are plowing your field, just put down your tools and pray right there, you do not need a church... God will hear you and understand.

How can anyone use such thoughts to establish a church?

vespuleth said:

i would make the media tell the truth (under some goodwill clause or something)

Ummm... who defines The Truth? Hopefully not The President.

vespuleth said:

and just flat out clarify the issue of seperation of church and state. (this wall must have doors).

Yes... Locked doors.

You can not legislate morality. I learned that in the fifth grade.

Yet they still try...

vespuleth said:

what does the title of this thread mean? what is a critical translation, and what is it trying to get across?

Only you know what you were trying to get across.

I thought it was just an expression of the old "always the same, but always changing" concept that applies to things like a candle flame or a running river. They are always different, always changing, yet give the illusion of consistency.

Just like people.

Peace.

[vespuleth]

thanks for the intuitive response. im going to follow your format, and cut and quote (please dont take this as an aggressive debate; more a discussion):

I maintain that organized religion is the single most destructive force ever unleashed upon this planet. It must be abolished

your thinking here is flawed. that organized religion has been manipulated, i wont deny, but that does not necessitate its abandonment. why? well, lets use a more ...physical example. chemistry. something we both understand (and have degrees in). many people have used their knowledge of chemistry to perform sordid acts of violence and warfare. does this mean we should no longer practice it? no. why not? because it contributes alot to humanity. we cannot legitimize the abandonment of a practice by way of the examination of its evil or even poor practicers. we must examine what a proper chemist is doing in order to determine the worth of its continued practice. how does this equate to religion? much like technology, chemistry, and the media, religion is a tool. it is a field a person learns and practices as a way of life; a profession of living, you could say. it may (and has been) manipulated, yes, but this makes the man more devious than the practice, which is inherently neutral (there are no consummately evil abstractions). which brings me to my point. humans are the most destructive force unleashed on this planet. they are unprejudiced in the methods of corruption and destruction. they will bend anything to their quest for power, motivated only greed and pride. if we follow this assertion to the already suggested end (destroy the evil! another destructive tendency of man, btw), procreation must be deemed an act no longer appropriate for human kind? oops. seem a little extreme? i know. im trying to make a point though. religion is no more evil than any other tool of human profession. but it can be manipulated. this is no reason to dislike religion. how do we know a religion has been manipulated rather than it having a skewed outlook? James (in the bible) tells us that true religion is to care for those who cannot be (or have no one to) cared for. sounds evil, no?

I fail to see how Christ's teachings bred Christianity. He wanted to abolish churches

yes and no. first of all, we must understand the word 'church'. today, a church is a building where people go. this by no means is the church christ was establishing. of course, this definition of church didnt exist, either. we owe that to the catholics in ad 373. the entemology of church traces back to 'ecclesia', a greek word meaning divine community. it has its roots in the time when roman emporers were proclaiming themselves gods and calling any city that swore allegiance to them 'ecclesia's. paul, great propagandist that he was, manipulated this word to represent the followers of early christianity, as a 'community called out'. so, do we need the buildings? no. do we need the people? yes. Christ actually taught that the 'church' in this way was necessary. he said that the people would only know his followers by their love for one another, as well as commanding them to 'forsake not the assembling of themselves together' and promising communion with them in spirit when they did so (where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am i in the midst of them). so Christ very much promoted community. our current idea is a corruption of that idea.

furthermore, back to the first point, on whether organized religion should be abolished, if organized religion were in the spawn of the original followers, (and i think it is in some, few places; and where it is not, there are those who attempt to live in this way) religion isnt so bad after all. no bad has been said in history of the apostles, or Christ; all of them are paradoxical for the times. furthermore, they revolutionized the idea of charity. the early christians not only cared for their own, but anyone who needed it. does the church (read called out community, not a building) still sound so bad?

has this ideaology fallen by the wayside? on the whole, yes. but there are still the pockets of resistance that practice it.

in any case, my assertion that the seperation of church and state are on certain grounds:

take for instance, the idea of evolution. teaching 'intelligent design' is banned in schools because of its connection to religion (if you believe someone designed the world, the next step is who). i dont believe evolution, but my reasons are as much logic as faith. first of all, the big bang breaks several rules of physics (the law of equal distribution and the law of momentum, primarily [ie if we all originated from a singular point, why are we not all rotating in the same direction, and why is matter not equally distributed from the vertices?]). second, the math is astoundingly ridiculous. third, there is no evidence that suggests evolution at the preclusion of creationism (for that is truly what intelligent design is). so, you say, neither does creationism. i wont argue the falseness of this statement right now, because it doesnt matter. just this conclusion proves my point. both are religion. one is just tax funded. upon asking many of my professors in college why they believed evolution when so much evidence discredits the idea, their basic answer was 'because we are here, so it must be true'. sound familiar? this is the basic idea feeding those that believe creationism as well. so my point is not that the government should do a better job of enforcing christianity. our nation was never meant to be a christian nation (despite what the christian subculture would like to believe); it was meant to be a tolerant one. but seperation of church and state has lost its tolerance. it is no longer about freedom of personal belief, its about limiting the belief in christianity. i only ask that we all have equal rights (ill get to the full insinuation of this in the next post.)

[vespuleth]

Ummm... who defines The Truth? Hopefully not The President

oh no. for an example of what i mean, lets take a few recent issues: the first is the bird flu (i chose this issue because i have alot of info on the issue, given my career field). i watch cnn all the time. its the only thing i watch on tv, in fact. but they blew the bird flu thing way out of proportion. why? because it was the only thing that would keep people watching. it was never that big of a deal (and it isnt now). all of us lab techs did get a kick out of it though. event two: hurricane rita (thats the one that hit texas after katrina). it was dying. when it slowed down so much, it was as much as over. but the media was still swearing it was going to pick up speed and be a big, tragic event. i live maybe 3 hours from where it made landfall, and we didnt even get rain! and we all knew thats exactly what was going to happen. Judge Alito and abortion: he most likely will never have the opportunity to overturn Roe vs Wade, and i doubt he would if he could. but the media has played this one up to. I would love to get just news. not some stupid opinion.

and no, i wouldnt have Bush deciding what was truth and what wasnt. i assure that despite my conservative christianity, i retain the ability to think for myself, and can see his flounderings. i also realize the huge error of replacing a president in a time of (what are we there for?) war. so its a give and take, i suppose.

You can not legislate morality. I learned that in the fifth grade.

i totally agree. morality is not what laws should be based on; ethics is. im not saying im for banning gay marraige (in fact, i think banning it is unconstitutional) im saying that the seperation of church and state does not merit the revokation of christian rights (inherent rights take priority to social contract, right?). an example of this is the limitation of intelligent design, a theory just as valid as evolution, the inability to use the bible as a text (its a book just like any other... i find it obtuse that i can teach writing elements from the Qu'ran or the Tao Te Ching, but it is near impossible to get them to allow the bible.) this is clearly not equal rights. and thats what i mean by clarification. because i am a government employee does not mean i must be devoid of religious preference or practice; i just cannot assume or represent that the government condones my actions, or that i represent them on this matter, and this must be translated implicitely and explicitely. but my personal beliefs should not have to be shed for any job. this is the idea on which america was grounded. tolerance.

i think that alot of what i say is mistaken for what pop christianity would do, given the chance. as a servant to our country, my opinions necessarily must walk the middle ground between personal belief and national stance. ie: gay marraige. i personally dont agree with it. but i realize that we cannot ban it, because to force morality is useless, and wrong, and against the constitution. for those that have problems with it on religious grounds (marraige is sacred between God and man, and therefore we should not marry gays) i say who says God must recognize every marriage the state does?

anyways, my desire for america is not a conservative christian nation (well, thats not totally true; i hope it one day is, but of its own will, not out of poor lawmaking. you cant force someone to be a christian); its that america would remember it is a tolerant nation.

I thought it was just an expression of the old "always the same, but always changing" concept that applies to things like a candle flame or a running river. They are always different, always changing, yet give the illusion of consistency.

Just like people.

not my personal translation, but a good one that i can see. i esspecially like that you understand the inconsistency of people.

[vespuleth]

i wrote a poem and posted it on my website:

www.theconditionals.com/blog/

[Rodak]

I enjoy such discussions and hope you did not take my thoughts as the "aggressive debate" you mention.

Pardon my lack of quotes here, I am a little pressed for time.

You raise a good defense of organized Religion. I mostly say that (about wiping it out) (I say that a lot) to get a good debate started. I actually agree that it (religion) can be used in an unperverted manner, but that due to human nature it is unlikely (hmmm... sounds like many folks' argument against Communism as described by Marx).

...............

About Truth defining and The President, I meant any President, not specifically Mr. B. although I will admit his breed of Truth scares me.

.............

And I personally feel the whole Intelligent Design thingy is going in the wrong direction.

I agree wholeheartedly and even vehemently that Intelligent Design has NO place in a science class.

But I feel equally strongly that it has EVERY place in school. Part of the problem is the way our academic system is set up. I take issue with separating the Arts and Sciences. Galileo, Newton, and all those guys never thought of themselves as Scientists. They were Natural Philosophers. Even to this day the highest Academic Degree is the PhD , which stands not for Piled High and Deep as many think, but for Philosophers' Degree. Yet, Philosophy is in the Arts department?

Intelligent Design should be taught in Mandated Comparative Religion or Philosophy courses. It does not meet the criteria for science, but it is so true that believing in the Big Bang is just as big a Leap of Faith as believing in God.

I do, however, see a difference in accepting the Big Bang as the best explanation for the observable evidence, and Believing it happened. It is still presented as a Theory. I have yet to see Creationism presented as such.

Personally, I prefer "brane" theory (a branch of String Theory) for a better alternative. That reminds me... I've got some footage of a stuffed cow in a tin foil space suit with a goldfish bowl helmet on an outer space set getting doused in silly string. I called it a research project into Silly String Theory!

I got some folks mad with this semi sarcastic, but not entirely to be dismissed theory combining creationism and evolution:

After murdering Abel, Cane hopped the Garden walls and wound up mating with apes and such. Being first generation Human he was 100% Potent and was able to produce many offspring. This would explain all those hominids from whom we find remains, yet still allow us to be created by God and descended from apes!

It would also explain things like the Platypus. That one always bugged me! (I have no problem accepting Cane as a pervert as well as a murderer)

.................

Gay marriage is no big issue to me. The way I see it, there is only a problem when such families adopt children and then divorce.

.................

And about the title question... Should I recognize the phrase as a famous quote?

I've read a good deal of classic literature, but I've slept since then!

..................

Your poem is indicative of our times. Trust me, you are not alone in your frustrations... it just seems that way because humans are not telepathic. When bad people see someone feeling down they often abuse this lack of telepathic ability to act superior to those "weak enough" to express themselves knowing that you can't read their minds and see the frightened little children they are inside (too?).

...................

Well, it's coming up on 4 AM here Deep in the Bowels of New Jersey and I gotta get moving (yes I start and end my days very early... So why am I not Healthy Wealthy and Wise?

Peace.

[vespuleth]

its not a famous quote, its my own. i havent anything to post this week, (which should be indicated by the fact that i havent posted on my blog at all this week) so who has a question for me?

[NASH7777]

Can you play any instruments?

Ok for you God is first, what's second?

Which Daonians would you most like to meet?

Ever gunna visit TFR u slacker?

Music Ves, Music! What ya got?

How often do you call your mother?

Favorite Verse?

Creativity-Knowledge-Capability, your pic...

How tall you?

Milk-Juice-Water-KoolAide!

If a man is alone in the woods with no woman around to hear him, when he says something is he still wrong?

Chess-Poker-Bingo

Drawing-Programming-Procrastinating-Teaching

How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

If jimmy cracked corn, and you don't care...why'ld ya make a song about it(lol jk).

Cats-Dogs-Fish-Rodent(hampster,gerbil,mouse?)

Caffiene, Sugar, Nicotine, Herbal Remedies

What's your favorite smily?

Current Mood:

If you could grant one characteristic to all your friends what would it be?

If I clone someone, do they have a soul?
If I clone someone and slightly alter some DNA do they?
If I make a 1/2 human 1/2 other creature will they have one?
Do animals have souls?
Do plants?
Do bacteria?
Do Viruses?
Does my favorite blanky?

If everything follows the laws of physics, how can we have choice?

Do you like snow?

ok...I'm done...

[vespuleth]

this marks the third time ive tried to answer the questions. the other two were much longer and involved:

Can you play any instruments?

i used to play the flute. im teaching myself to play the guitar.

Ok for you God is first, what's second?

people. i love to help people.

Which Daonians would you most like to meet?i

in a fantastic world, i would like to meet all of the doanians. most though, i would like to meet those doanians who i have put stake in outside of the community. yourself, nathan, doan, and rune.

Ever gunna visit TFR u slacker?

i certainly hope so. sad that he lives an hour away and ive havent already.

Music Ves, Music! What ya got?

i listen to a little of everything. i like music as an expression of emotion, so i dont really do alot of dance or rave music. i am a classic punk, so i listen to mostly that; i still love the ramones. when i am working, i mostly listen to classical music (gayane's adagio is one of the best violin duets/string choir pieces ive ever heard).

How often do you call your mother?

sadly, not that often. me and my family dont get on well. she did call the other day to ask a question though. so i talked to her briefly last week. but i hardly ever call her.

Favorite Verse?

i have alot. 1 timothy 4:12 holds a special importance to me, although im not so youthful anymore, as well as 1 corinthians 15:3 and Proverbs 27:13.

I timothy 4:12

do not let anyone look down on you while you are young, but among the believers set the example in speech, life, love, faith, and purity.

1 corinthians 15:3

for what i recieved, i passed on as of first importance: Christ died for yours sins, according to (or in accordance with) the scriptures.

Proverbs 27:13

surely there is a future hope for you, and that hope will not be cut off.

Creativity-Knowledge-Capability, your pic...

i feel that i am a person of some knowledge, and little creativity. i am fascinated with artistic manifestation because i have none. im not sure i understand what you mean by capability, but i assume you mean versatility. if so, i say that versatility is the best, as diversification is the key to survival.

How tall you?

5'8"-5'9"

Milk-Juice-Water-KoolAide!

water

If a man is alone in the woods with no woman around to hear him, when he says something is he still wrong?

lol. yes.

Chess-Poker-Bingo

chess

Drawing-Programming-Procrastinating-Teaching

teaching. although i love to do all of them; and do three of them often. can you guess which one i dont do often?

If jimmy cracked corn, and you don't care...why'ld ya make a song about it(lol jk).

good question

Cats-Dogs-Fish-Rodent(hampster,gerbil,mouse?)

dog. specifically a beagle. i cant wait to get one.

Caffiene, Sugar, Nicotine, Herbal Remedies

caffiene. i used to be addicted.

What's your favorite smily?

its my most common look.

Current Mood:

im not sure. mellow. neutral. tired.

If you could grant one characteristic to all your friends what would it be?

if you agree that wisdom encompasses both honesty and forgiveness, then wisdom.

If I clone someone, do they have a soul?

i dont know. cloning doesnt work quite the way hollywood plays it out. while a clone of michael jordan would physiologically be the same, temperament may not be. he would in affect be a seperate person, but with the same genetic makeup of jordan.

If I clone someone and slightly alter some DNA do they?

possibly. i would assume so. they would still have to be birthed, but so would an absolute clone. so maybe.

If I make a 1/2 human 1/2 other creature will they have one?

again, im not really sure. i dont know how God passes out souls. im sorry i cannot answer these questions. in my opinion, id like to think that the last two would, but im not sure about this one because...

Do animals have souls? Do plants? Do bacteria? Do Viruses? Does my favorite blanky?

no. the soul is the product of God breathing life into humans, where all others he spoke life into them. this is why 'eternity is on the heart of man'. does that mean that none of these things will exist in heaven? not at all. there are several recorded instances of animals in heaven. it means that they have no conscience, which means no morality. i actually just finished writing something on this. ill post it when i get it back.

If everything follows the laws of physics, how can we have choice?

C.S. Lewis explained it best when he sated that the laws of physics are what allow us to have free choice. see, the laws of physics create a world that can function independant of God's specific constant control (not that he isnt in control of the world, but physics make it to where he doesnt need to control the specifics of all things in the world), which allows man the freedom to act. you also have to understand that choice is not absolute: it has some stipulations. you cannot choose things outside of human nature (which is bound by the laws of physics). this means that as much as you want to be able to teleport, you cannot. also against the nature of humans is doing anything good. see, humans really are animals. our primary motivation is self preservation. this is an issue i go into extensively in a recent paper (the afore mentioned) and i will pass it on to you when i get it back.

Do you like snow?

yes. but i couldnt do it everyday. part of the reason i like snow is that it is rare.

[vespuleth]

Life is a song, a symphony, a majestic conductor at the head, commanding by his great orchestration the attention of the band and spectators alike. You are not the conductor. Some would suppose they are; some would suppose they direct such a masterpiece; others would further claim that they compose it as they go, and the entire piece is one great improvisation, dependant only on the whim of their conducting. Others would assert that all is random chance; that there is no conductor: that all the flutists randomly met at some certain time, and playing random notes produced a melody long described as divine. Others say that there are no flutists; that all by chance were in a given room together (in fact you all randomly ended up at the show that night) with random instruments which each raomly chose and played random notes to produce something on par or more beautiful than Beethoven's fourth. You are not the conductor, but there must be one. The key to all music is of course, orchestration, of which there can be none without a great orchestrator. So maybe you are a member of the choir, who during the second movement has decided to go rogue, playing a minor key rather than a major. The conductor will of course have to retribute for the act, but first he should improvise a bit, redirect the piece. One thing is sure, you cannot disrupt his symphony, and any attempts to do so lead to your own hurt and embarassment. YOu are not the conductor. While you could be a member of the band, you are most likely not; you are most likely a spectator. You sit on the edge of the great floor, and the conductor calls on you. By way of music he stirs in you to play an important role in his song; the most intimate of roles. His song is life; it is love; and your complete interaction with it, the whole of your free will is this: will you answer his call, will you say yes? Will you dance?

[vespuleth]

That last post is from my website. please give your thoughts. my question for the week comes from the opening line of the newest book of the eragon series by chris paolini, eldest:

the songs of the dead are the lament of the living.

what does this mean? how does it relate to the fact that:

i am but a spectre of this forgotten past?

is there a connection at all?

[Rodak]

vespuleth said:

You are not the conductor, but there must be one.

I am curious how you justify that.

The Guiliard Academy Orchestra has played without a conductor ever since the 1700's and there are many more.

I like the analogy, but the assumption is flawed. A conductor (like a God) is nice and makes life easier but that is no reason to assume it must exist.

vespuleth said:

the songs of the dead are the lament of the living.

Well, literally speaking... hearing people's death cries can be very disturbing. I have heard people die twice and it is quite unnerving.

Metaphorically speaking, we miss people when they are gone. We imagine their songs and feel depressed because they are no longer here and only some people's belief in (imaginary?) afterlives keeps them rooted.

It is the lack of certainty that gives people this distress. It is mostly those who believe firmly in the existence (or lack thereof) of an afterlife (or reincarnation), or the emotionless people, who handle these things well.

As for relating it to "i am but a spectre of this forgotten past?"... apart from the obvious connection of dead folks being in the past I really don't see one this time. It makes the dead person, not you, "a spectre of this forgotten past."

So long as we remember the dead, they will be spectres, but of a recalled past, not a forgotten one.

Peace.

[vespuleth]

my interpretation was a little different.

by reordering the quote, i came to:

the lament of the living are the songs of the dead (given the commutive property, i think this is fair)

to me this means that what we lament for now, we will sing because of later. something to do with understanding the whole spectrum from the other side of eternity.

ill get to how it relates to my own quote ('i am but a spectre of this forgotten past' is a personal quote) later, but i did want to clarify why all the ... analytical questions.

if you cannot do some literary analysis, you will most likely hate my game. because it is a story more than a game, and well, it has a literary perspective more than anything else. so i want to know how well the community picks up on subtle relations, themes, underlying message, interpretation and such.

[Rodak]

vespuleth said:

by reordering the quote, i came to:

the lament of the living are the songs of the dead (given the commutive property, i think this is fair)

Ummmm... No.

That is not fair. It is not a proper application of The Commutative Property as used in Sentential Calculus (the "calculus" (mathematics) of sentences).

Without digging out the old Logic Texts, The Commutative Property is thus (a "v" is a symbol for a disjunction (the word "or") and a "*" is the symbol for a conjunction (the word "and")):

(p v q) = (q v p)

or

(p * q) = (q * p)

Technically I should have used a three lined "Material Equivalence" sign, but tough.

Anyway, that reads "The quantity "p or q" is Equivalent to The Quantity "q or p" (true for "and" as well).

In your example you transpose the wrong elements to have a proper use of Logic.

A correct commutation of "the lament of the living are the songs of the dead" would be "the songs of the dead are the lament of the living."

What you have in your example is commonly called a "Spoonerism" and does not hold up.

Consider : The Paintings of Impressionists are The Bane of Fine Artists. Does this imply that The Paintings of Fine Artists are The Bane of Impressionists?

Hardly. One can be true while the other is false.

A noble effort, but not logically sound.

As for seeing spectra and "The other side of Eternity," surely you realize that is not possible for us mere mortals.

Keep at it!

Peace.

[vespuleth]

ummm... im just going to quote a few things... maybe you typo'd, maybe you confused yourself...

the songs of the dead are the lament of the living

my interpretation was a little different.

by reordering the quote, i came to:

the lament of the living are the songs of the dead

(given the commutive property, i think this is fair)

Ummmm... No

A correct commutation of "the lament of the living are the songs of the dead" would be "the songs of the dead are the lament of the living."

isnt that what i said?

math teaches that if the corollary is not true, the proposition(postulation) cannot be assumed true either. therefore, something is a spoonerism if it is deemed a truism, rather than an altruism. if something is deemed an absolute (altruism, postulation) its corrollary and commutation must be true. therefore, if the songs of the dead are the lament of the living, the lament of the living must also be the song of the dead.

as for the impressionists quote, this is a fine example: this is a truism, not an altruism. why? its commutation is not true. therefore, the quote cannot ever be assumed true (in math, it becomes a theorem, and must be proven at every application). it is then a truism, and we must find the situations where it applies.

for example: angle-side-angle is a postulate, while side-side-angle is a theorem. why? because angle-side-side is not always true. since the corrollary is conditional, the postulation (or theorem) cannot be assumed true.

and yes, i am taking for granted that the original statement is indeed true.

furthermore, is is the grammatical equals sign, and are is a pluralization of that, so if:

the songs of the dead == the lament of the living

iff(if and only if)

the lament of the living == the songs of the dead.

therefore its not only plausable that both be true, but necessary.

As for seeing spectra and "The other side of Eternity," surely you realize that is not possible for us mere mortals

this is where it becomes a matter of belief. the body is mortal, but something may (or may not) last beyond it. science has not yet concluded whether the brain is the lightswitch or the lightbulb. i theorize that if it is the lightbulb, and everything is given to chance, we should have never figured out that everything was given to chance.

anyways, if you believe there to be no extension beyond death, than there are no 'songs of the dead' for surely the dead cannot sing and therefore the quote has no significance anyways. death cries, as disturbing as they may be (and they are, i have seen, heard, and held people as they died) are not the songs of the dead, as the person is not dead yet. and while the death rattle (that final breath of a person who has usually suffered a plueral injury) is a disturbing sound, it does not lament me. the death of a person is far more soothing than there continued suffering. furthermore, the death rattle is the marking of death, so the person is not technically dead until its passing.

anyways, on to a question i overlooked:

Re: I am but a spectre of this forgotten past
« Reply #15 on Yesterday at 4:06am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 21st, 2005 at 9:19pm, vespuleth wrote:You are not the conductor, but there must be one.

I am curious how you justify that.

The Guiliard Academy Orchestra has played without a conductor ever since the 1700's and there are many more.

I like the analogy, but the assumption is flawed. A conductor (like a God) is nice and makes life easier but that is no reason to assume it must exist.

i thought the insinuation was clear here... follow the thinking... i start with the conductor, then move to orchestrator, and finally to the origin of the song. while i dont come out and say it here, the clear allusion is to that of a composer. while a band does not need a conductor, a composer is necessary. in this expose, the composer is the conductor, as it is his symphony (no one would call beethovens symphony their own because they were conducting it). none of the symphonys youve mentioned have been completely autonomous, or there should be no piece to perform.

i also make the presentation, that like most early composers, the composer of the suggested piece is conducted the piece himself. (beethoven did this, as well as a few others).

[vespuleth]

okay, so i have been gone for about five months. trying to get alot of things in order (and failing miserably... ive come to the conclusion that life is not meant to be 'orderly'. at least not mine.) so i have been reading up on all the posts made while i was gone. i hope to return to working with rpgm2 soon, but i think all previous projects are all but dead from disuse. we shall see...

[vespuleth]

so, this post is early because i havent made any progress w/ rpgm2 (ive yet to play it) and i know tomorrow will be too busy for me too. i have a test tomorrow morning (the fourth day of class!) and work tomorrow evening. I really want to buy the downloadable version of the guide because i want the guide and i dont want to pay alot for it (im not sure it will be useful) and i dont want to have to wait for it. nash has told me to forgoe it, but well, for whatever reason, i want to take a look at it. (if i could afford it id consider it a personal birthday present) I havent any idea if im going to pick up fawleh or not, but i do still have the story. if i do not end up making the game, i will post the story for all to read (and mock). so yeah.

[Doan the Nado]

Are you talking about the Prima guide? I think at this point, all it would really be useful for would be the pictures of all the Objects, Characters, Enemies, etc. You'll get a heck of a lot more information from the FAQ page on the site.

Speaking of the FAQ page, are we ever going to see something on the Tactical Movement Battle System (or whatever it was called)? That whole movement grid thing was pretty awesome; it's a shame that it was lost from the Agetec forums. If you have any files on your computer from back then (Has it been two years now? Crazy...), I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

[NASH7777]

admin said:

Are you talking about the Prima guide? I think at this point, all it would really be useful for would be the pictures of all the Objects, Characters, Enemies, etc.

That's exactly what i told him, unless he really needs help on how to beat Fuma lol.

[vespuleth]

i have mine and vic entire production of the tbs system somewhere... just not sure where. and yes, eventually *shhh*

and yeah, thats what nash told me. i am not sure why it appeals to me so much at this point...

[Bigfoot]

Yeah, I remember Nathan telling me about that thing, I too would like to check it out, and get a tactical battle system running.