A River of Dreams

[Dominique]

A river of dreams circles the Earth,
An etheral ring made of the blessings
of all the saints and holy entities
of the past & the cosmic energy
of other life forms giving all
the help they can to the human race on
this little planet
It is pouring benedictions on us all the time,
hoping we will catch them more & more,
so we'll finally get through to where
we want to be - that our destiny may be achieved -
so much higher that we can now foresee


(to be followed)

[aladdin]

that is so beautiful

[Blue]

A river of dreams circles the Earth,
An etheral ring made of the blessings
of all the saints and holy entities
of the past & the cosmic energy
of other life forms giving all
the help they can to the human race on
this little planet...

This is indeed beautifully expressed, but has it any real import in the material world?

Where is the 'river of dreams'?
Where is the 'etheral ring' of blessings that can give help?
They in, and of, your own mind.

The point I am making is that this is a beautifully poetic way of saying:
This is my personal spiritual conception presented imaginatively.
It comes from my heart (and soul?).
It has no relevance in the material and objective domain.
It is simply for the interest and delight of the readers at a beautifullly imaginative conception.

Provided it is understood it has no relationship to the material and objective domain, I am very happy to hear of your conceptions, not least because in my opinion, they are beautifully expressed.
They are 'true' of you and your affective nature and nurture, but no way 'true' in any factual and objective sense.
If that sounds harsh, it isn't meant to be. It is just a call to recognise matters for what they actually are.
There is no evidence beyond your heart for an 'etheral ring' or 'river of dreams'.
I'm sure you will appreciate that?
I just have to make the point.
------ looking forward to what may follow... of these lovely conceptions.

[Virtual_Cliff]

Hey Blue you need to make a little effort If we stuck to a purely materialist perspective we'd never get further than "3 feet make a yard". Spiritual concepts need spiritual language. I interpret this passage as saying that the cumulative goodness from all the wise and holy folk of the past, the present and the future will gradually lead the human race to a better higher consciousness. You may agree or disagree with that, but its a good thought and worthy of consideration.

I used to think we were becoming more enlightened, until witch-hunts against asylum-seekers and perverts started, and then the US annexed Iraq. I still hold on to my hopes though.

[Ciel]

Greetings Blue,
As another, how do you measure?
To measure from the material and objective, will reveal the material and objective. To compose from the ethereal and spiritual opens a door between the two, allowing higher expression to filter through the objective. Although you express denial, there was also empathy, and consideration for the "delight" of others. Therefore in subtle form something very real occured. There are many different dimensions to this life, and many different levels, but slowly and surely one touches another. Only when one has come to the realisation of all dimensions can one truly speak of evidence, or non evidence.

[Blue]

Ciel, Virtual Cliff, and our writer of dreams...

You are, of course, all correct that personal affective concepts have a magnificent power over human behaviour... sometimes for good, and often for evil purposes. They originate in the individual heart, the affective nature and nurture. They can be used as powerful tools for good and ill. For propaganda or for solace.

The value of the mythologies, the poetry, the affective relationship of imagery to real actions in the real word is so obvious it doesn't really need much of an effort to appreciate. We are largely creatures of the affective and respond in the main as such. We also need a balancing power of reason and rationality... and there never has been enough of that!

The point I was making was that 'beautiful thoughts' are value judgements... one person's imaginative responses can be reason enough for 'good', for others, reason for 'ill'.

Poetry, the Arts, Painting and Music, the 'Imaginative' pursuits have amazing power over material reality.
What I call for is a clear distinction and a heavy dose of rationality.

Throughout history we have witnessed the power of imaginative spiritual 'ideals', often very different in essence. Such beliefs and their expressions through the very powerful artistic media have become proganda for ideas that caused in the domain of spirit and religion, wars, torture, poverty and great misery. The danger inherent always has to be appreciated...

So - while this expression is beautiful in my judgement, worthwhile in my judgement, it must never be thought as anything other than a well-intentioned balance to the cognitive and rational material domain.

WE need a world that puts reason/rationality/mind together with the affective domain, in balance, in my opinion.

When one gains ascendancy over the other we, history shows us, are in danger.

No one can ever claim for example that INTUITION in itself is 'good'. It patently isn't always 'good'.
Intuitions can be both right and wrong, in fact.
Imaginative statements about benedictions suffusing human consciousness will always be subject to the realities of the objective.

Taoism realises the necessity for balance between the affective and cognitive. other spiritual beliefs don't. They specifically act to destroy or deny the value of materialism, objectivity, humanism and most importantly, reason and rationality, preferring notions of blood sacrifice, Hell, and blind obedience to an interpreted notion of God or Spirit based in corrupt dogmas and doctrines, often based themselves in some ancient texts written for a very different world from our own.

As soon as someone mentions blessings and benedictions to me, I immediately consider exactly what those blessings might be... they could be for good or ill, is the fact, if translated into actions in the objective domain.
A blessing or benediction in itself means little. In this poem, the context wasn't very clear. Which sages, 'Wise','Good' and 'Godly' people are we meant to be thinking of in the poem?
It could just as easily be an Alexander the Great who had, he apparently declared, a great love for his people, and his best friend(!), Ghengis Khan anxious to restore the greatness of his Nation/tribe(s) or Hitler, as well as Lao Tse or Confucius or Jesus of Nazareth.

Can I just repeat what I said before... how much I enjoyed the poetry as one individual responding affectively to some beautiful language.

At the end of the day though, every poem must be seen in the setting of both the affective/spiritual, and material reality, to do it justice.

It is to be noted that there is no necessity in a spiritual response for rationality. Gods, religions, because of their affective base, are fundamentally irrational... so are poetic images... as beautiful or fitting as they may appear in the minds of particular audiences.

As Professor Flew has recently declared, there is nothing proven or rational about his new found faith in 'complexity' as a causal base for his claim/belief that there is indeed a God. It is simply what he has come to believe as a matter of faith after a life time of denial.

[Blue]

I should have addressed a fundamental error in my view that appeared I think in Ciel's post.

"To compose from the ethereal and spiritual opens a door between the two, allowing higher expression to filter through the objective. "

It seemed to suggest there that the ethereal(?), poetic, etc., was somehow superior to the rational and objective...That is nonsense in my opinion. How does that work then? From what and where does it derive superiority over Rationality and the Objective Cognitive domain? In what sense is it "higher expression"?

That IS the danger... the affective should not be thought of as superior to a subordinate rationality/reason. Neither the Affective domain, nor the Cognitive Domain should be considered dominant, or subordinate.

[Ciel]

Oh Dark Knight Blue, if youre avatar be true,
I do not speak from concepts or faiths, simply the knowledge and wisdom lived in the life of creational form. There is every necessity in a spiritual response for rationality and balance. There is also the necessity for the hearts of humanity to be lightened, to leave aside the fear and opinionated ego. You appear to dwell on the darker side of life. How many great and wonderful things would still lie dormant if man or woman did not allow themselves to transcend above subordinate rationality? One speaks from one's place of orientation, does the sun ever rise to illuminate your dark skys to allow heaven to shed a little paradise?

[Blue]

There you go again, Ciel, failing to stand the harsh glare of reality and synthisise it with your creative affectivity!
<<How many great and wonderful things would still lie dormant if man or woman did not allow themselves to transcend above subordinate rationality? >>

Why 'transcend' the subordinate reality? The transcendental is often praised as in some way superior to rationality. I wonder why that is? There is certainly no evidence that an imaginative or creative or intuitive view gives more 'accurate' results in human relationships or more 'accurate' views of humanity. In you own case, dare I suggest, it is because reality can appear harsh... but you see, I prefer to see things as they really are, and write my poetry and creative literary output, and devise my paintings accordingly... to try and synthesise the ways of 'seeing'.
I definitely prefer human beings as they really are, rather than romanticising them. I judge them rationally, and then respond to them affectively. Doing it the other way round in my long experience can lead to terrible consequences in the area of sexual relationships... just as an example. It is difficult to subjugate the affective... to simply accept the affective is a weakness and lazy. if we all judged simply on the basis of our feelings where would we end up? Chaos that mirrors the apparent chaos and randomness of the universe.. perhaps that means we would be in accord with, in balance with 'nature', but I fail to see that striving for reason and rationality is subordinate to it... it is human beings way of trying to control the environment as other creatures singularly fail to do through lack of development of the self-regarding faculty

~there is nothing better than wallowing in an affective dream, or imagining ethereal blessings falling from above upon humanity. It is pleasant, it is warm, it is comforting, and it is totally ineffective in getting at the truth. It is a warm blanket to protect the reader from facing reality.
People are only interested, in the main, in what is in it for them... as members of an avowedly, and genetically, selfish organism like the human specie. That is not cynicism, it is facing matters as they are.
We can apparently 'rise' above this with declared altruism or altruistic actions, so adjudged... but that only means raising rationality over the affective and poetic... and I am never really convinced about altruism in general in any case.

The creative aspect, the poetic aspect, should give greater regard to the rational... the master of this was Shakespeare, whose appeals to rationality were contrasted with views of humanity's affective wooliness, in such ways that gave his genius the language and the treatment of his plots such power. Poetry with 'edge', sharp and biting, disturbing and challenging is always the better for it, and the same goes for all the Arts. If the work just washes over you without challenging how one thinks and sees, or hears, it is not effective Art.

Art should be challenging and dynamic. That only comes with the synthesis of rationality, a good dose of reality - and the appeal of the affective.

May I suggest a re-read of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales... you find both there, just as one does in the work of a Ted Hughes in this current age.
The 'soft' and 'wooly' are there to be balanced with reason and reality, reflecting a true sense and understanding of humanity.

[Ciel]

Dark Knight,
One speaks from ones place of orientation.
The sky has no wish to justify it's location in being.
The knight appears lost in his tao of judgement.

[aladdin]

Blue, you commented
*Why 'transcend' the subordinate reality? The transcendental is often praised as in some way superior to rationality. I wonder why that is?***

to me, this seems naive why u would wonder why anyone would not want to primarily deal with this world in a rational way, ===there are a lot of awful things that are pretty incomprehensible such as certain types of torture in asia of innocent people and killings in mexico for blood sport that are ignored because the people who do them have power and money and the other people who are victims are seen as disposable.

and other similar things...I mean I find it pretty hard to cope with just KNOWING of these things in a rational sense, the people in these situations right now----I mean I don't think someone who is being held captive for example (psychologically or physically by anything) could really just take in everything rationally , it is impossible.
(so to generalize and say the rational is better is pretty shocking to ME)

I found this poem very spiritual and beautiful, especially because it was mysterious and was not completely "logical" with appropriate literary references to whoever). (imo),

Also, I disagree with a lot of what Blue said. This is just based on a premise that I do not feel I have found what is "OBJECTIVE" {for everyone} in an absolute truth sense.
I am curious what specific art Do you appreciate?

Some statements you made abovesorry if I took any of them out of context)

*I prefer to see things as they really are* to me, that is quite a statement*maybe see things---as they really are seen through YOUR EYES? filtered through your mind which is developed by your biology and experience and what you have learned/been taught?
"as they really are" i mean, i think that is just opinion no matter whether you are Goethe and your IQ is 200, or you are a schizophrenic homeless person or u are the most educated guy on the block , I think everyone's view of reality is pretty valid.(and often different-this is a paradox isn't it?

*Art should be challenging and dynamic. That only comes with the synthesis of rationality, a good dose of reality - and the appeal of the affective.* to me, my favorite thing about art is everyone appreciates different things and there are no laws about how it should or should not be.

*It has no relevance in the material and objective domain. but no way 'true' in any factual and objective sense.* Factuality and objectivity depend a lot on context, and I think in art "fact and objectivity" (in the sense I think you are implying) is pretty irrelevant.

Then Blue you also stated:::

They specifically act to destroy or deny the value of materialism, objectivity, humanism and most importantly, reason and rationality, preferring notions of blood sacrifice, Hell, and blind obedience to an interpreted notion of God or Spirit based in corrupt dogmas and doctrines, often based themselves in some ancient texts written for a very different world from our own.

I think that is a huge erroneous generalization, just my opinion. Unless you clarified more specifically who "they" were...
THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, I really hope no one thinks I am trying to be obnoxious.

I just liked the poem a lot and I hope maybe Dominique will post more sometime!

[Blue]

Many thanks for replying, Aladdin.

You seem, if I may say so, to have misunderstood the thrust of the post I made.

You seem to imply I was saying the rational isn't necessary on one breath:
"why anyone would not want to primarily deal with this world in a rational way," which is exactly my point.
Romanticising matters is hardly a contribution likely to produce changes.
It didn't work for Christianity, let alone poetry as an art form.

You then, on the other hand, produce an excellent list of concerns, but end it with:
"so to generalize and say the rational is better is pretty shocking to ME"

I have argued that what we need is balance. So many times the affective response dominates in human thinking, and too little reason and rationalism is applied.

You then go on to say using one of my original statements:
" *I prefer to see things as they really are* to me, that is quite a statement*maybe see things---as they really are seen through YOUR EYES? filtered through your mind which is developed by your biology and experience and what you have learned/been taught? "

I NEVER prefer to see things on the basis of my personal affective perceptions alone. That is what I was saying in my post. I need my perceptions to be confirmed objectively and empirically by others too!

I have no objection to your affective responses to the poetry being discussed at all... indeed I share them.. it was mysterious, it was beautifully expressed... and it didn't relate to any reality that I am aware of, or is related to the objective world as can be perceived by anyone.
It is just a set of imaginary 'wishes', which is fine for what it actually is... an affective outpouring.

Anyone's affective judgements of poetry are valid, yours or mine. I didnot say or imply otherwise, so we agree on that, but......

You then criticise by saying:
"everyone appreciates different things and there are no laws about how it should or should not be."

Do I understand by this you rule out the whole dimension of study labelled 'Aesthetics"? The fact is that there is 'good' and 'bad' Art, in all fields, music, painting, sculpture, what-have-you. There is 'Art' that breaks aesthetic conventions, too, which is valid both in reason and execution. It is the discernment of individuals which varies according to their affective nature and nurture. If that doesn't include, but actually rejects judgements of form, rhythm, imagery, etc., then those purely affective judgements are just that... affective, without rationality. That's fine... a fire is warm and it comforts me when I am cold. This piece of poetry we are discussing may be full of warm wishes and personal desires, but it goes no further. It's warmth is just its perceived warmth... which is fine if that is all you want from poetry.

As I said, poetry unrelated to reality is 'soft'. This kind of poetry needs a sharp edge, a harsh edge.. a dose of reality to which the people - the audience - can relate.

A vagueness about blessing and benedictions from above, from the ethereal, that may or may not be related by the audience to reality, is not good enough.
I repeat... the very greatest of poets, people like Chaucer, William Blake, Shakespeare and so many others lies in dosing their poetry with relationships to the real and objective in human experiences.
This piece didnot achieve that. Aesthetic judgements should be part and
parcel of any critical judgements.
On the one hand I say I enjoyed it. I enjoy lots of things that haven't a harder edge! On the other I should be able to bring aesthetic judgements to bear and be able to say if in fact it was good or bad poetically in achieving an objective with a mixed audience... it doesn't achieve that... it remains vague and woolly, deliberately appealing only in terms of an equally affective response. Many, quite reasonably(!) find that not enough. Some don't. They are willing to just be warmed by the affective fire of the words. That is how I woulkd categorise your responses, and there is nothing badly wrong with that that some added reasoning wouldn't cure.

You then say, and you have a perfect right to say as an affective opinion... or value judgement:-

"I think in art "fact and objectivity" (in the sense I think you are implying) is pretty irrelevant."

I would equally maintain that you are not only wrong, but can be proven to be wrong outside value judgements. My evidence? My evidence can be discerned in what has always been accepted as 'good' poetry, and what is accepted as 'bad'.... aesthetic judgements based in pragmatic and refined and reasoned criteria. Good poetry relates to the objective and material experiences of human beings in such glorious ways that it endures across cultures, as with the admiration of Shakespeare as translated, and original, in Chinese schools across the whole of China.
Shakespeare is perhaps the best example of the 'hard edged' combination of rationality and reason and the affective domain, illustrating that poetry always needs masters like Ted Hughes, and hundreds of others, who we should always in the end, endeavour to emulate.

Incidentally, "they' are usually western Christians, Moslems, and all those who substitute dogma and doctrines based in ancient texts written for very different purposes than the purposes accepted in a modern world, in a monotheistic culture and concept of the world.

Also, you seem to wish - perhaps I am wrong - to deny the poetical use of parable as one can cite in connection with Christianity. The 'parables' as attached to the stories of Jesus of Nazareth, ALWAYS pointed to objective and realistic concerns which make them 'good' in aesthetic terms... there is no point to a parable if the intended audience fails to 'see' the connection to reality!

======
I do not think you are being "obnoxious", as indeed I am not intending to be either.
We are having a reasoned debate... I hope.
I too look forward to further writings as the one we are discussing.
Apologies for any typos!

[Virtual_Cliff]

There is no objective good or bad art or poetry. Many artists were unappreciated in their time. There is often a temporary consensus, but even then not everyone agrees.

Spirit transcends matter as a driver transcends his car. Rationalism gave us the eugenics movement, monetarism and the atom bomb. We have move on two hundred years since the age of reason.

May I venture to suggest you harbour a grudge?

[brucegdc]

Folks, please cool the rhetoric down. In particular, be very careful of phrases stating "you...." or putdowns of ideas - they risk pushing the line of acceptable conduct here. *Please* read the code of conduct and act accordingly.

... Bruce (the friendly neighborhood moderator...)

[Virtual_Cliff]

Sorry all. I was in a hurry and it came out rather more strongly than I intended.

Nonetheless, I maintain that we need the spiritual side to direct the purely mechanistic side of our llives. Automation gave us the machine gun which caused the slaughter of the first world war. The machine has no mercy.

In the past, nearly all of the people I have spoken to who advocate reason over religion (as if there was a conflict) have a background of mental or physical abuse at school by a religious order. This needs to be condidered when trying to understand where people are "coming from".