Methodological naturalism is the usual expression. And to recap, where I think that overshoots is when it is extended to grand claims about the nature of existence. I think it's very important to understand intellectual history and the forces that came into play through the Enlightenment, which is a big subject, but indispensable in my view. — Wayfarer

OK. Thanks for that and the general overview.

In respect of evolutionary biology, this has come to be seen as the kind of scientific rebuttal of religious creation myths. That's obviously true in some ways, but there are many open questions about the meaning of evolution, which actually converge with questions about the meaning of life. That is what I take the last paragraph of the OP to be getting at. — Wayfarer

Last paragraph of OP:

1.So the mystery of the origin of life is very real.

2. Even if you could find an alternate mechanism for accurate chemical reproduction - what could give it its sense of direction before life had an in interest in preserving itself.

3. Whatever factor could apply to chemicals alone, to start giving an evolutionary direction in favour of life? — Gary Enfield

1. 'The mystery of the origin of life is very real' - no argument with that from me.
Although some accept it as a result of faith v those who prefer knowledge, even if limited.
Doubt can still be present in both. Sometimes, this troubles the faithful and an amount of guilt is felt.
Whereas, others can see doubt as helpful and a way forward.

As for 2. and 3. that is beyond me !
My only thought, right now, is that energy plays a part...resulting in the eventual energetic pursuits of humans and others to keep on going, or not - as the case might be. Could be seen as trivial in some respects if you think there is something greater out there...
Most try to find reasons to go on, even in the most difficult of circumstances, including real doubt.
And they do this without recourse to studies or theories in philosophy or science...or religion.
Perhaps they are better for it ?

I have never heard the expression 'methodological realism' until now. Methodological naturalism is the usual expression. — Wayfarer

Tom seems to have moved to that instead of his previous 'methodological naturalism' ?

On methodological realism:

Methodological realism accepts the axiological view that truth is one of the essential aims of science. Following Popper and Levi, truthlikeness as the aim of science, combines the goals of truth and information. This chapter discusses the relations between truthlikeness and other epistemic utilities like explanatory power (Hempel), problem‐solving capacity (Laudan), and simplicity (Reichenbach). While rationality in science can be defined relative to the goals accepted within scientific communities at different times, a critical realist defines scientific progress in terms of increasing truthlikeness. It is argued that progress in this sense can be assessed, relative to empirical evidence, by the notion of expected verisimilitude. An abductive argument is formulated to defend realism as the best (and even the only) explanation of the empirical and practical success of science. — Ilkka Niiniluoto

‘Methodological naturalism’ excludes what can't be accounted for or conceived of in scientific (objective, quantifiable) terms. It is a perfectly sound methodological step. Philosophical naturalism goes further by saying that only those factors which can be considered scientifically are real. This is where scientific method tends towards 'scientism'. — Wayfarer

Thanks, Wayfarer, for this further information. I have yet to read up on some of the internet sources.
I am following this thread with more interest than I thought I would, given that I am not always attracted to threads with anything scientific in the title.

In particular, the conversation between yourself and @Tom Storm. Here:

I don't disagree with most of what you say but I don't think it makes an impact on the efficacy of methodological realism as the only useful tool we have for determining the nature of our experience. — Tom Storm

and now @Joshs to Tom:

It depends on what aspect of our experience you have in mind... — Joshs

...As far as the social sciences are concerned it is a different story, especially in psychology. Here we do have post-realist alternatives in hermeneutic, enactivist , constructivist, social constructionist, and phenomenological approaches. These accounts recognize that one can maintain naturalism while jettisoning realism. — Joshs

Tom responds:

You will have to provide a simple example. If you're simply talking theory then this is largely inconsequential. — Tom Storm

I agree that more examples would be useful as to the practical consequences of holding any of the positions previously discussed.

Question:

What would be an example of
: 'the efficacy of methodological realism as the only useful tool we have for determining the nature of our experience' in everyday life ?
With reference to the human experience as it tries to come to terms with what we know today.

I think that recognising the importance of the mind to the self, as it functions and not worrying about how it came to be, is perhaps of more relevance to the development of the self - perhaps even in an evolutionary or revolutionary way ?

I agree with:

However for me what matters is actually how people relate to their fellow creatures. The real test of a belief system is not how much 'metaphysics' or anti-realism it holds, but what it looks like in action in the world. — Tom Storm

So, back to 'naturalism'. I will have to give this, or 'methodological realism' more thought and time, given that it seems to be at the core of it all ?

They are important because the first says it is not possible to gain reliable knowledge outside of using this method. The second, which I do not accept, is that all which is extant is natural subject to natural laws. We would need to demonstrate this before making that claim. — Tom Storm

OK. That raises more questions. However, don't wish to spoil this thread by going off track.
I will do more research. Have already found some bedtime reading:

https://optimistminds.com/methodological-naturalism/#:~:text=%20Methodological%20Naturalism%20%201%20Philosophy%20meets%20science.,Naturalism%20must%20be%20differentiated%20from%20Ontological...%20More

The default setting in the absence of any evidence of supernatural forces is surely naturalism? For all the bad press naturalism gets, (and you are right that science is concerned with what is objectively measurable - should it be concerned with the subjectively immeasurable?) it is the only known way to acquire reliable knowledge about the world. That said, i am a methodological naturalist not a philosophical naturalist. — Tom Storm

I've been skim reading this thread and (sorry if it is a derailment ) but want to pick up on something I had never heard of before.

Methodological naturalism v philosophical naturalism.
What are they and why is it important to make the distinction ?

I did a quick search and found this article:
https://infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html

The abstract:

'In response to the charge that methodological naturalism in science logically requires the a priori adoption of a naturalistic metaphysics, I examine the question whether methodological naturalism entails philosophical (ontological or metaphysical) naturalism. I conclude that the relationship between methodological and philosophical naturalism, while not one of logical entailment, is the only reasonable metaphysical conclusion given (1) the demonstrated success of methodological naturalism, combined with (2) the massive amount of knowledge gained by it, (3) the lack of a method or epistemology for knowing the supernatural, and (4) the subsequent lack of evidence for the supernatural. The above factors together provide solid grounding for philosophical naturalism, while supernaturalism remains little more than a logical possibility.' — Barbara Forrest

Perhaps this would need another thread to discuss.
It is somewhat beyond me but I would like to try and understand these positions.

None of the above is insurmountable or dire... — Tom Storm

Indeed.

People tend to exaggerate or diminish parts of themselves in this style of communication. — Tom Storm

This form and style of communication lends itself to people doing all sorts :smile:

Never done this before. I am not on any social media either. I just thought I would give this a fortnight to see whether I found it stimulating. I'm wondering if a forum distorts one's personality. You have quite unnatural conversations in concentrated increments in slow motion.

Nice to chat. — Tom Storm

It is lovely to chat with you too.

I am not on any social media either.
Re philosophy forums, I have participated in 3.
Each one of them has pros and cons.

I learned from what you might call the 'wise' ones and also those that rubbed me up the wrong way.
Whether you find it stimulating in a few weeks is pretty much up to you.
Just as I returned here, whether for better or worse - that is up to me.
I have decided to limit any interactions due to time and energy levels.
So far, so good.

Re: wondering if a forum distorts one's personality.
What did you have in mind ?

I think there is value in discussion but some exchanges may be harmful to self.
Some might be more susceptible or vulnerable than others.
I am still learning not to allow myself to be antagonised.
Difficult at times to read and write carefully.

Re: unnatural conversations in concentrated increments in slow motion.

I am not sure what you mean by this. The dialogues or discussions on any particular topic or book can vary as to the aim, time and energy of the people involved.

I hope you stay around.

That's a courageous thing to say. — Tom Storm

Thanks for that but I am not so sure about it being 'courageous'.

I agree any admission of being wrong after reflection can be seen as a strength.
However, others can see an expression of regret as a sign of weakness.
Of being a 'loser'.

Politicians, in particular, need their self image to be strong. It is important to be seen as a winner, even when all the facts point in the opposite direction.
They might even have self-knowledge about this. They know themselves.

So, where does any wisdom enter the picture ?
Perhaps In knowing about others and reaching like minds. A kind of philosophy...a way of being wordly wise...

My own view is that people do not reflect often enough on two things. 1) on how much they really know about something and 2) how they are coming across. — Tom Storm

You make good points.

I said that: my realisation came 'after a period of standing back and reflecting'.

Re point 1: How do you know that is true ? How would reflection help you be sure ?
Asking relevant questions. Not just accepting at face value. Using the tools of philosophical reflection or just plain old scepticism...
Sometimes, though, we just sense an underlying honesty. There is an intuition.

Re 2 : Reflecting on how we are coming across.
How words can show us up, rightly or wrongly.

I might have given the wrong impression as to the quantity and quality of my reflection.
I didn't spend a whole lot of time in active reflection.
Probably more subconscious over the months I was absent.

Really, things came together quite recently when I reconnected with a friend.
I felt the need to engage. It made me think again in a more active way.
About what I wanted. And a way forward.

So, self-reflection as a way to self-knowledge is something that can be done at a subconscious level or more purposefully.

Philosophical forums can help shine a light on the reality of our selves, actions and practice and not one that is self-biased, a bit skew whiff.

It can be a brave thing to do. To post thoughts as you process them. To be open to challenge or another perspective.
To look in the mirror, to accept and change your view of self.
To think again...

There is nothing quite like 'knowing yourself' to be able to progress in a realistic and effective way. Whether you have to be wise first to realise this - or wise after life events - or both might be the case.

It is certainly true that some bits of knowing our self are easier than others.
Writing your CV or your time line will give you and others quantative details.
Looking at past photographs will show a little of who we are.

It is the 'gaps between the snaps' - the qualitative aspect of our lives and the way we think that if explored objectively can be a more important kind of 'knowing'.

I decided a few months ago to permanently 'shut up' on this forum. It was a result of the owner @jamalrob telling me to in a particular thread.
I didn't appreciate the way he talked to me. And I felt wronged.

Whatever the rights and wrongs, I have never felt comfortable leaving it like that.
Why?
Because I lost something in the process.

Philosophy forums - owners, mods and members are easy to criticise. And I did.
I thought it was constructive. Turns out I was wrong. And that realisation comes after a period of standing back and reflecting.

Participating in philosophy forums has, over the years with all the questioning, helped improve analytical skills alongside having fun exploring other worlds.
Meeting like and unlike minds is perhaps a good beginning step to getting to know your self; your limitations and strengths.

Philosophy forums test you in more ways than one.
There is a wisdom in keeping a distance whenever it is necessary.
Pulling back when it gets too personal.
Knowing your self and others through experience can give you a practical wisdom.
How can you be sure you really know yourself without others and their feedback.
I can be as delusional as the next person...

Clear thinking can be disturbed and made cloudy by many factors.
Many right now feel depressed - many have come to know themselves and have lived a life well enough to realise that this too will pass. Others will need intervention of some kind.

Developing a personal philosophy of life takes time. We all process stuff to the best of our ability. In addition to know thyself, I would add be good to yourself.

As such, I will participate as and when I feel able...
I will not 'Shut up'.

:zip:
Goodbye for good.
I was advised not to return. I should have listened.

Quit trolling. If you have nothing to say about the topic, shut it. — jamalrob

Wow. 'Shut it'. I will. Permanently.

Pretty sure jamalrob outranks him and he’s the one who okayed everything.

Your username does not accurately reflect your content. — Pfhorrest

You said 'the admins'. They are a team. And I've already been talking with @Baden

Seriously ?

At least until people like you insist on making it about the book, and derail the thread, and then point at your derailment as evidence to justify itself. — Pfhorrest

:rofl:
I am beginning to understand the previous drama which unfolded before my return to TPF and resulted in your banning, then unbanning.

You just don't listen properly and you misrepresent.
At no point have I insisted on making it anything about the damned book. And there has been no derailment by me.
Indeed, in the Triangle thread I was the one trying to keep it on topic. Look again:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8246/the-philosophy-writing-management-triangle

FWIW I checked with the admins before and they explicitly suggested doing threads like this (and I actually ran the writing thread in entirety past them first and got an enthusiastic go-ahead). — Pfhorrest

Really ? Ah well then. I guess we can look forward to more of the same. Hopefully not.
A series of misleading titles not reflecting the content of a long and dense, selfcentred OP :down:
I will be checking with @Baden

Perhaps a thread where each member selects a favourite post ( not their own )? — Pop

Go on then :cool:
I'm all done for now...
Hmmm.
An Art Gallery of Posters' Posts.
A Portrait of Philosophy.
Pop Art.

Perhaps you could create an amalgam of favourite quotes article ? — Pop

Hah. That would be fun. Taking all the favourite quotes as presented in posters' profiles could be a start...
Seeing how they match up with their own behaviour and words.

I've noticed how some keep the same ones forever, like their names and pics. Others seem to change with the wind...
Perhaps for fun and need for change or not being able to make their mind up on self presentation...
Who cares ?

Unfortunately, I am all talk, encouraging others without taking action myself :sad:

Sounds like Jung's notion of Synchronicity — Gnomon

Damn. That's what I meant. Not 'Serendipity'.
Wonder what made me think of that :chin:

Off the top of my head, I see philosophy as an educated guess taken further. — Braindead

Well, that's one way of looking at it. There are so many different perspectives, some more serious than others. All pretty much worth considering, if only to refuse or recycle.

Philosophy can appear dry because, some people simply prefer philosophy to be well defended, rather than a collection hazardous guesses. — Braindead

I think philosophy can appear dry because in some cases the material is old hat. People don't see the relevance of it in their daily lives. It's the old theory v practice thing.

Philosophy is perceived as a dry, academic subject.
Why ?
Philosophers as such are not generally seen in action. Only if you go look up YouTube you might find an excellent prof engaging creatively with his students. Making it fun and making them actively think. There's an art to that. It can be aesthetically pleasing.

But it doesn't stop there, or shouldn't. Philosophy is also an art of living. Not just for grades.

Fun or aggro philosophy.
Kids know how to do this in everyday exchanges.
That's not fair ! Why ? Because 1, 2 and 3.
Or they fight. Just as those in power do.
Just as they create their own worlds, they create art.

For the love and fun of it. The play aspect helps them grow.

Perhaps we already have this in @jamalrob' 's Philosophy Club. And I've just spent a lot of hot air on nothing.
Yeah. Doing it again. Same old pattern.
OK. Time for a break. Bye and thanks for listening.

Thanks.

Has anyone ever had moments when they noticed a random topic and had that very topic come alive around them? What I mean is hearing about one inconsequential thing and then having that thing become popular for no related reason. — Braindead

Is a random topic necessarily inconsequential ?
Whenever I try to think of something random that I have noticed, I wonder at its randomness.
How might e.g. a discussion thread be random ?
Something picked out of thin air with no obvious cause.

I think most events have causes, don't they ? And in turn there are consequences. So, how can something random be inconsequential ? It might not have importance but then there will be a knock on effect. The random idea might not be obviously related to another or become popular but it is out there. In the public domain. Memes spread like a virus.

Other times I have heard or thought about a certain thing that no one would normally talk about, only to have that very topic pop up repeatedly. — Braindead

It depends what you consider 'normal'. Recent events have turned 'normal' on its head. It is now normal to hear people talk of 'social distancing', masks and hygiene.

We are more aware of where we stand in relation to each other.
Different ways of looking at the world and the values of society.
Who is considered worthy of saving. Who are left to die alone.

Home alone without usual diversions, some might even turn to philosophy or art. So, our surroundings influence our thoughts and vice versa. We might have more individual and collective energy.

On TPF, I participated in what might be termed a random thread. A little divertimento in the Lounge. That led to a more serious consideration of What is Good Art. So then I look around and lo and behold I notice all these other threads looking for Definitions of Art. What is Art ?
The questions were always there but the topic seems to have become more popular or relevant.

Is it because there is a general stirring of the creative spirit.
We have had to stop consuming products at the rate we were doing. Some things aren't even available.For example, masks or face coverings. So we have to make our own.

Have you seen how creative people have been in making their own ? Necessity is the mother of invention, as is fear.
What the hell would we do if we run out of toilet paper ?
So, collective fear transmits and humans panic.

Nothing particularly random. Just the ways things are.

I had thought that 'Coincidence ?' might be 'Serendipity' but that's not the same thing. Related to ideas about fate v determinism.

At odds with the idea of randomness is the concept of karma. What goes around comes around.
If only...

Amity gets it. — Outlander

Yay :party:

This thread is not about my book, but my book is guided by the observation of those relationships. — Pfhorrest

Disingeneous. It clearly promotes your book, even if only indirectly.

I'll just comment that this kind of structure is basically what my book exists to illustrate, — Pfhorrest

This apparently throwaway line came at the end of a long and dense OP. Self promoting.

The definitive title of the thread misleads.
Just as in your other thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8246/the-philosophy-writing-management-triangle

Indeed, both arguably break the Guidelines whereby you should be 'Capable of writing a decent title that accurately and concisely describes the content of your OP.'

'Alone at home, oh fone a lone homophone !'
:chin:

I've had a look at your website and i like it. The 1000 word format sounds good. Ill submit something in the near future. — Pop

Hi and just to clarify: it's not my website and I have no authority to invite anyone to write for it. The general invitation on this forum TPF is from @jamalrob. See:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/76/submit-an-article-for-publication

these threads have a life of their own — Pop

Indeed they have with mixed results. Sometimes going with the flow can bring inspiration. It was this little 'divertimento' that caused me to search for a definition of art :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8264/divertimento-1-the-grammar-of-self

The forum and the contributors, have been a wonderful help, I've placed a link to the thread on my website. — Pop

Yes, it sure has its marvellous moments; here's to more of the same. I was wondering more about how anyone would acknowledge any quotes made by participants in any writing project.

As an artist my main interest is to push the boundaries of art, — Pop

Aside from the theory, how do you do this in practice ?
What do you paint and how ?

Hopefully diverting it towards an exploration of consciousness. — Pop

What kind of consciousness ? Edit: Strike that I've just reread your OP. Sorry to be so stoopid :yikes:
I am curious because currently there are at least 2 television programmes which involve what might be termed a 'collective creativity'. Both are having to work round the constraints of the coronavirus crisis.

1. https://www.channel4.com/press/news/graysons-art-club
2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000j45r

1. Is fantastic. Takes place at home. It explores and unleashes creative talent as isolated people come together to share experiences. Also celebs and a bit of teaching going on. I would say it is funny, serious and spiritual. Last night's theme was:
' View from my window'. So, a variety of perspectives and materials.
Grayson spoke to an older viewer/ participant whose painting he chose. He was clearly moved when she said it was her first attempt since primary school. Like so many she had been put down and off art because of a teacher. Now she simply drew from the heart with no rules. She didn't know if she was doing things wrong and she didn't care. She was moved to express herself and her situation.

2. A bit more of a professional masterclass setup:
'Life Drawing Live: drawing the Nation Together'.
Along with 6 amateurs in a vast studio, it includes viewers and celebrities. Last time I watched it was about painting nudes. Everyone is painting the same thing, the model.
And given rules.

I suppose this can be likened to the differences in writing format and criteria between Articles and Essays...or not.

The Essay website I linked to is more constrained than the TPF. Both have their merits. I think we could have both here but that's for @jamalrob and co to decide !

Academic acceptance / reinforcement would be helpful, but exposure is more important, — Pop

So, you could do both ! Follow the strict 1000 word academic format and/or create a more 'you' article with TPF whilst still being 'professional' of course.

I think that so many helpful and experienced posters here would love to see their thoughts reproduced in a more permanent way, such as an Article. Even if they don't want to write one themselves. What would that be if not an Individual Collective Creative Consciousness ? :chin:

Also for instructors:

New! A “Teaching Units” page of links to select sets of essays has been developed to help create course modules on common topics in philosophy and ethics courses. We hope this is especially helpful for instructors transitioning to online learning.

https://1000wordphilosophy.com

If you like the 1000wordphilosophy project, why not just put a link in Resources section? What would be the point of attempting to reproduce the same thing here? — SophistiCat

Yes. I could and might still link it there.
It wasn't about reproducing it here but as an additional initiative or component to the Articles section.

I think you vastly overestimate our resources. — SophistiCat

Quite possibly but then again it is the Articles section calling for more indepth stuff.

personally I don't think we need to restrict articles to 1000 words. — jamalrob

I agree.
Just as you said:

between around 2000 and 5000 words is good, but that won't be strict: the first article, published two days ago, is over 6000 words, and I can imagine shorter pieces being sometimes suitable too. — jamalrob

To reiterate:

These essays are introductions rather than argumentative articles. Each essay is as close to 1000 words (while never going over!) as the author can get it. — Amity

Can something similar not be done here ?

You mean in terms of the making the copyright clear? I imagine so. We'll need to look into it as we develop the article section, which has just recently been put back up. — Baden

No. Not just the clarity on copyright. It elaborates on why people might want to contribute; it motivates.
It discusses acceptance rates, style and more. See 'Submissions':
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/submissions/

We strive to publish essays that are radically concise, extremely clear, well-organized and inviting. Each serves as an ideal introduction to the problem, question, issue or figure. Essays should be clear and understandable to readers with little to no philosophical background. We hope the essays serve as a springboard for informed discussion and debate and a basis for further learning on the topics...

...If you are interested in developing ideal, high-impact materials for both teaching and public philosophy, then 1000-Word Philosophy is for you.

I think the inclusion of essays as an 'ideal introduction' for beginners would be welcome on TPF.

I wish you and the team well with your continuing efforts:

Our vision is of a philosophical journal tackling issues in academic philosophy, but one that is accessible to educated lay-people and sometimes relevant to topical concerns. — jamalrob

[ Request to mods: please remove the thread I started:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8327/on-the-articles-section . No need to double up, thanks ! ]

I prefer to think of it as the gift of the good, rather than God, particularly because the term “God” is so heavily baggaged. In this I have been inspired for many years by Plato and others, but especially Stephen David Ross — Statilius

Thank you for this, and more.
I need to start practising philosophy's 'Principle of Charity'.
Whenever God is mentioned, my mind turns away. Whenever there is a suggestion of anything being a Gift from God, I too substitute or omit the word.

An email correspondence with an ex-poster linked me to Stephen David Ross and his book:

https://www.sunypress.edu/p-2382-the-gift-of-beauty.aspx

After reading the summary and scanning the 20page excerpt, I bought the kindle version.
Amazon has its faults - however it allows great accessibility to books.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07BWMWDRB/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

I don't think it will be an easy read for me.
Perhaps you will hear me cry, "Aidez-moi !"

I am attempting to get the below published. I would appreciate any comments. — Pop

Interesting. You have far more substantive feedback on your other thread (linked below) - 22 pages and counting

The importance of a questioning title and an altruistic OP.
I've just read some excellent responses:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7492/what-is-art/p1

How far on are you with publication?
I was wondering whether you had considered writing an 'Article' for this forum.
Given the contributions in the other thread, how would you acknowledge the posters - individually, collectively ?

I found this essay on 'Definitions of Art':

https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/05/05/definitions-of-art/

I found a similar idea, as a learning resource, here:
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/about/

'1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology is a constantly-growing collection of original essays on important philosophical topics. These essays are introductions rather than argumentative articles. Each essay is as close to 1000 words (while never going over!) as the author can get it. A 1000-word essay takes between five and ten minutes to read.'

Copyright issues are made clear:

 'All essays are original contributions to 1000-Word Philosophy and are published with permission from the authors, unless otherwise noted. Contributing authors retain any and all copyright interests in their individual works. 1000-Word Philosophy holds copyright to the collective work. Please do not reproduce this work in part or in full without appropriate attribution.'

Can something similar not be done here ?

Works of art that intentionally set out to teach or instruct, rarely, if ever, rise to the level of non-utilitarian works of art. — Statilius

Perhaps that is the case, depending.
We can talk about what 'non-utilitarian' means * or how a painting, or piece of philosophical non-fiction, can be 'read'.
How we can be taught something in the process. Like you reading Tarkovsky.The intentions of a philosopher, or writer, are not always clear cut, either/or having only one aim.

In any case, I had been thinking more about people of varying ages, capabilities, degrees of talent being encouraged by experienced others to progress their creative abilities. That could be done in any learning environment. In a Greek forum...or by walking along a river. At rest, work or in play.

humans can teach others, as well as themselves, to actively think, reflect and produce works of varying quantity and quality. — Amity

Basically, it's the nurturing of nature. The good can circulate here. There is a giver and a receiver; always a measure. Otherwise how can you judge any 'level'...

* I was encouraged by your response to explore further.
I found this:

Some of the functions of art are provided in the outline below. The different purposes of art may be grouped according to those that are non-motivated and those that are motivated (Lévi-Strauss).

The functions of art described above are not mutually exclusive, as many of them may overlap

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-masteryart1/chapter/oer-1-2/

Interesting flow of conversation. Requiring active reading, reflection and choice of words. All good, yes ?

The Goethe quote was found in Andrey Tarkovsky's "Sculpting in Time (p.47)." You might enjoy this book; — Statilius

Thanks for that. Does Tarkovsky reference the source ?

I see all art/life as a gift--it is not my doing. It is something I can be happy about but not proud of — Statilius

Yes. Life and art can be seen as a gift ( from God ? ).
A way of being and creating.
However, I would argue that it is also a doing.
A process whereby humans can teach others, as well as themselves, to actively think, reflect and produce works of varying quantity and quality.

[ Goethe was quoted by many including Wittgenstein:
“In the Beginning was the Deed” from Faust ]

It is not necessary to be proud of such an achievement.
However, others might be proud of, or satisfied with, their childrens' or students' growth and development.

[ Do you think it wrong to feel pride?
Or am I going too far, and decidely off topic.
If so, then we'll leave it there.
Thanks again for all responses; much appreciated]

Statilius.Thank you.
That is more than I was expecting.
And less than I was hoping for.

This fascinates me. I have read Goethe but not the others you mentioned. Perhaps time to explore further...

Goethe said “the less accessible a work is to the intellect, the greater it is.” — Statilius

That surprises me. I'd be grateful if you could provide a reference to give context.

So it seems to me that you have avoided answering:

you chose the words for the title deliberately. Why those words and what meaning were you trying to convey ? — Amity

Even the poet does not know, cannot know, and is blessedly exempt from needing to know or explain, its multitude of meanings, its reverberations, its hints and intimations, its many faces and depths; that is for others to do — Statilius

Some of this is true. However, it is not the case that you do not know why you choose a certain title over others. Why even the need for a title at all ?
Writers are not exempt, blessedly or otherwise.

Si, ma pourquoi ?
— Amity

Multilingual? — Sir2u

I love foreign tongues, even if I can't lick 'em all.

I preferred an Italian 'but' to a French one. Why wouldn't I ?
A French 'why' to an Italian. I mislaid the accent for 'perché', forgetting I could copy and paste from Google Translate :cool:
And 'Si' - was an Italian or Spanish 'Yes', not a Romanian 'And' or a French 'If'.

What about you ?

Just let it reverberate in you. If there was a single explanation it would not be poetry. If a poet could say it differently, he/she would do so. A poem is a whole world, enter it as you would the ocean. Let it surround you, let it reverberate in you. As with any good art, a poem should plow and harrow the soul. And there is no explanation for that. — Statilius

OK. But DIY reverberating isn't really enough. I wanted to hear about your poem in your own words.

Nevertheless, this could be the start of a new discussion thread. 'Philosophical purpose and meaning in poetry' - start a competition for a catchier title... :wink:

To answer your post:
Of course, as in philosophy, there can be many interpretations of words and sentences.
A philosopher or poet could say things differently but chooses not to. It is not just about letting words or self flow.

So, you chose the words for the title deliberately. Why those words and what meaning were you trying to convey ?

Entering an ocean is something one would only do with a certain purpose in mind and likely to be a meaningful experience. The ocean itself attempts no message.

The purpose of writing the poem. I don't think it was simply about compiling something from a group of sentences, was it?
You brought something of your self to create an effect/affect.
There was an intention. What was it ?

Generally, a writer will have created a poem for a reason; together with inspiration and an engagement of sense to convey both to a reader.
A poem is complete in itself but is not a whole world.
It can be a particular puzzle intriguing a reader to bring own unique world experience to bear. Two worlds colliding.

A good poem will not necessarily 'plough and harrow the soul'.
The question arises: 'What is a good poem ?'

'There is no explanation for that'.
What exactly is there no explanation for ?
How a poem affects the individual ?
That, I think, is debatable...

Intrigando.
Another guessing game...hmmm :chin:

Is it that what we think we know is uncertain and it can only ever be qualified ? The truth needs to be hammered out and we can bruise ourselves in the process...

Or is it that there is an absolute Truth from the word of ( God ? )
Should we be looking heavenwards for the answers; the solution to our struggles...

What tune are you playing?

Bravissimo :cool:

But not sure about the strikeouts and brackets ?

The field extending
The clowns collect
A drifting litter
Hoisting heavenly, hellish hooks
Demanding 'Yes or No?'
Falling, falling, he gives consent.
Si, ma pourquoi ?

Falling, falling, he gives his consent." — Statilius

Oooh a tricky one.
I guess that you are 'falling'.
Now is that a gerund or what ?

There has not been very much response to this idea, — Statilius

The first rule of a game is 'You go first !'
So let's be havin' ya'.
Then at least you will have a 3-line poem :wink:

It's only been 3 days...

I think it is more of a divertimento if people can try and guess the part of speech. I am looking forward to your poem...

4. I will compile all entries and write a poem based on the input I receive.
5. I will then post the poem back to the site under this discussion heading. — Statilius

C'mon peeps, it's just a moment's divertimento not a total exposure of your Self or body :scream:
Ah, that's it - you prefer pics of pigs, goats and sheep :brow:
You are all nouns !