Dear Doctor Science, Last night, in a fit of drunken pique, I went into my laboratory and constructed a robot which could feel (approximately) all the same things humans do. Unfortunately, being drunk, I neglected to program it with any words describing any state of being except "good" and "bad". Then I flipped the switch and immediately ordered it to spin around until it fell down. "So, relate to me exactly how you feel now," I commanded, after it had fallen. "I can't say," the robot answered. "Neither 'good' nor 'bad', really. And those are the only two words I have for expressing states of being. I can tell you half of my cybernetic units are malfunctioning, and my gyrometer is ten degrees out of whack -" "Unsatisfactory!" I thundered, threatening it with a large salami I happened to be holding. (If there's anything robots are afraid of, it's the touch of luncheon meat.) "I don't have cybernetic units or a gyrometer, so how am I supposed to understand how you feel?!" "Well," said the robot, shrinking a little from the frantically waggling salami, "I guess I feel bad." "Bad?" I repeated, a little dubiously. "Okay, fine then. Good." "Unsatisfactory!" I said again. I suppose now that if it had had more experience of the world, it could have answered, "I feel drunk," or "I feel like I've stood up too suddenly." Maybe later, it would be able to say, "Drinking alcohol makes me feel something like when I've spun around alot." But who knows? Maybe it would have just used the word 'good' for all those future situations. Anyway, I didn't have the chance to find out, as, with the salami-brandishing and the sticky philosophical dilemma confronting it, its cybertronics suddenly fused into a mass of kind of disgusting jelly. Undaunted, I've constructed another robot and programmed it to answer only 'dizzy' or in terms of dizziness to any state-of-being question it faces. This second robot seems to be doing okay, but only as long as I keep it spinning. Otherwise, it tends to describe things like producing robo-stools or watching one of those sentimental home-appliance-company commercials as either "dizzying" or "not quite dizzy". My question for you, Doctor, is, which of my two robots would win an all-out no-holds-barred steel-deathcage grudge-match? And: Which, if any of us, was really wrong?!??!?!? Yours, as always, zodiac in Islamica

Bum.

I "wander from the topics originally set forth" because I consider them adequately presented already and not adequately rebutted yet. And because your poem has a dozen more silly errors which bear pointing out. And because it's called a fucking analogy to help you fucking get it. And because I'm bored numb in this bum of a backwater cuntry. However, checking my posts on this poem, I find that I've stayed surprisingly (for me) true to my original topics, which, for the sake of being on the same page, are: 1) The converse of "I love you" is not "you love me"; 2) The two uses of "realized" in your poem imply that the previous statements are necessarily (and not just arbitrarily) followed by the ensuing ones; this is the cause of most of the bumness of your poem, including 5) below; 3) Opposite and contrary are the same thing; ergo, instead of "many reverses" you only have two: "reciprocal" and "contrary"; 4) Strictly speaking, "hate" is not the opposite of "love"; 5) This poem is trying to speak strictly. 6) Your dictionary is not a "history written ahead of the fact," it's written after the fact of millions of people having the same experience. 7) You misspelled "blurred"; And lately, 8) zodiac's poetry is unfeeling and meaningless while Dovina's isn't; 9) zodiac must be a hard person to live with; 10) zodiac doesn't appreciate "centuries" because he is bum at Maths. I should point out that you originated all these digressions. All my posts on this page have attempted to clarify or rebut one or more of the abovementioned points. Perhaps you're confusing my thread in this discussion with -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.'s. As far as your two "refuted" points: The first was an exaggeration on my part, based on your comment of 21-Nov-04/11:20 AM that your poem "presents an appearance of relating philosophy, as it applies to word definitions, to felt life," and a million other ways on this page and others you've tried to present the idea that analysis, especially philosophical analysis, renders things meaningless. So fucking sue me. The second is a bum argument, as I've already pointed out how contrary and opposite are the same thing, and how if they weren't the same, hinging your "compendium of devolution" on one possible contrary for "I love you" would be just as bum. Your response is like saying, "The Japanese Empire's decisive victory in World War II is a good example of how the Japanese work ethic and slavish adherence to heirarchy are superior to American wealth, spunk, and free-marketism." Your starting assumption is simply not true.

I think you credit me with too much reason. While I find fascination in these words and the ways their definitions paint a history, it is not strictly philosophical, though everything has philosophical bents. Some say there is no philosophy without words and the only things we can talk about logically are words and numbers. Maybe so, but if so, there is no fun, and without fun, what good is logic.

I read your comments earlier, but Poemranker has been down all day, and I’m just now able to send this reply. The pages still come up very slowly, while other sites work as usual. I appreciate the great amount of time these “novels” which you have written to me must have taken. While occasionally I find something helpful in them, they seem mostly concerned with angry rebuttals that wander from the topics originally set forth by whoever starts them. And I admit to having started some of the conflicts. When I said, “You have rambled on and on in hopeful appearance of reasonableness,” I meant that you seem struggling to appear reasonable, hoping so much to succeed that you often deviate from the topic you are trying to debate, and leave yourself open for defeat. While I could refute most of the points you have made in the comments above, I’m going to mention the few things that I find helpful and which I might consider changing in the poem or in my way of pondering life, the two being related. I did not know that I “have the idea that philosophy is some kind of useless dangling separate entity existing in its own rather stale ether and having nothing to do with felt life,” but to the extent that I do or did, I should change or have changed. The contrary of “I love you” could, as you say, be many different things including, but not limited to “I don’t love you.” The Bush administration’s position on the Iraq war and the contrary position is a good example.

Since I posited the notion of “strict sense” as it applies to philosophy that might be used in poems, but which I normally do not use, I should demonstrate. It turns out harder than it seems to filter out all unsupported content and to rely solely on proposition-analysis-hypothesis-conclusion. It may not be possible to write such a poem except in very simplistic scenarios, but here goes: Jack and Jill (Strangled Verse) by Dovina My name is Jack. I’m a philosopher. I hold the axiom that two despicable aspects of character are fully determinable and separate. I describe people having them as dorks or dingbats. George is a dork, but not a dingbat. Peter is a dingbat, but not a dork. John is both. I, of course, am neither. I like Jill and will set forth means for obtaining her affection. My research shows that Jill likes Peter and John, and she does not like George. So far, she does not know me. My analysis leads to two hypotheses: 1. Jill likes dingbats and does not like dorks, and she accepts John’s dorkness either because her affinity for dingbatness is greater than her dislike of dorkness, or she accepts John’s dorkness for some unknown, but overriding, reason. 2. Jill does not care about dorkness or dingbatness and bases her affections of other factors. In either case, Jill most likely favors dingbats, or at least disfavors them less than she disfavors dorks. But if Jill likes dingbats, she is probably a dingbat. I like Jill and dingbats are despicable, so this uncertainty must be investigated. I concentrated my research and found: Jill likes two other dingbats, and she does not dislike any of the dingbats on my list. Therefore, I shall now relinquish my writing pad, tighten the noose, and step off this chair.

Not a clue. But as soon as I started reading this I thought, "Sparky never wrote this". I've decided not to get my poemwanker back yet, I've got too many good poems that would lose it for me again. Btw, 0

re: "I do appreciate your (notice I have used the word correctly here, not as you so often do when you mean you’re) baseball story because it reminds me of the way you define poetry." Congratulations. You've just said 'Your metaphor for the way we differently define poetry reminds me of the way you, zodiac, define poetry.' Bum.

re: "You, of course, would not understand if I were to say that I wish we could change the counting system to the base 9 because then the dawn of the 28th century would probably fall within my lifetime, just twenty years from next New Years Day. It’s something your three years in math has not prepared you for, any more than your floundering language abuse has prepared you to criticize poetry." That's because only you would think seeing "the dawn of the 28th century" in your lifetime has any special meaning then! Suppose for a moment we used a system for time measurement that starts a new "century" every year; would you still feel a stirring of importance in your loins at having lived through the 6 billion and first through 6 billion and twenty-first centuries? Probably! PS-For calling it "the 28th century", you fail. The word "century" supposes a special significance for 100s, a base-9 system does not. You'd have to celebrate eightyoneturies or something such. And who in his right mind would do that?!?!?!?!?! You've just made the same mistake I did. Consider yourself suitably bum.

re: "Of course, hate is the opposite of love in the minds of most people," Yes. And bum. And that's not the point of your poem. The point is to use mathematical/philosophical/dictionary terms (I believe we've at least agreed on that) to transform love into hate. Anyway, try to worm out of your having twice performed the same action (ie, opposite/contrary) on "I love you" and come out with different answers. [DIGRESSION: Let's suppose for a moment that contrary really means what you want it to, rather than what it does - ie, roughly, 'something different from the original direction,' the way a "contrary" course for a boat on a heading of 180 degrees might be, oh, 90 degrees. Or, alternately, the way a contrary opinion to the Bush Administration's assertion, "The war in Iraq was justified and excellently implemented" might be "The war in Iraq was necessary, but implemented badly." This, you'll see, is not an exact opposite according to your definition, but the Bush Administration still supresses it as contrary. Okay? Well, you see why it's still a bum word to use in your poem, right? Because then there would be an infinite number of contraries for any given thing, when a huge part of the basis for your poem is that, given the phrase 'I love you', "ITS CONTRARY" is "I don't love you" and that's why there are so "many reverses". BUM!!! RESOUNDINGLY BUM!!!! Why isn't "its contrary" simply "I love you, but as a friend"? Or "I love you even more than I did"? Because then your life wouldn't be a "Compendium of devolution"!!!!]

re: "relating philosophy, as it applies to word definitions, to felt life" Philosophy doesn't need to be related to felt life, as you'll know if you've bothered yet with -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I.'s comment on the subject. You seem to have the idea that philosophy is some kind of useless dangling separate entity existing in its own rather stale ether and having nothing to do with felt life. You have this idea because your bum.

re: "As usual, you have said that I said something which I did not." I've just googled the term "reciprocal AND contrary AND result AND opposite AND converse" and the results are overwhelmingly philosophical and mathematical articles. It's the simplest thing to conclude then that when these terms are used together, it's almost solely in the context of philosophy and mathematics. Even a dim like you would have seen that and intended it. Poemranker posters usually do. And PS-check your message of 18-Nov-04/12:25 PM. I'm paraphrasing you, but not misquoting.

re: "in hopeful appearance of reasonableness and have failed." Would you kindly bother explaining how it's hopeful, an appearance, and a failure? It's the least you can do, considering I've written Lord-knows-how-many novels on your last months' poemes meticulously explaining my points. And no, the rest of your comment isn't the answer. In fact, I've been more than reasonable; your contention is that your poem isn't required to be reasonable. Do you see the distinction? I bet not.

Are you mental?

You're thick, and you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Q: What premises are 'put forward' in this poeme, and what are the conclusions made? A: There aren't any. The entire thing is a report of the author's experience, which at best comprises a single premise. That this poeme is stuffed full of pseudo-philosophical quackisms doesn't somehow mean deduction is involved. I predict you will argue "But the author has reached a conclusion (that her dictionary is a history, etc.)" However, *reporting* on one's reaching a conclusion (as is done here), without arguing for it, is not at all the same as putting forward premises and using rules to transform the premises into a conclusion. And it's only in the latter sense that philosophy could be said to be involved.