deepundergroundpoetry.com
CAN WE RELISH AN ENDING LIFE?
CAN WE RELISH AN ENDING LIFE?
If the topic is so hard
and we can't behold a way,
should we blindfold our eyes
and consume the time on play?
If we aren't quite sure that life
on the earth is followed by
something up there that will count,
should we pass it quite awry?
If the actions that we do
can't remain and give a sense,
what's the use of what will pass
with no lasting consequence?
Looking for a sense in life
is a must before we rest.
We are tracing sex and wealth
leaving the decisive quest?
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
If the topic is so hard
and we can't behold a way,
should we blindfold our eyes
and consume the time on play?
If we aren't quite sure that life
on the earth is followed by
something up there that will count,
should we pass it quite awry?
If the actions that we do
can't remain and give a sense,
what's the use of what will pass
with no lasting consequence?
Looking for a sense in life
is a must before we rest.
We are tracing sex and wealth
leaving the decisive quest?
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Published 12th May 2022
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 0
reading list entries 0
comments 16
reads 298
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
Are you aware that the question "CAN WE RELISH ENDING LIFE?" is asking if we are able to enjoy performing abortions, executions , and murder?
If you meant to say "are we able to enjoy life if it is finite", you haven't done so.
If you meant to say "are we able to enjoy life if it is finite", you haven't done so.
I see that you've changed the title of this piece from "Can We Relish Ending Life" to "CAN WE RELISH AN ENDING LIFE?" -- which is an admission that the previous one made you ask what I said it did.
But the new title also is problematic in that it asks "can we enjoy seeing someone's life coming to an end?"
Perhaps you were intending to ask whether a person is still able to relish life at the point when he/she knows that his or her death and eternal cessation of consciousness is imminent and inevitable.
In any case, what stands behind this piece of yours, is your oft repeated and counter-factual claim that no one is (or could be) able to relish life if it is finite. As art and literature show, people have always been able to relish life and find it to be profoundly meaningful even though they know and are constantly confronted with the fact that it is finite and that death ends every thing for them, What actual evidence do you have that shows that this is not true, let alone that people who believe that there is no afterlife, especially one in some ghostly realm above the earth, have not done so?.
But the new title also is problematic in that it asks "can we enjoy seeing someone's life coming to an end?"
Perhaps you were intending to ask whether a person is still able to relish life at the point when he/she knows that his or her death and eternal cessation of consciousness is imminent and inevitable.
In any case, what stands behind this piece of yours, is your oft repeated and counter-factual claim that no one is (or could be) able to relish life if it is finite. As art and literature show, people have always been able to relish life and find it to be profoundly meaningful even though they know and are constantly confronted with the fact that it is finite and that death ends every thing for them, What actual evidence do you have that shows that this is not true, let alone that people who believe that there is no afterlife, especially one in some ghostly realm above the earth, have not done so?.
Dear Baldwin,
I had changed the title before you wrote your comment. Don't hint to the readers that you made me change it.
I had changed the title before you wrote your comment. Don't hint to the readers that you made me change it.
"Dear Baldwin,
I had changed the title before you wrote your comment. Don't hint to the readers that you made me change it."
But you did change it because you realized that your original one made you say what I said it did, yes?
In any case, the new title fares no better than the old one did, since as I noted above, it still conveys something other than what your text indicates is the (question begging) claim you are once again asserting.
I had changed the title before you wrote your comment. Don't hint to the readers that you made me change it."
But you did change it because you realized that your original one made you say what I said it did, yes?
In any case, the new title fares no better than the old one did, since as I noted above, it still conveys something other than what your text indicates is the (question begging) claim you are once again asserting.
13th May 2022 2:51pm
I am not begging claims.The title you suggest is PROSAIC, and not POETIC. The fact that you knew what l meant is the proof that it fits. If you look at the side meanings a sentence may have, you can scarcely find a sentence in all the English language that does not have onether or other meanings beside the one you intend.
13th May 2022 3:33pm
"I am not begging claims"
I did not say you were, even if "begging claims" is a phrase that has any cognitive value.
I said you were making a "QUESTION begging" claim. Apparently you do not know what "begging the question" is. It is a logical fallacy in which one assumes as correct what actually needs to be proven.
"The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question. Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle."
https://tinyurl.com/2p8dexvb
And so far as I can see, I did NOT suggest a title. What I did was (1) to ask you what you were intending to convey with your new title and (2) to note that however much your title is "poetic" (even assuming that titles can and should be "poetic"), yours does not match up with what you write about in your text. It indicates that the subject of your piece is going to be about something other than whether earthly life can be enjoyed (or has the potential to be enjoyed) if there is no afterlife up in the sky.
I also note that you have yet to answer the question of whether the reason you changed your title was because you realized that your original one made you ask what I said it did (i.e., whether we can enjoy depriving a person or any other living thing of life).
I did not say you were, even if "begging claims" is a phrase that has any cognitive value.
I said you were making a "QUESTION begging" claim. Apparently you do not know what "begging the question" is. It is a logical fallacy in which one assumes as correct what actually needs to be proven.
"The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question. Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle."
https://tinyurl.com/2p8dexvb
And so far as I can see, I did NOT suggest a title. What I did was (1) to ask you what you were intending to convey with your new title and (2) to note that however much your title is "poetic" (even assuming that titles can and should be "poetic"), yours does not match up with what you write about in your text. It indicates that the subject of your piece is going to be about something other than whether earthly life can be enjoyed (or has the potential to be enjoyed) if there is no afterlife up in the sky.
I also note that you have yet to answer the question of whether the reason you changed your title was because you realized that your original one made you ask what I said it did (i.e., whether we can enjoy depriving a person or any other living thing of life).
13th May 2022 6:35pm
I ask again for what you take to be proof of your claims (1) that people who do not accept that there is an afterlife, especially a disembodied one in some ghostly realm above the earth, are ,and have been, unable, because of their belief that life is finite and is something that constantly confronts them with hard evidence that death ends every thing for them, to find earthly life relishable and profoundly meaningful and (2) that unless there is an after life up in the sky all of one's earthly activity is in vain since they are without consequence after that person's death..
Cue J-Z's evasion of providing proof good evidence for his claims.
Cue J-Z's evasion of providing proof good evidence for his claims.
13th May 2022 7:05pm
"If we aren't quite sure that life
on the earth is followed by
something up there that will count,
should we pass (life on earth) quite awry?"
Given that "awry means "not in the intended manner, or out of position, or wrong" this is another instance of your habit of sacrificing sense on the altar of rhyme.
In any case, what is the intended way? And why would anyone want to "pass" it (live earthly life out?) in an unintended way?
on the earth is followed by
something up there that will count,
should we pass (life on earth) quite awry?"
Given that "awry means "not in the intended manner, or out of position, or wrong" this is another instance of your habit of sacrificing sense on the altar of rhyme.
In any case, what is the intended way? And why would anyone want to "pass" it (live earthly life out?) in an unintended way?
13th May 2022 7:50pm
The poem explains everything for those who understand English. How dare you ask such.........questions?
So you say. But your ego (it is impossible for me [J-Z] to write poorly and to misuse words) is getting in the way of seeing how poorly written and question begging this piece is.
"The poem explains everything for those who understand English. How dare you ask such.........questions?
A poem doesn't explain itself. If you meant to say that what the poem speaks about is clear to those who understand English, you didn't do so . And you are assuming that you wrote understandable and coherent English, not to mention something that did not present question begging claims that would make a reader think not only "here he goes again with his earthly life cannot be relished if there is no afterlife up in the sky nonsense" but "he does not know what he is talking about" even if he/she thought that this piece was well written".
i
A poem doesn't explain itself. If you meant to say that what the poem speaks about is clear to those who understand English, you didn't do so . And you are assuming that you wrote understandable and coherent English, not to mention something that did not present question begging claims that would make a reader think not only "here he goes again with his earthly life cannot be relished if there is no afterlife up in the sky nonsense" but "he does not know what he is talking about" even if he/she thought that this piece was well written".
i
On how badly this is written
"If the topic is so hard"
What topic? If it is, as your title indicates, that it is whether "we" can relish the life of person who is about to die then the idea that it is a hard one (I.e., difficult to speak about or discuss) is nonsense. People do it all the time, easily and articulately..
"and we can't behold a way,"
For this to make sense you would have needed to write
and we can't behold a way ** to do so**.
"should we blindfold our eyes"
This contains a redundancy since one's eyes, and nothing else, are what gets covered over when one engages in blindfolding.
"and consume the time on play?"
Leaving aside the fact that you've once again engaged in deixis ("the" time? Which time?) -- which is one of the marks of a bad writer -- this should have been written "and spend our time with play" since one does note consume one's time on earth, let alone **on** play.
"If we aren't quite sure that life
on the earth is followed by
something up there that will count,"
The idea that our true home is somewhere "up there", and not on earth, makes nonsense of the belief in the resurrection of the body which Classical and modern Christian creeds state one must believe in to be Christian. And it is a denial of what is stated at various places in the Bible i.e.., that according to God, the earth is good, not a place to escape from, and is destined to be our eternal home.
"should we pass it quite awry?"
I've already noted how this statement shows a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "awry".
"If the actions that we do
can't remain"
Remain where? And as Shakespeare truly noted, "“The evil that men do lives after them;
" and give a sense,"
Leaving aside the fact that the actions that we do often remain in effect long after our deaths , For this to make sense, and not a set up for a rhyme, you need to say what the sense you refer to is a sense **of. **
"what's the use of what will pass
with no lasting consequence?"
Leaving aside the fact that this is your second use of the word "pass" , not to mention so quickly after its first use, you beg the question when you claim, as you do here, that things that "pass" do not have lasting consequences. The libraries and museums that Carnegie acted to build are still around and still have both present and future consequences (like inspiring people to become paleontologists or art historians or scholars).
"Looking for a sense in life
is a must before we rest."
To use the word "sense" for a second tine so close to your first use of it is the mark of a poor writer with a very limited vocabulary. And why is looking for meaning in life while "we are still earth bound a "must" Haven't you said that looking for life to make sense is futile since life can't do this since all ends in death -- or even, once one thinks about it, if there is an afterlife. How does a disembodied "life" in a ghostly realm give sense to earthly life?
"We are tracing sex and wealth"
Given the meaning of "trace" (according to Longman), i.e., "to study or describe the history, development, or progress of something", is your statement really true? Are we all doing this?
"leaving the decisive quest?"
How does studying or describing the history, development, or progress of sex and wealth prevent "us" from following "the decisive quest"?
Furthermore, you assume here that what you mean by "the decisive quest" is clear even if the term "decisive quest" is a phrase that can be cognitively significant. And why should anyone regard what you believe is "the" decisive quest the one that "counts"?
According to Buddhism, the ultimate quest is to achieve personal obliteration. Why should I (or anyone) not believe that this is the one that counts.
I'm wagering that if in the unlikely event that you will respond to my criticisms of the way your piece is written directly instead of ignoring them completely , you will evade demonstrating through the use of valid argument and the citation of concrete and relevant evidence that my criticism are off the mark by posting questions about my personal beliefs and/or saying such things as (1) my points are nor worth answering; (2), that there are too many of them to answer; (3) that your submission is poetry, not prose, and therefore (against what good poetry requires) it can lack the thought completing details I suggested; (4) that I lack the understanding of English or the requisite poetic imagination to see that you wrote clearly and well; (5) that what motivates my remarks is jealousy of your self professed (but hardly evident) poetic talent; (6) that you'll focus on some trivial detail in my remarks, or (7) that you will misquote me in order to mount arguments against my claims. You will never admit -- because you think that it is impossible for you to do so -- that you write poorly and that it is your fault, not a reader's, that your submissions are not understandable.
"If the topic is so hard"
What topic? If it is, as your title indicates, that it is whether "we" can relish the life of person who is about to die then the idea that it is a hard one (I.e., difficult to speak about or discuss) is nonsense. People do it all the time, easily and articulately..
"and we can't behold a way,"
For this to make sense you would have needed to write
and we can't behold a way ** to do so**.
"should we blindfold our eyes"
This contains a redundancy since one's eyes, and nothing else, are what gets covered over when one engages in blindfolding.
"and consume the time on play?"
Leaving aside the fact that you've once again engaged in deixis ("the" time? Which time?) -- which is one of the marks of a bad writer -- this should have been written "and spend our time with play" since one does note consume one's time on earth, let alone **on** play.
"If we aren't quite sure that life
on the earth is followed by
something up there that will count,"
The idea that our true home is somewhere "up there", and not on earth, makes nonsense of the belief in the resurrection of the body which Classical and modern Christian creeds state one must believe in to be Christian. And it is a denial of what is stated at various places in the Bible i.e.., that according to God, the earth is good, not a place to escape from, and is destined to be our eternal home.
"should we pass it quite awry?"
I've already noted how this statement shows a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "awry".
"If the actions that we do
can't remain"
Remain where? And as Shakespeare truly noted, "“The evil that men do lives after them;
" and give a sense,"
Leaving aside the fact that the actions that we do often remain in effect long after our deaths , For this to make sense, and not a set up for a rhyme, you need to say what the sense you refer to is a sense **of. **
"what's the use of what will pass
with no lasting consequence?"
Leaving aside the fact that this is your second use of the word "pass" , not to mention so quickly after its first use, you beg the question when you claim, as you do here, that things that "pass" do not have lasting consequences. The libraries and museums that Carnegie acted to build are still around and still have both present and future consequences (like inspiring people to become paleontologists or art historians or scholars).
"Looking for a sense in life
is a must before we rest."
To use the word "sense" for a second tine so close to your first use of it is the mark of a poor writer with a very limited vocabulary. And why is looking for meaning in life while "we are still earth bound a "must" Haven't you said that looking for life to make sense is futile since life can't do this since all ends in death -- or even, once one thinks about it, if there is an afterlife. How does a disembodied "life" in a ghostly realm give sense to earthly life?
"We are tracing sex and wealth"
Given the meaning of "trace" (according to Longman), i.e., "to study or describe the history, development, or progress of something", is your statement really true? Are we all doing this?
"leaving the decisive quest?"
How does studying or describing the history, development, or progress of sex and wealth prevent "us" from following "the decisive quest"?
Furthermore, you assume here that what you mean by "the decisive quest" is clear even if the term "decisive quest" is a phrase that can be cognitively significant. And why should anyone regard what you believe is "the" decisive quest the one that "counts"?
According to Buddhism, the ultimate quest is to achieve personal obliteration. Why should I (or anyone) not believe that this is the one that counts.
I'm wagering that if in the unlikely event that you will respond to my criticisms of the way your piece is written directly instead of ignoring them completely , you will evade demonstrating through the use of valid argument and the citation of concrete and relevant evidence that my criticism are off the mark by posting questions about my personal beliefs and/or saying such things as (1) my points are nor worth answering; (2), that there are too many of them to answer; (3) that your submission is poetry, not prose, and therefore (against what good poetry requires) it can lack the thought completing details I suggested; (4) that I lack the understanding of English or the requisite poetic imagination to see that you wrote clearly and well; (5) that what motivates my remarks is jealousy of your self professed (but hardly evident) poetic talent; (6) that you'll focus on some trivial detail in my remarks, or (7) that you will misquote me in order to mount arguments against my claims. You will never admit -- because you think that it is impossible for you to do so -- that you write poorly and that it is your fault, not a reader's, that your submissions are not understandable.
15th May 2022 4:41pm
Very dear Baldwin,
May l know what your hope is in life? What are your expectations of life?
May l know what your hope is in life? What are your expectations of life?
"Very dear Baldwin,
May l know what your hope is in life? What are your expectations of life?"
I'll answer you once you tell me how and why what my expectations of life are has to do with what is actually the issue here, namely, whether or not my observations about how poorly your mistitled piece above is written are on the mark and then go on to demonstrate (not assert) how and why they are off base if you think they are.
After all, I could expect life to be ultimately meaningless and empty of any relish, but that still would have nothing to do with the question of the validity of my criticisms of the way you have written which are grounded not in my beliefs about whether life has meaning, but in what I see is your demonstrably faulty grasp of good English, your misuse and misunderstanding of what words mean, your limited vocabulary, and your idea that getting rhymes is more important than making sense.
May l know what your hope is in life? What are your expectations of life?"
I'll answer you once you tell me how and why what my expectations of life are has to do with what is actually the issue here, namely, whether or not my observations about how poorly your mistitled piece above is written are on the mark and then go on to demonstrate (not assert) how and why they are off base if you think they are.
After all, I could expect life to be ultimately meaningless and empty of any relish, but that still would have nothing to do with the question of the validity of my criticisms of the way you have written which are grounded not in my beliefs about whether life has meaning, but in what I see is your demonstrably faulty grasp of good English, your misuse and misunderstanding of what words mean, your limited vocabulary, and your idea that getting rhymes is more important than making sense.
15th May 2022 7:05pm
Very dear Baldwin,
My main interest in poetry and life is to find a good meaning of life to me , you and everybody. I pity the person who doesn't find a good meaning of life.
My main interest in poetry and life is to find a good meaning of life to me , you and everybody. I pity the person who doesn't find a good meaning of life.
"Very dear Baldwin,
My main interest in poetry and life is to find a good meaning of life to me , you and everybody. I pity the person who doesn't find a good meaning of life."
As I predicted!
I asked you to demonstrate how and why my criticisms of your mistitled piece above were not valid or warranted if you felt they were. I did not ask you what your interest in poetry or in life is or how you feel about the person who doesn't find what you've repeatedly said is impossible to find.
Cue the response that does not come anywhere near doing what I asked J-Z to do, but instead focuses only upon my statement here that I did not ask about whom he pities and why, quite inexplicably since he thinks that unless there is a life after death lcan have a meaning, he does so.
My main interest in poetry and life is to find a good meaning of life to me , you and everybody. I pity the person who doesn't find a good meaning of life."
As I predicted!
I asked you to demonstrate how and why my criticisms of your mistitled piece above were not valid or warranted if you felt they were. I did not ask you what your interest in poetry or in life is or how you feel about the person who doesn't find what you've repeatedly said is impossible to find.
Cue the response that does not come anywhere near doing what I asked J-Z to do, but instead focuses only upon my statement here that I did not ask about whom he pities and why, quite inexplicably since he thinks that unless there is a life after death lcan have a meaning, he does so.
