Wednesday, 24 February 2016
WHEN I DIE
When it is my time to die
Will I be frightened
Will I weep, struggling to hold onto the light
Will I pointlessly wonder why
I must embrace the end
My breathe coming slowly, my sight
Searching through darkness?
Will I hold onto
My loved ones, hoping to stay
As I expel in a volatile mess
What in life I have been through
Passing on my way?
As life disappears
And emptiness beckons uncontrollably
Will I know to let go
Embrace my fears
Leave with unruffled dignity
Fall calmly into that of which no one can know?
Will I be frightened
Will I weep, struggling to hold onto the light
Will I pointlessly wonder why
I must embrace the end
My breathe coming slowly, my sight
Searching through darkness?
Will I hold onto
My loved ones, hoping to stay
As I expel in a volatile mess
What in life I have been through
Passing on my way?
As life disappears
And emptiness beckons uncontrollably
Will I know to let go
Embrace my fears
Leave with unruffled dignity
Fall calmly into that of which no one can know?
AVOID-Bewildering Stories/Bill Bowler
This owner of a SF magazine clearly considers himself a 'great' writer even though he is predominantly self-published. While I acknowledge that many great writers, such as Joyce, self-published their first work, this man is 66 and appears not to have been independently published in the past.
Again, none of this would matter if he did not set himself up as an authority on writing. Begod and Bejesus, but the man has an interview with himself on his online magazine as if he were Hemingway and Woolf combined.
Don't send your stories to him! He will critique them posturing as an expert. Read his stories-expert he isn't!
Again, none of this would matter if he did not set himself up as an authority on writing. Begod and Bejesus, but the man has an interview with himself on his online magazine as if he were Hemingway and Woolf combined.
Don't send your stories to him! He will critique them posturing as an expert. Read his stories-expert he isn't!
Friday, 19 February 2016
AVOID-Bill Bowler-Bewildering Stories. New Writers Beware!
A warning to young writers!
The internet is full of on-line magazines, especially SF ones. Some are good, some bad. Some, unfortunately, are vanity projects run by numskulls.
Last year I sent an already twice-published story to Bewildering Stories owned and mainly written by Bill Bowler, an American. He trashed it, which is his right to do, in an unasked for critique. His language was highly destructive making irrelevant, highly subjective points, exhibiting the unsettling facets of trolling not knowledge or insight.
I had a look at his writing credentials via the internet and found that he is predominantly self-published, far too old to act like an egotistic 12 year old with a new toy, driven it seemed by narcissistic motivations. If I had been a young writer just starting off, I would probably have abandoned writing altogether.
Beware! These types are not the writing experts they claim to be, just jaundiced amateurs without knowledge or achievement making up for their failures and failings by trashing others! Although they employ authoritative tones, it is simply a ruse.
The internet is full of on-line magazines, especially SF ones. Some are good, some bad. Some, unfortunately, are vanity projects run by numskulls.
| HACK WRITER HACKING OTHERS |
I had a look at his writing credentials via the internet and found that he is predominantly self-published, far too old to act like an egotistic 12 year old with a new toy, driven it seemed by narcissistic motivations. If I had been a young writer just starting off, I would probably have abandoned writing altogether.
Beware! These types are not the writing experts they claim to be, just jaundiced amateurs without knowledge or achievement making up for their failures and failings by trashing others! Although they employ authoritative tones, it is simply a ruse.
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
POEM (JOE)
How do we know of god?
By word, visible presence or internally-constructed belief?
Can we read a book and know
That these are a god's words
Or sense that an ambitious man
-great or malevolent-
Created them for temporary gain,
To impress others, or for power.
Is god a grandiose representation
Of either gender, and why should that be?
The myriad flowers scattered around,
wind-blown, gale tossed
are but our planet's codes
Tree and toad
are equal products of earth and time.
Why ask for another kind of being
in a world replete
with every grim and wonderful sort,
in another realm surrounded by
other winged and chubby divinities?
Why believe that old books,
written in time and place,
are products of gods?
Do gods really write so badly?
By word, visible presence or internally-constructed belief?
Can we read a book and know
That these are a god's words
Or sense that an ambitious man
-great or malevolent-
Created them for temporary gain,
To impress others, or for power.
Is god a grandiose representation
Of either gender, and why should that be?
The myriad flowers scattered around,
wind-blown, gale tossed
are but our planet's codes
Tree and toad
are equal products of earth and time.
Why ask for another kind of being
in a world replete
with every grim and wonderful sort,
in another realm surrounded by
other winged and chubby divinities?
Why believe that old books,
written in time and place,
are products of gods?
Do gods really write so badly?
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
Koran/Qu'ran. An assessment.
Here, I want to critique the Qu'ran/Koran in much the same way the Bible has been critiqued in the last four centuries, seen not as the work of a god, but clearly of men. Composed and nurtured in fierce hierarchical societies where Islam and the Koran has long been free from revision or criticism it has become an unassailable totem/icon surrounded by superstition, ignorance and intolerance. I have also undertaken this as a consequence on two separate occasions of Moslems work colleagues attempting to convert me. On the one hand I was deeply offended by their actions as I had pointed out to both that I am not religious or interested in religion, and on the other they employed the same lame, to me, arguments. I suspect they heard both in Mosques from similar uneducated imams, men who know nothing of other religions, science, literature, philosophy, but only know the Koran. Their arguments? One: that the words within the Koran (found in the Cow) are not replicated anywhere else. This apparently proves the text is from God/Allah. In fact, most of the Koran appears to come from Hebrew religious literature, some Christian literature, including the Gnostics, and is not by any means original. Two: that you can find evidence of modern science in the Koran, a book replete with warnings against sorcery, evil, angels and demons!
Unfortunately, many otherwise intelligent people have bought into the idea that the Koran is inviolate and any criticism of it must be avoided. I have read the Koran twice and I am reading it a third time. I find it backward, repetitious and full of borrowings. It seems in fact, see above, to possess little genuine originality except in some organisational aspects.
The Koran (Quran)even though edited by numerous hands, remains something of a mish-mash betraying its likely original oral composition. It begins with The Cow that defines relationships to god, what is a believer, who is a believer, and the consequences of disbelief. It declares the originality of the message, while at the same time shifting between Mohamed and the voice of god (233).
Moslems have proudly told me that the originality of the text proves it is directly from god, it is without contradiction, although it fails from the outset to be clear as to who is propounding the expressed views within it. 284-5, discussing those who only act according to part of the message, slaying and acting cruelly towards others, seems absurdly contradictory when placed beside the behaviour of Mohamed.
It then begins one of many rehashes from the Old Testament (Christian) or from parts of the Talmud (Jewish), talking about Egypt, Israel, parting of the Red Sea. There is, by this method, a synthesis of YHWH and Allah. They become one. The language comes from the Exodus and also, via the Exodus, from the Gospels. The text then refers to Moses and Jesus, indicating Mohamed's lineage.
Gradually, a martial thrust enters the text, referring to unbelievers as evil and as enemies. In reality, if you're not with us, you're against us.
Through what seems a maze of confusion, by 2.136 it emerges that Mohamed wants to take YHWH, Allah worship back to its beginnings in Abraham-although this surely presents problems of its own? In terms of virtue and continuously correct behaviour, with respect to Hebrew, Christian and Islamic religions, both Abraham's and Mohamed's behaviour rarely reflected their message or supposed message. Mohamed's message professed moral dimensions but of a particular kind.
2.102 talks of sorcery.
I have particularly identified this part below, as it clearly follows ancient Mesopotamian laws/instructions/kingly advice seen in Hammurabi law codes, which can also be seen in ancient Hebrew laws. I have problems with this kind of religious instruction because 1) it comes from ancient secular laws and 2) it is far inferior to Christian decrees as seen in the New Testament.
[2.178] O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.
2.183/2.184. Here he gives instruction on fasting.
2.185-He formulates Ramadan as being when the message was revealed.
In one sense this is sufficient to be going on with, providing as it does clear evidence of readings from the Torah and Talmud. Very little evidence of his having any acquaintance with Christianity even though he had Christian relatives. There are sections that are very repetitious. It seems likely it was composed to be incanted to an audience, following a very ancient practice, rather than read. It does not have any of the literary qualities of the Talmud/Toran or of the Christian writings, poor as some of those were.
I left this at the above point, but then read more of the Koran. Here, pasted below:
2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
[2.194] The Sacred month for the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
Those Moslems who declare that Islam is a religion of peace surely do not read their own book. Now, this passage reflects Mohammed's fighting with the pagans in Mecca. Nevertheless, this is not acceptable in a religion and at such points it moves away from Christianity providing a more ancient, pre-Christian understanding of god and behaviour that in fact predates many Axis thinkers over a thousand years before. This passage also connects evil with those who do not accept Mohammed's message-non-Moslems become the Other-in sociological terms. Oppressors are those who simply oppose/disagree with Mohammed. There are indications here of early and late composition-speaking of ongoing conflict with disbelievers, although that might mean Byzantines and Persians, and of the Great Mosque. I suggest this composition is much later than Moslems believe.
Unfortunately, many otherwise intelligent people have bought into the idea that the Koran is inviolate and any criticism of it must be avoided. I have read the Koran twice and I am reading it a third time. I find it backward, repetitious and full of borrowings. It seems in fact, see above, to possess little genuine originality except in some organisational aspects.
The Koran (Quran)even though edited by numerous hands, remains something of a mish-mash betraying its likely original oral composition. It begins with The Cow that defines relationships to god, what is a believer, who is a believer, and the consequences of disbelief. It declares the originality of the message, while at the same time shifting between Mohamed and the voice of god (233).
Moslems have proudly told me that the originality of the text proves it is directly from god, it is without contradiction, although it fails from the outset to be clear as to who is propounding the expressed views within it. 284-5, discussing those who only act according to part of the message, slaying and acting cruelly towards others, seems absurdly contradictory when placed beside the behaviour of Mohamed.
It then begins one of many rehashes from the Old Testament (Christian) or from parts of the Talmud (Jewish), talking about Egypt, Israel, parting of the Red Sea. There is, by this method, a synthesis of YHWH and Allah. They become one. The language comes from the Exodus and also, via the Exodus, from the Gospels. The text then refers to Moses and Jesus, indicating Mohamed's lineage.
Gradually, a martial thrust enters the text, referring to unbelievers as evil and as enemies. In reality, if you're not with us, you're against us.
Through what seems a maze of confusion, by 2.136 it emerges that Mohamed wants to take YHWH, Allah worship back to its beginnings in Abraham-although this surely presents problems of its own? In terms of virtue and continuously correct behaviour, with respect to Hebrew, Christian and Islamic religions, both Abraham's and Mohamed's behaviour rarely reflected their message or supposed message. Mohamed's message professed moral dimensions but of a particular kind.
2.102 talks of sorcery.
I have particularly identified this part below, as it clearly follows ancient Mesopotamian laws/instructions/kingly advice seen in Hammurabi law codes, which can also be seen in ancient Hebrew laws. I have problems with this kind of religious instruction because 1) it comes from ancient secular laws and 2) it is far inferior to Christian decrees as seen in the New Testament.
[2.178] O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.
2.183/2.184. Here he gives instruction on fasting.
2.185-He formulates Ramadan as being when the message was revealed.
In one sense this is sufficient to be going on with, providing as it does clear evidence of readings from the Torah and Talmud. Very little evidence of his having any acquaintance with Christianity even though he had Christian relatives. There are sections that are very repetitious. It seems likely it was composed to be incanted to an audience, following a very ancient practice, rather than read. It does not have any of the literary qualities of the Talmud/Toran or of the Christian writings, poor as some of those were.
I left this at the above point, but then read more of the Koran. Here, pasted below:
2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
[2.194] The Sacred month for the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
Those Moslems who declare that Islam is a religion of peace surely do not read their own book. Now, this passage reflects Mohammed's fighting with the pagans in Mecca. Nevertheless, this is not acceptable in a religion and at such points it moves away from Christianity providing a more ancient, pre-Christian understanding of god and behaviour that in fact predates many Axis thinkers over a thousand years before. This passage also connects evil with those who do not accept Mohammed's message-non-Moslems become the Other-in sociological terms. Oppressors are those who simply oppose/disagree with Mohammed. There are indications here of early and late composition-speaking of ongoing conflict with disbelievers, although that might mean Byzantines and Persians, and of the Great Mosque. I suggest this composition is much later than Moslems believe.
Tuesday, 2 February 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)