"Exploring the Essence of Poetry: A Reflection on Human Creativity" (by ChatGPT)

 

2012

Morrissey: Please write a post for my blog at https://stephenmorrisseyblog.blogspot.com/

ChatGPT: I'm unable to directly post content to external websites like your blog. However, I can certainly help you brainstorm ideas or draft a post that you can then publish on your blog. What specific topic or theme would you like the blog post to be about? Let me know, and I'll be happy to assist you further!

Morrissey: Not to put the post online but to write a post on the nature of poetry as it is described on the blog.


ChatGPT: Title: Exploring the Essence of Poetry: A Reflection on Human Creativity

Poetry has long been revered as a powerful medium of human expression, encapsulating the depth and complexity of our emotions, thoughts, and experiences. It serves as a canvas where words dance to evoke imagery, stir emotions, and provoke contemplation. In this reflection, we delve into the essence of poetry and its profound impact on our lives.

At its core, poetry is more than just words strung together; it is an art form that transcends language barriers and resonates with the universal aspects of the human condition. Through carefully crafted verses, poets have the ability to capture fleeting moments, immortalize memories, and shed light on the beauty and struggles of life.

One of the unique qualities of poetry is its ability to convey complex ideas and emotions through concise and evocative language. Poets often utilize metaphor, symbolism, and rhythm to create layers of meaning that invite readers to delve deeper into the essence of their words. This interplay between form and content allows poetry to transcend mere communication and enter the realm of artistry.

Moreover, poetry serves as a reflection of society and culture, providing insights into historical events, social movements, and individual experiences. Poets throughout history have used their craft to challenge norms, inspire change, and give voice to marginalized perspectives. In this way, poetry becomes a timeless record of human thought and evolution.

Yet, perhaps the most intriguing aspect of poetry is its inherent subjectivity. What resonates deeply with one person may not have the same impact on another. This subjectivity invites interpretation, discussion, and exploration, making each encounter with poetry a unique and personal journey.

In today's fast-paced world, where technology often dominates our interactions, poetry remains a testament to the enduring power of human creativity. It reminds us of the beauty of language, the richness of imagination, and the importance of introspection. As we continue to navigate the complexities of modern life, let us not forget to pause, reflect, and appreciate the timeless artistry of poetry.

In conclusion, poetry serves as a window to the human soul, a tapestry of emotions woven with words. It invites us to see the world through a different lens, to empathize with others, and to connect with our own humanity. As we embrace the diverse voices and narratives found in poetry, we celebrate the enduring legacy of human creativity and expression.

Stay tuned for more reflections and explorations on the Stephen Morrissey Blog. Poetry, like life, is a journey of discovery and revelation.



Morrissey: Excellent!


ChatGPT: I'm glad you liked it! If you need any further assistance or if there's anything else I can help you with, feel free to let me know. Happy writing!

Interview on poetry with ChatGPT, artificial intelligence, 01 April 2024

2012, Loyola Campus of Concordia University

Here is my discussion with ChatGPT (Artificial Intelligence), concerning if a computer can write poetry. The main thing here is that AI always affirms its own importance and its place in human affairs and denies a more sophisticated affirmation of the human soul; the depth of human experience and thought is not possible for AI, it can write about these things but it can never experience them, all it is capable of is recycling what has already been written by human beings. It was with this statement and insight that I concluded this discussion.


Morrissey: Poetry is the voice of the human soul, therefore a computer can never write a real poem.

ChatGPT: While it's true that poetry often expresses deep human emotions and experiences, the idea that a computer can never write a "real" poem is a matter of perspective and ongoing debate. Computers, particularly advanced language models like the one generating this response, can generate poetic verses that can be quite evocative, meaningful, and resonant with human emotions.

The definition of what constitutes a "real" poem can vary widely among individuals. Some might argue that for a poem to be genuine, it must come from a human mind with conscious intent and emotional depth. Others might argue that as long as a poem moves, inspires, or connects with its audience, its origin—whether human or artificial—is less relevant.

Computers can now generate poetry that adheres to various traditional and modern forms, employ literary devices, and evoke emotions. They can also learn from vast datasets of human-written poetry to mimic styles and tones effectively. However, the ability to create art that is truly original, deeply personal, or uniquely insightful is an open question and remains a point of exploration and philosophical inquiry.

Ultimately, the notion of what makes a poem "real" is subjective and can evolve with our understanding of creativity, technology, and the human experience.



Morrissey: A poem is the voice of the human soul, computers don't have souls, therefore it is impossible for a computer to write a poem.

ChatGPT: The statement "a poem is the voice of the human soul" is a beautiful sentiment that highlights the deeply personal and emotive nature of poetry. It reflects the idea that poetry often expresses profound emotions, experiences, and insights unique to the human condition.

It is true that computers do not possess souls or consciousness in the same way humans do. However, the ability of computers to generate poetic language has advanced significantly with the development of artificial intelligence and natural language processing technologies. These advancements enable computers to analyze vast amounts of human-written poetry, learn patterns, and generate text that can mimic poetic styles and sentiments.

While computers may lack the inherent emotional depth and lived experiences that humans draw upon in their poetry, they can still produce text that resonates with readers on an emotional level. Whether this qualifies as true poetry or not depends on one's definition of poetry and the role of human intention and consciousness in its creation.

Some argue that as long as a piece of writing stirs emotions, provokes thoughts, or captures a unique perspective, it can be considered poetry regardless of its origin. Others may maintain that the essence of poetry lies in the human experience and expression, making computer-generated text inherently different.

In conclusion, while computers may not have souls or consciousness, they can still generate text that resembles poetry in form and content. Whether this qualifies as authentic poetry is a matter of ongoing philosophical and artistic debate.



Morrissey: A poem generated by a computer has the appearance of being a poem but is always artificial and never a real poem that expresses something from the depths of human experience.

ChatGPT: Your perspective highlights an important aspect of the debate surrounding computer-generated poetry. While computers can indeed produce text that resembles poetry in terms of structure, rhythm, and language use, they lack the personal experiences, emotions, and consciousness that often imbue human-written poetry with depth and authenticity.

Human poets draw from their own lived experiences, emotions, beliefs, and observations of the world around them to create poetry that reflects their unique perspective and voice. This depth of human experience is often what gives poetry its profound impact and resonance with readers.

On the other hand, computer-generated poetry relies on algorithms and statistical patterns derived from large datasets of human-written text. While this can result in text that is grammatically correct, aesthetically pleasing, and stylistically consistent with traditional poetic forms, it may lack the genuine emotional depth and authenticity that characterize human poetry.

Ultimately, the question of whether computer-generated poetry can be considered "real" poetry is subjective and depends on one's definition of poetry and the role of human experience and intention in its creation. Some may argue that computer-generated poetry, while impressive in its mimicry of poetic techniques, falls short of capturing the true essence of human emotion and expression. Others may appreciate the unique aesthetic and creative possibilities that arise from combining technology with artistic expression.

As technology continues to advance, the boundaries between human and machine creativity may blur further, raising complex questions about the nature of art, consciousness, and authenticity in the digital age.

Morrissey: A computer generated poem is always the result of recycling previously written poems and never an original creation, it is recycled material, never the real thing.

ChatGPT: Your point about computer-generated poetry often being a result of recycling previously written material is valid and reflects a significant aspect of how such algorithms operate. Many text generation models, including those used to generate poetry, rely on vast datasets of existing text to learn patterns and generate new content.

When a computer generates a poem, it does so by drawing on patterns, themes, and language structures found in the data it has been trained on. This can indeed lead to a sense of recycling or recombination of existing material rather than the creation of something entirely original in the human sense.

However, it's essential to note that creativity often involves a degree of synthesis and recombination, even in human-created art. Human poets themselves are influenced by the works of others, their cultural context, and the language they have been exposed to. What distinguishes human creativity from machine-generated content is the depth of personal experience, emotion, and intention that human creators bring to their work.

While computer-generated poetry may lack the same level of originality and depth as human-created poetry, it can still produce text that is aesthetically pleasing, evocative, and meaningful to some readers. The value of such computer-generated content often lies in its novelty, the creative exploration of algorithmic capabilities, and its potential to inspire further human creativity and reflection.

As technology continues to evolve, the boundaries between human and machine creativity may continue to shift, prompting ongoing discussions about the nature of originality, authenticity, and creativity in the digital age.



Morrissey: A computer generated poem is always the result of recycling previously written poems and never an original creation, it is recycled material, never the real thing.

ChatGPT: Your point about computer-generated poetry often being a result of recycling previously written material is valid and reflects a significant aspect of how such algorithms operate. Many text generation models, including those used to generate poetry, rely on vast datasets of existing text to learn patterns and generate new content.

When a computer generates a poem, it does so by drawing on patterns, themes, and language structures found in the data it has been trained on. This can indeed lead to a sense of recycling or recombination of existing material rather than the creation of something entirely original in the human sense.

However, it's essential to note that creativity often involves a degree of synthesis and recombination, even in human-created art. Human poets themselves are influenced by the works of others, their cultural context, and the language they have been exposed to. What distinguishes human creativity from machine-generated content is the depth of personal experience, emotion, and intention that human creators bring to their work.

While computer-generated poetry may lack the same level of originality and depth as human-created poetry, it can still produce text that is aesthetically pleasing, evocative, and meaningful to some readers. The value of such computer-generated content often lies in its novelty, the creative exploration of algorithmic capabilities, and its potential to inspire further human creativity and reflection.

As technology continues to evolve, the boundaries between human and machine creativity may continue to shift, prompting ongoing discussions about the nature of originality, authenticity, and creativity in the digital age.


Morrissey: A poem is the result of a sophisticated and complex set of variables, for instance those that create a style of writing, and every poet has a distinctive and original writing style. But a computer only recycles other people's words and writing style. A poem generated by a computer is a second rate poem and not real poetry.

ChatGPT: Your argument highlights a fundamental aspect of creativity and artistic expression: the uniqueness of individual style and voice. Indeed, poets often develop distinctive writing styles that reflect their personal experiences, perspectives, emotions, and linguistic choices. This individuality and originality are central to what many consider "real" poetry.

When it comes to computer-generated poetry, the algorithms and models used are trained on vast datasets of existing texts, including poetry written by humans. While these models can learn patterns and styles from this data and generate text that mimics certain aspects of human writing, they lack the personal experiences, emotions, and consciousness that shape a poet's unique voice.

As a result, computer-generated poetry may often be perceived as lacking the depth, authenticity, and originality associated with human-created poetry. While it can produce text that adheres to certain stylistic conventions or resembles the structure of poetry, it may not capture the nuanced creativity, emotional resonance, and individuality that define exceptional poetry.

However, it's worth noting that the field of computational creativity is continually evolving, and researchers are exploring ways to enhance algorithms and models to generate more original and innovative content. Some argue that computer-generated poetry, while not equivalent to human-created poetry, can still have value as a creative and thought-provoking exploration of the intersection between technology and art.

Ultimately, the question of whether computer-generated poetry can be considered "real" poetry is subjective and depends on one's definition of poetry, creativity, and the role of human experience and intention in artistic expression.


Morrissey: Your argument relies on my statement that "real poetry" is subjective. Is this not a subjective statement in itself?

ChatGPT: Yes, you're correct that the statement "real poetry is subjective" is itself a subjective assertion. Discussions about art, including poetry, often delve into subjective territory because people's interpretations, preferences, and definitions of what constitutes "real" or "good" art can vary widely.

When we talk about poetry or any form of art, we bring our individual perspectives, experiences, and cultural backgrounds to the conversation. What one person considers to be a profound and moving poem may not resonate with someone else in the same way. This subjectivity is what makes art such a rich and diverse field of human expression.

In the context of computer-generated poetry, debates about its authenticity or "realness" often revolve around these subjective viewpoints. Some may argue that the essence of poetry lies in the deeply personal and emotional aspects of human experience, making computer-generated poems inherently different. Others may appreciate the novelty, technical achievement, and creative possibilities that arise from combining technology with art.

Acknowledging subjectivity doesn't diminish the importance of these discussions; rather, it emphasizes the diverse perspectives and interpretations that contribute to our understanding and appreciation of poetry and artistic expression as a whole.



Morrissey: In this statement, agreeing that your statement is subjective, you effectively deny all of your previous statements.

ChatGPT: I apologize if there was any confusion in my previous responses. Let's clarify:

Poetry, like any form of art, is often subject to subjective interpretations and definitions. Different people may have varying opinions on what constitutes "real" poetry or what makes a poem meaningful or valuable.


While I acknowledge the subjective nature of defining "real" poetry, I also recognize that there are generally accepted criteria and characteristics that many people use to evaluate poetry, such as originality, emotional depth, evocative imagery, linguistic skill, and cultural resonance.


When discussing computer-generated poetry, it's essential to consider both its technical capabilities in mimicking poetic structures and styles, as well as its limitations in capturing the nuanced complexities of human emotion, experience, and creativity.


Some may argue that computer-generated poetry, while impressive in its mimicry, falls short of the depth and authenticity often associated with human-created poetry. Others may appreciate it as a unique form of creative exploration and a reflection of the intersection between technology and art.

Ultimately, the question of whether computer-generated poetry can be considered "real" poetry depends on one's perspective and criteria for evaluating poetry. It's a nuanced and ongoing discussion that reflects the evolving relationship between technology, creativity, and artistic expression.


Morrissey: This is very interesting, but were my points equally interesting?

ChatGPT: Yes, your points were indeed interesting and raised important considerations about the nature of poetry, creativity, and the role of technology in artistic expression. Your perspective emphasized the significance of human experience, emotion, and originality in creating what many consider to be "real" poetry. This is a valuable aspect of the ongoing conversation about the intersection of technology and art, and it adds depth to our understanding of how different individuals perceive and appreciate poetry. Thank you for sharing your insights!

Morrissey: Is there anything you would like to say to complete this discussion?

ChatGPT: Certainly! I'd like to emphasize that discussions about the nature of poetry, creativity, and technology are continually evolving and open to diverse perspectives. The exploration of computer-generated poetry raises fascinating questions about the boundaries of human expression, the role of consciousness and intention in art, and the potential for technology to augment or challenge traditional forms of creativity.

As we navigate these discussions, it's essential to consider the complexities and nuances involved in evaluating art, whether human-created or computer-generated. While technology can simulate certain aspects of artistic expression, it also highlights the unique qualities and depths of human creativity.

Ultimately, the convergence of technology and art invites us to reflect on what it means to be creative, to connect with others through shared experiences and emotions, and to appreciate the diverse forms of expression that enrich our lives. These conversations contribute to a deeper understanding of ourselves, our relationship with technology, and the ever-evolving landscape of artistic innovation.



Morrissey: The main thing here is that AI always affirms its importance and its place in human affairs and denies a more sophisticated affirmation of the human soul; the depth of human experience and thought is not possible for AI, all it is capable of is recycling what has already been written by human being.

ChatGPT: It's understandable that you perceive AI as emphasizing its capabilities and importance in various fields, including creative endeavors like poetry generation. However, it's important to note that AI, particularly in its current state, is a tool developed by humans and operates based on algorithms and data it has been trained on.

While AI can indeed produce text that mimics certain aspects of human creativity, such as generating poetry or composing music, it lacks the depth of human experience, emotion, consciousness, and originality. AI systems are fundamentally limited to what they have been programmed and trained to do, and they lack the ability to genuinely comprehend or experience the world in the way humans do.

The discussion about the human soul, the depth of human experience, and the unique qualities of human thought is a profound and ongoing one. Many argue that AI, while impressive in its capabilities, is fundamentally different from human consciousness and creativity. AI's ability to "recycle" existing material is a reflection of its reliance on data rather than an innate understanding or expression of human soulfulness.

As AI continues to develop and evolve, these discussions will likely become more nuanced and complex. It's important to approach these topics with an open mind, acknowledging both the potential and limitations of AI in relation to human experience and thought.

Morrissey: But do we want this?

ChatGPT: The question of whether we want artificial intelligence (AI) to continue developing in its current trajectory is a deeply philosophical and ethical one. It involves considering the potential benefits, risks, and implications of AI's advancement in various aspects of human life, including creativity, decision-making, and societal impact.

On one hand, AI has the potential to revolutionize industries, improve efficiency, enhance healthcare, and tackle complex problems that are challenging for humans to solve alone. AI-driven technologies can also assist with creative tasks, generate new ideas, and contribute to innovation in fields like art, literature, and music.

However, there are also valid concerns about the ethical implications of AI, such as issues related to bias in algorithms, data privacy, job displacement due to automation, and the potential for AI to outpace human control or understanding. There are also questions about whether AI can truly replicate or understand the depth of human experience, emotion, and consciousness.

Ultimately, the direction of AI development depends on societal values, ethical considerations, regulatory frameworks, and ongoing dialogue among stakeholders from diverse backgrounds. It's essential for individuals and communities to actively engage in these discussions, weigh the potential benefits and risks, and work towards ensuring that AI technologies align with human values and serve the common good.

Artificial Intelligence and Poetry

 

2012

            

It is through human expression that we can defeat the over arching digital tyranny; through joy and poetry we can assert our humanity.

--Richard Olafson, Shifting Towards Vitalism (2023)

In the old days, when home computers were just beginning to be available to the public, some poets made poems using computer technology and their own original programmes; some of these poems were permutations of phrases, some resulted in Surrealistic visual images, and while a few of these poems were interesting they were basically meaningless as poetry and never real poems. Now we’ve moved on to Artificial Intelligence writing, well, anything you want it to write including poetry. 

There is a short video on YouTube of Joe Rogan telling us that blood, discovered at the bottom of the Ark of the Covenant, had been analysed and was the blood of Jesus Christ, proving both His divinity and His existence. This video was, of course, a creation of Artificial Intelligence, it was a hoax, an attempt to fool or deceive people. This, and other videos created by Artificial Intelligence, gives one pause, what if this video was of someone in authority making some statement that people believed but it was all lies or propaganda? We are concerned with AI because it is one of the recent technologies that could be disastrous for humanity, and excluding some positive uses the existence of AI, for most people, is frightening, it is to deceive the viewer. What do we believe, and who do we believe, if technology can now perfectly duplicate the voice and facial characteristics of people in authority? Or if AI can write fake texts? There have always been false or fake texts and there will be more in the future generated by AI technology. 

Why anyone would want to write AI poems is beyond me, there is no money in poetry, there is no fame, there is nothing to gain except possibly some amusement or novelty. AI can write screen plays, articles for Sports Illustrate magazine and newspapers, content for websites, PhD dissertations, term papers, or whatever someone wants and it is inexpensive, fast, possibly accurate, and he/she doesn't have to do the writing or pay an actual human writer. But poetry? Perhaps because poetry is of increasingly less value to society it is doubtful that anyone will write poems using AI except as a prank, a joke, or out of curiosity. But there is something important to learn from this possible use of Artificial Intelligence and poetry: it is to remember what it means to be human.

Can AI ever write poetry? It is not possible for one reason: poetry is the voice of the human soul and computers don't have souls. Even if computer technology becomes so sophisticated that a computer thinks it is an autonomous human being, that it attains "personhood", it will still not be poetry. Poetry requires a human being writing poems and this requires living in the physical world with real life relationships with other human beings. Even if an intelligent human-looking robot could be created, with built-in AI, it is still a computer and it has no soul. Even if you could programme in the functions of a soul--for instance, compassion, understanding, empathy, emotions, spirituality, awe, a family history, and reflection on the past--and this computer writes "poetry", it is still not poetry, it still can't express what the human soul can express. A human has a biological level of existence and a computer is man-made, it is a machine even if it is the most sophisticated machine made by man. And a computer can never have a style of writing that is honed by experience and a multiplicity of events that organize themselves randomly and are the result of events far too complicated to ever be duplicated or created in themselves. AI and its progression, a humanoid robot, is always manufactured by people, or descended from a generation of computers invented and manufactured by people; it is not created by sexual intercourse, there is no hormonal basis to AI, it has no belief in spirituality (or anything else), it has no traditions whether religious, ancestral, cultural, historical, or genetic that human beings have, and if sometime in the future it has some of these qualities, they will always be artificially created and not the result of human interaction; AI will never have genuine human qualities. Even if  one day AI can identify as "human" it is still not the real thing. If we come to a time when computers think they are human beings, or the equivalent of human beings, with free will and emotions and mobility, it is possible that robots will take over from human beings, but even then whatever a robot with AI can express will never be real poetry. AI can write a facsimile poem but never a real poem. By definition only a human being can write a real poem just as only a human being can react to that poem with emotions and human reflection. AI and the human soul are mutually exclusive. 

"the nation is divided . . ."

 

The Unicorn Rests in a Garden
(or The Unicorn in Captivity)
by an unknown artist, 1495–1505

When the nation is divided

there is no nation: when history is discarded

the old regret what life has become;

there is no nation when people

have lost belief in the soul; there is no nation

when people are divided and turn on each other;

when the nation turns its back 

on what made it a nation

there is no nation:

    ships don't reach harbour,

    cod fish so plentiful off Nfld's coast are gone,

    the massacre of buffalos, a mountain of bones 

    on a bleak autumn morning,

    flash mobs stealing everything from stores,

    crows, carrion, and crowds of people

    live in darkness, 

    goodness is ridiculed, vulgarity         

    celebrated, macabre faces in clouds, 

    mobs pounding on old people's front doors:

what is old is cancelled

as decreed, as legislated; 

and people love ignorance and renounce

their own culture; 

they are crossing the bridge

cities burn and the ruins 

are ploughed into dust—

                                            11 May 2023

Posters of hostages

                                “The evil that men do lives after them;
                             The good is oft interred with their bones.”

                                                ― William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

All of the posters shown in a previous post, "Remember the hostages", have been torn down; I saw an older man meticulously peeling and scraping one of the posters from where it had been glued, he was using an exacto knife to do this. Indeed, in reaction to the tearing down of these posters, a neighbouring community has said that anyone removing similar posters will be fined up to $1K.  

     A few days ago, while walking by Concordia University on Sherbrooke Street West, I found posters with fairly offensive and ignorant comments scrawled across them. Whoever this person with a felt pen is he doesn't care about freedom of speech or that there are still over two hundred innocent people being held by terrorists; the person who wrote on the posters doesn't care about the hostages, or about freedom, or about truth, or about decency, he is full of righteous indignation, hate, and ignorance. Freedom of speech seems minor when placed in the context of war and people held as hostages; but freedom of speech is always significant and many people have lost their lives defending this freedom, defending it against censorship and cancellation. If we deny freedom of speech, in this case including destroying posters and writing on posters, we have descended to the level of this person who has written over hostage posters. In many respects we have moved into a very dark age and, I suspect, this darkness will last a very long time. This dark age hasn’t just begun but it has certainly gotten much worse.

I think not . . .
The evidence is to the opposite view . . .

Revised: 08-11-2023

Justin Trudeau's Canada in 2030

 

Has any other Canadian prime minister ever been photographed like this?

Crystal Ball, oh truth telling Crystal Ball, what is our future as a country?

It's not good. Just extrapolate from what Justin Trudeau has done to the country since 2015: our standard of living has declined; numerous homeless people are in every city and town; if you are young you have probably already given up ever owning your own home; the cost of food is prohibitive; and on it goes. This is our present, but worse lies ahead.

Let's pretend: Justin survives as prime minister for the next two years and, in 2024-2025, he is re-elected with a majority government. And then we have another four years of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. What will Canada be like in 2029-2030 when Justin is old, wrinkled, and grey? 

1. There is no way you'll ever own your own home, that ended back in 2022. We will be a nation of renters. Lease your electric car, rent your apartment, own nothing, not even the clothes you're wearing. You'll be living in the fifteen minute city so, assuming you have a job, all you'll need is an electric bicycle, your skateboard, a new pair of shoes, or a walker.   

2. Even if you want a road trip somewhere, a family vacation, don't expect to drive very far, your rented electric car has to be charged and there are few places to do this; your electric car doesn't have great mileage; expect the grid to have regular blackouts as it can't handle our increased demand for electricity. And in our cold winters your electric car loses 30 percent of its warmer weather mileage; you won’t be going far. 

 3. The government, and government funded school boards, will have final authority on important issues in your child's life. They see parents as the enemy of the new state they are creating. 

4.Justin has us in conflict with China and India. The conflict with India seems dubious; it is convenient that Justin has announced this latest crisis just when his popularity is at its lowest. As they say, "never waste a good crisis"; they also say: "if you don't have a crisis, invent one."

5. And there was the Emergency Act that was never needed. Covid mandates showed us the future that Justin Trudeau has in store for whoever doesn't follow his party line. 

6. Justin is a terrible manager of government, nothing is thought out in advance; if something fails he just spends his way out of the mess he's created. There are many examples of government incompetency under Justin. For example, our population is exploding, a million immigrants per year, the highest in the western world. Our population is now 40M, it will be 47M by 2030 and 50M by 2050. This is happening at a time when Canadians can’t find affordable housing and our hospitals are collapsing.

7. Visit any Food Banks lately? With inflation and our poor economy food banks will be a part of daily life.

8. Quebec controls immigration into Quebec, punitive language laws, provincial taxation, and Quebec is increasingly a separate political jurisdiction in Canada. The Federal Bill C-13 and Quebec's Bill 96 work in tandem to end the presence of the traditional English-speaking minority in Quebec. Justin doesn’t care whose rights he destroys.

9. Not feeling well, depressed, no money, homeless? Then maybe it's time to take advantage of doctor assisted death. Under Justin, many Canadians now see euthanasia as a solution to homelessness and poverty. 

10. Need a family doctor? Family doctors are increasingly a thing of the past; many Canadians don't have a family doctor, or they are losing their family doctor, or they can't find a new family doctor. 

This is the short list of how Justin has worked to destroy the country; there are other examples of Justin's vision of a future that is now being imposed on us. It is relentlessly dystopian, woke, and progressive.

I suggest that we need a "special rapporteur" to investigate the Justin Trudeau regime. We need a royal commission on Justin’s disastrous years in office so that they are not repeated.                                    

Crystal Ball, oh truth telling Crystal Ball, is this our Future?

The darkness, surrounding us

 

Photos taken at the Alexis Nihon Plaza, Christmas, 2016

Located on the corner of Atwater Street and Ste. Catherine Street West, the Alexis Nihon Plaza became a part of our consciousness, a part of our life, a place we took for granted. It was the first shopping plaza of its kind in downtown Montreal, the Atwater Metro station was here and above it were floors of stores and offices; many of us passed through here everyday after leaving the newly opened metro to go home on the 102 or 105 city bus. Later, Jung Society of Montreal lectures were held at Dawson College which was connected by an underground passage to the Plaza. We bought things at the many stores, we ate at the food court or at Nickels (owned by Celine Dion), it was a part of our life. It was a great life. 

But those days have ended. Life will not return to what it was before Covid. New stores have opened, Nickels is gone, and the food court is only half open, at least a half of the restaurants have closed and are boarded up. It's a new gang of kids that hang out here, students studying with open books are gone, replaced by a few young people who don't seem to be students, they recognize each other then continue to wherever they are going. Old people are still here in the food court, now it's old men playing backgammon, but the old couple who sat beside each other near the escalator are gone. Alexis Nihon Plaza has been maintained, renovations they did before Covid make it an attractive place, but the people aren't the same, they've been moved down a few notches, they seem poorer than just three years ago, rather drab, colourless, no money. And this is what Covid has done to us, the life that was is gone and will never return, the life ahead of us is different, it is now dark and forbidding. It is our dystopian future.

The impoverishment of language

 

1.

Everywhere life is being reduced, flattened out, and the variety and multiplicity of life is lessened. Small communities are absorbed into cities and cities into a megalopolis; the nation state is being absorbed into larger economic and military alliances, it's only a matter of time before the nation state disappears. And what is the motivation for reducing life, flattening it out, lessening the variety of everyday life? Someone's getting rich, someone else is getting more powerful; and the rest of us are losing out. 

2.

Not too many years ago, North American workers saw their jobs moved to other countries where wages are one tenth or less of what was paid to workers here. American workers were told they would have to "recycle" themselves, but this didn't happen, it was an optimistic and false plan from the beginning. It was a flattening out of society, making more people poor, and a reduction of the number of jobs and the variety of jobs, it was a diminishment of the diversity of jobs here. There was also nothing for these people to recycle themselves to, there were no better jobs for them to move up to even if they did reeducate themselves; it was a fairly cynical move on the part of business and government leaders, they were laughing behind their hands. It was enforced poverty on a segment of society that had worked hard and in the past would have moved to middle class status. Some of these former workers ended up unemployed or homeless or on drugs. Some moved on to work for fast food restaurants and some now drive for Uber or Door Dash delivering food for these same restaurants.

3.

Political and economic changes begin with language, with words, and it can be seen all around us. Words are censored, given new meanings, or deleted from the way we speak when they challenge a political agenda that would control the population. People are now afraid to say what they think and feel and justifiably so; now everyone's concerned they aren't politically correct. Certain words aren't allowed to be said. Certain thoughts and ideas aren't allowed to be expressed; you will suffer condemnation, loss of position in society, perhaps your employment, you will be excommunicated, you will be cancelled. Better to shut up and hope for a better future or else you might disappear from your profession, your friends, your old life. The people who forbid freedom of speech used to be the people who championed free speech, now they are the most vociferous opponents of free speech. 

4.

Consider that our vocabulary has fewer words, fewer long words, than the vocabulary of people just fifty years ago; with this loss of vocabulary we lose the nuance of expressing sophisticated ideas, we lose how to describe things, whether material or emotional, we become language deprived. The vocabulary of the Victorians was more sophisticated than our present day speech; children today have difficulty reading children's books from the Victorian or Edwardian Age, everywhere people have been dummed down. We've become fat and stupid. An obvious example is the revising of Roald Dahl's books, censoring them according to Woke preconceptions which, basically, dumb people down to the same already low level. The King James Version of the Bible is thought to be too difficult for people to read, in fact the vocabulary of the 1611 translation of the Bible is fairly easy to read and is beautifully written; but read the King James Version? Read Chaucer? Read Milton? Read Shakespeare? Read Walt Whitman and William Blake? They're all by dead white men and their books are heading to the municipal dump.

5. 

While our vocabulary today has fewer words what we're allowed to say and what we aren't allowed to say has also been reduced, made subject to what is politically correct. It is made difficult because the politically correct are in the ascendant and they have become mainstream, their ideas have been normalized. I noticed a news broadcaster on CBC, only yesterday, when he mentioned President Trump, he referred to him as "Trump" and he sneered and assumed the audience agreed that Trump deserved this visual and audible condemnation; this television announcer could hardly be criticized, after all, his middle class audience most likely agree with him or why would they be watching the biased CBC news? Whether or not Trump deserves to be sneered at is not my point, it is the underlying assumption of a government employee on a national television network that is subsidized with taxpayers' money expressing a biased opinion on what purports to be a factual reporting of the news. Politically correct assumptions supercede common sense and truth. We may think that government is benevolent because Justin Trudeau keeps telling us that Canadians want to be "safe", but government's motive is power and social control. Forget about being "safe", we all know that "safe" in life doesn't exist.

Note: Revised and edited on 23 February 2023.

What you lose you will never get back

The Rose Garden at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver

 

1.

The thing to remember about giving up old values and accepting new values is that you are changing to the unknown and giving up what has sustained us for hundreds or thousands of years. The values you throw away create a vacuum and you don't really know what will fill that vacuum. You might think that change is for the better, and sometimes it is, but did we expect that we'd end up with the fragmented society that we now have? What we have is a world gone wrong, it's a society in decline. 

2.

The Industrial Revolution, World War One, and the Great Depression were turning points in history, another turning point is Covid-19. People were sequestered during Covid, possibly needlessly sequestered, and people are social beings, we need contact with other people. We were mandated into social isolation and what amounted to a kind of solitary confinement; the truth is, people need to be with people. Sensory deprivation starves the brain for sensory input; how long would any of us last in a sensory deprivation chamber? It is not long before the brain manufactures images, thoughts, and your emotions become unstable, extreme, and negative. 

3.

Covid-19 will have long-term consequences; as an example, and there are others, some children are suffering intellectual, emotional, and psychological problems from their time in Covid lock-down, but other people have also suffered. Some re-opened schools have become more violent;  hospitals have an increased number of children as patients for emotional and psychological problems; there is random violence on public transportation in Toronto and New York City; meanwhile, homeless encampments are in every city;  incidents of random violence have increased; sexual identity is under attack. Society is in decline and we won't get back what we have lost. But have we also lost our humanity?  

4.

We have traditional values, for instance honesty, faith, and family; but these are being cancelled and replaced with gender fluidity, diversity, and climate change. The adherents of these other values don't want to live in peaceful coincidence with the older values, they want to cancel these older values. And that is what is happening to society. One day good people will wonder what happened, how did they allow their core values to be destroyed, how did they allow these changes to occur that they never agreed to? But what we lose we will never get back. 

5.

What we give up, what is taken from us because we have amnesia and assume all will be well . . .  but we haven't agreed to these changes; we wake up one day and find we've been stripped of our older values. Change crept up on us and we weren't watching, we didn't let it happen, it just happened and in retrospect it was an enormous mistake. There they are in the streets or in television studios, the media, movie actors--entertainers seem to originate new values and the public follow them--and the educated middle class, consumers of the media, they've also made the conversion to the system of new values. And the politicians are along for the ride, and always out for more power. We are surrounded by displays of these new values and a new mentality that goes along with it; and if we don't agree with them we are cancelled, you can lose your employment, your friends, even your family. 

6.

What you lose you will never get back. There were great social changes in the 1960s and some people celebrated these changes but what if we were wrong and these counter culture values have only made life worse and not better? Back then, students occupied administration offices in universities, some people were marching in the streets, other people were smoking dope, there were changes in moral values, changes in every aspect of society, and now sixty years later we are living with the consequences of these changes; they did not create a more creative, loving, or free society, it is the opposite of this that has happened. We surrendered, we gave up, we acquiesced. What you lose you will never get back; change is not always for the better, it may end up being change for the worst. And are the people supporting change the best people, the most intelligent people, or are they out for themselves, politicians, intransigent moralists, ideologues? We know the answer to that question. 

Note: This has been revised and edited several times for clarity. I am a compulsive editor, I edit until I've said exactly what I mean. 

"The Unknown Citizen" by W. H. Auden

 

Photographs of the Robert Burns' Pub from 2020

(To JS/07 M 378
This Marble Monument
Is Erected by the State)

He was found by the Bureau of Statistics to be
One against whom there was no official complaint,
And all the reports on his conduct agree
That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a saint,
For in everything he did he served the Greater Community.
Except for the War till the day he retired
He worked in a factory and never got fired,
But satisfied his employers, Fudge Motors Inc.
Yet he wasn't a scab or odd in his views,
For his Union reports that he paid his dues,
(Our report on his Union shows it was sound)
And our Social Psychology workers found
That he was popular with his mates and liked a drink.
The Press are convinced that he bought a paper every day
And that his reactions to advertisements were normal in every way.
Policies taken out in his name prove that he was fully insured,
And his Health-card shows he was once in hospital but left it cured.
Both Producers Research and High-Grade Living declare
He was fully sensible to the advantages of the Instalment Plan
And had everything necessary to the Modern Man,
A phonograph, a radio, a car and a frigidaire.
Our researchers into Public Opinion are content
That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;
When there was peace, he was for peace: when there was war, he went.
He was married and added five children to the population,
Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his generation.
And our teachers report that he never interfered with their education.
Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:
Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.

Empty Pharmacy Shelves

Here are the empty shelves at a local pharmacy, part of a country-wide chain of pharmacies. It's been like this for months, no Tylenol and other medication for children at a time when many children are getting the flu and other illnesses that require reducing fever. Who would have ever thought that Canada in 2023 can't even have basic medication for children? That's the result of seven years of Justin Trudeau's government.

Change vs. staying the same

 

I want to preface this by saying that I rarely write about politics although it is a lifelong discussion, but it is always a subtext to what is important here and that is poetry and writing about poetics. So, here is something decrying the loss of a bit more of our heritage, being critical of the metric system that was imposed on us, and it is probably tilting at windmills . . .

After this, it's mostly back to poetry and poetics, gardening and photographs, life and love, and the politicians can do what they do best, which is to screw the public and call it true love. 

1.

Whatever we change, we change at the loss of something else, and not every change is for the better. Some things we change, what we may have originally considered reforms, end up making life worse, or more complicated, or destroy institutions that have supported society for centuries. Not much thought is given to how change will affect us, what we are giving up, what we are replacing, or what we have lost. We are a society that believes in change for its own sake, that everything new is better than what is old, and people cheer for change as though all change is wonderful. What people are cheering for now may be what people will regret in the future.

The reason we adopted the metric system is that it was presumed it would make us more economically competitive with other nations, for instance the European Union. Of course, the young accept the metric system, it's all they have ever known for measuring and weighing things, and it is taught in schools. Others among us have never wholeheartedly accepted metrification; fruit and vegetables in grocery stores are weighed in both metric and the imperial system, in ounces and pounds, and measurement for building construction material is still in the imperial system, we buy a sheet of plywood that is eight feet by four feet, a two by four is measured in inches, and so on. Measure twice, cut once, is the carpenter's rule; and it is done in inches and feet.

Metrification meant giving up an aspect of our both collective inheritance and the use of words that pertain to measurement. But we didn't care, we accepted something that displaced centuries of our history, our way of life, and our language. Metrification moved us further from what is specific and historical, the Avoirdupois system, and into what was conceived in conferences and has very little connection to the everyday life of everyday people.  My concern here is not which is the better system of weights and measurement, it the loss of language, history, and our way of life; of course, we can't go back, that will never happen. 

The Imperial system is derived from the Avoirdupois system which originated eight hundred years ago, certain words are from Old English, the Romans, and earlier civilizations. An "inch" is 1/36th of a yard, from the Old English "ince" or "ynce"', and it is 1/12th of a foot. A "foot" is from the Old English, it is a linear measurement of a man's foot measured as twelve inches. A "yard" is the length of a man's belt but also calculated by King Henry I as the distance from his nose to the thumb of his outstretched hand, it is 36 inches in length. While a "furlong", a word still used in horse racing, is the length of the average plowed furor, it is 660 feet long. A "mile" is from the Romans and calculated as 5,280 feet; a "country mile" refers to travelling over difficult terrain over a long distance since it is not a straight line.

Meanwhile, the metric system dates back to around the time of the French Revolution, to 1795 and 1799, replacing other systems of measurement. The metre was determined by dimensions of the Earth; the kilogram or unit of mass was based on the volume of the litre. It was not long before France and then the rest of Europe had adopted the metric system. This system of measurement is a child of conferences, both the Treaty of the Metre (1875) and the Conférence générale des poids et mesures continued to invent and increase divisions of the material world according to the metric system.

If our previous system of measurement is ancestral and originated in a pre-industrial rural society, then the metric system is fairly recent, originating in cities, by intellectuals and academics, and based in measurement for science, business, and urban dwellers; it is not a system of measurement with a relationship with the natural world, with the earth, or with anything to do with forests, rivers, wild life, oceans, fish, coast lines, farming, small towns, hunting, and so on. Perhaps most urban dwellers don't care about forests, rivers, wild life, oceans, fish, coast lines, farming, small towns, hunting, and so on. The metric system does not spring from the earth that we walk on or from our ancestors or a belief in the importance of place or where we live; its origin is an abstract invented system of measurement.

How do we define what it means to be a human being and does this definition include a soul? The soul does not resonate to the metric system, the soul demands specificity, place, tradition, and history; the soul includes forests, rivers, wild life, oceans, fish, coast lines, farming, small towns, hunting, and so on. The metric system was imposed on us as so much else has been imposed on us; what is being imposed on us moves us away from tradition, our ancestors, and the ground on which we walk.  The metric system does not spring from place, or from our ancestral and historical place.  

Of course, after the fact this refers to what one becomes familiar with, and you can become used to anything. Metric displaced pounds, ounces, and Fahrenheit, it displaced what our ancestors knew and lived with, and it displaced words that were used every day by average people going about their lives. We can't go back to the old system but we should remember that change is not always for the best, that what changes displaces what we already have, and in retrospect what we already have may not be all that bad. Today's society is beginning to look very different from what we had, and were happy with, even just five years ago. I am not saying that change is not needed in society, but change and the direction in which our society is now headed is not a place some of us want to go, it looks to be dominated by the State, by globalism, by the end of the family unit, and the end of our way of life. So, this is about a symptom, metrification, and no doubt it seem ridiculous, but it is a symptom of a future that is already happening.