Philosophy Discussion Forums

Belindi wrote: ↑August 17th, 2019, 8:53 am
"that instant when a thing is removed from the world and it becomes a god "

The type of art and philosophy I do is what is today called Conceptual Art. The idea or concept is more important than the visual object. Indeed, the visual object itself usually disappears. It is elevated to the Transcendent Heights. And the Transcendent Heights are the demi-monde of Baudelaire. That was an eyeball kick. Conceptual Art has its roots in Dadaism and also the Beat Poets of the 1960s. It is very much an anti-art movement. Skill is irrelevant. The artist is nothing. Pure change reigns. It is scandalously irrational. The hole of Holism evaporates and only fragments remain. Yes, it is anti-social. Historically it has often been anti-woman. I think that is why you have such animus towards me.

My favorite writer is William Burroughs. He used the cut-up technique. I use a modified version of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada#Cut-up_technique

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 16th, 2019, 11:53 pm

Jklint wrote: ↑August 16th, 2019, 11:33 pm Btw, is Harold Bloom still alive? He should know about the great new poetic genius arriving on the scene.

As far as I know he is. My real genius shines forth, however, on my Tapatic Madness blog. There I encase my heavy words between empty spaces. I don't think Mr. Bloom likes Dada stuff. At least I have never seen any comments by him on the topic. Have you already seen this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEhMR0U6oz8

I've seen it now; a boring monologue on how stupid and boring poets & poetry have become so opposite to what it once was as the ultimate expression of language using every expressive device it was capable of. Like god, the genius of poetry has vanished; only rarely does anyone give a crap about either. Rather than being musical word clusters of intense meaning, they must now be performed to have any meaning at all.

Btw, why do these idiot pundits so often think a beard is going to make what they say seem more intellectual? Growing a lot of hair isn't going to camouflage what's lacking under their thick layers of bone-meal.

A thousand times I'd rather listen to this than the bogus intellectual forays of those who confuse snot with brainpower. One of the best comedies ever!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZBkP6drCqE

The way you parsed my post is the way most poets write these days. It begins with prose, abundantly flavored and spiced with adjectives & adverbs, etc., then butchered into poetry by cutting it up into discrete lines which imitates both form and content and voila!, you have an instant version of decrepit poetry which requires a load of theatricals to cover up the drivel.

Jklint wrote: ↑August 17th, 2019, 10:04 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 16th, 2019, 11:53 pm

As far as I know he is. My real genius shines forth, however, on my Tapatic Madness blog. There I encase my heavy words between empty spaces. I don't think Mr. Bloom likes Dada stuff. At least I have never seen any comments by him on the topic. Have you already seen this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEhMR0U6oz8

I've seen it now; a boring monologue on how stupid and boring poets & poetry have become so opposite to what it once was as the ultimate expression of language using every expressive device it was capable of. Like god, the genius of poetry has vanished; only rarely does anyone give a crap about either. Rather than being musical word clusters of intense meaning, they must now be performed to have any meaning at all.

Btw, why do these idiot pundits so often think a beard is going to make what they say seem more intellectual? Growing a lot of hair isn't going to camouflage what's lacking under their thick layers of bone-meal.

A thousand times I'd rather listen to this than the bogus intellectual forays of those who confuse snot with brainpower. One of the best comedies ever!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZBkP6drCqE

The way you parsed my post is the way most poets write these days. It begins with prose, abundantly flavored and spiced with adjectives & adverbs, etc., then butchered into poetry by cutting it up into discrete lines which imitates both form and content and voila!, you have an instant version of decrepit poetry which requires a load of theatricals to cover up the drivel.

I am fascinated by the great divide between those who like the great humanity of modern art so full of feeling and those who like the cool intellectualism of post-modern art where feeling is no more than pornographic sex. I of course am on the post-modern side and you are a modernist. How do you do? I think there will probably never a way to bridge that divide. Oh, well, life goes on. Until we all die because of climate change.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 1:09 amI am fascinated by the great divide between those who like the great humanity of modern art so full of feeling and those who like the cool intellectualism of post-modern art where feeling is no more than pornographic sex. I of course am on the post-modern side and you are a modernist.

I don't label myself, you or anyone. I don't know what a modernist is supposed to be specifically. I find this type of branding is a major source of hate and misunderstanding in the world. How naive to use a word or two in defining someone as if that encompasses the whole personality. It makes it sound too absolute and short-circuits whatever exceptions may apply.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 1:09 amI think there will probably never a way to bridge that divide.

Divisions are obvious because we're not all the same.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 1:09 amOh, well, life goes on. Until we all die because of climate change.

That's only justice! Turds get flushed down the toilet including those who are the main producers of it. The human race is a piece of garbage. It started that way and ever since has worked assiduously to remake the world in its image...and btw, "garbage" in this case is not a label; it's a true and honest description of what humans amount to on this planet. It's destiny can rightfully be labelled as GIGO.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 17th, 2019, 9:33 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑August 17th, 2019, 8:53 am
"that instant when a thing is removed from the world and it becomes a god "

The type of art and philosophy I do is what is today called Conceptual Art. The idea or concept is more important than the visual object. Indeed, the visual object itself usually disappears. It is elevated to the Transcendent Heights. And the Transcendent Heights are the demi-monde of Baudelaire. That was an eyeball kick. Conceptual Art has its roots in Dadaism and also the Beat Poets of the 1960s. It is very much an anti-art movement. Skill is irrelevant. The artist is nothing. Pure change reigns. It is scandalously irrational. The hole of Holism evaporates and only fragments remain. Yes, it is anti-social. Historically it has often been anti-woman. I think that is why you have such animus towards me.

My favorite writer is William Burroughs. He used the cut-up technique. I use a modified version of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada#Cut-up_technique

I did not write the quoted bit you wrote it.

Regarding "pure change",your term: I am interested in change and change is also relativity. If I would paint the concept of change I'd paint a famous iconic painting say 'Christ of Saint John of the Cross' within a background of the art gallery with the people all dressed in assorted funny or historical costumes. I'd need some skill so that I could make the painting. The artist, whatever else he is not, he is a maker.

There is sound and fury all around the world but an artwork must contain at least the possibility of meaning.

Jklint wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 4:13 am

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 1:09 amI am fascinated by the great divide between those who like the great humanity of modern art so full of feeling and those who like the cool intellectualism of post-modern art where feeling is no more than pornographic sex. I of course am on the post-modern side and you are a modernist.

I don't label myself, you or anyone. I don't know what a modernist is supposed to be specifically. I find this type of branding is a major source of hate and misunderstanding in the world. How naive to use a word or two in defining someone as if that encompasses the whole personality. It makes it sound too absolute and short-circuits whatever exceptions may apply.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 1:09 amI think there will probably never a way to bridge that divide.

Divisions are obvious because we're not all the same.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 1:09 amOh, well, life goes on. Until we all die because of climate change.

That's only justice! Turds get flushed down the toilet including those who are the main producers of it. The human race is a piece of garbage. It started that way and ever since has worked assiduously to remake the world in its image...and btw, "garbage" in this case is not a label; it's a true and honest description of what humans amount to on this planet. It's destiny can rightfully be labelled as GIGO.

You may label me as a labeler. I categorize people and set them up on a pedestal or under glass in the appropriate room in the museum for all to gook at. I do it do myself. i like labels - obviously. You are a non-labeler. Maybe a misanthrope. I promise not to be a major source of hate and misunderstanding in the world. On the other hand it might be fun.

Belindi wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 4:45 am

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 17th, 2019, 9:33 pm

The type of art and philosophy I do is what is today called Conceptual Art. The idea or concept is more important than the visual object. Indeed, the visual object itself usually disappears. It is elevated to the Transcendent Heights. And the Transcendent Heights are the demi-monde of Baudelaire. That was an eyeball kick. Conceptual Art has its roots in Dadaism and also the Beat Poets of the 1960s. It is very much an anti-art movement. Skill is irrelevant. The artist is nothing. Pure change reigns. It is scandalously irrational. The hole of Holism evaporates and only fragments remain. Yes, it is anti-social. Historically it has often been anti-woman. I think that is why you have such animus towards me.

My favorite writer is William Burroughs. He used the cut-up technique. I use a modified version of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada#Cut-up_technique

I did not write the quoted bit you wrote it.

Regarding "pure change",your term: I am interested in change and change is also relativity. If I would paint the concept of change I'd paint a famous iconic painting say 'Christ of Saint John of the Cross' within a background of the art gallery with the people all dressed in assorted funny or historical costumes. I'd need some skill so that I could make the painting. The artist, whatever else he is not, he is a maker.

There is sound and fury all around the world but an artwork must contain at least the possibility of meaning.

Actually, pure change was a typo. I meant to type pure chance, Then when I discovered what I posted, I was prevented from changing it because of the stupid software this site uses. Please tell them to let us edit our posts. I'm wondering how you visualize the scene when Christ encounters St. John of the Cross. When it said "he wounded my neck" that probably hearkens back to a time of human sacrifice.

Conceptual art is not antisocial if the maker is skilled and uses his skill to convey meaning. Whether or not the form is whittled away there must be intended meaning. Any magpie can assemble a jumble of meaningless bits and pieces.

I'm wondering how you visualize the scene when Christ encounters St. John of the Cross. When it said "he wounded my neck" that probably hearkens back to a time of human sacrifice.

I know nothing about this. When I saw the original picture I saw it with as innocent an eye as is possible.Nobody had told me about the painting and I saw it by chance. Chance would have meant nothing had I not chosen to pay attention.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 7:15 am I promise not to be a major source of hate and misunderstanding in the world. On the other hand it might be fun.

That would make you one of many having fun already. Don't wait, join the global club of fun-lovers. As they say, you only live once. Living an intense short life is, I've discovered, a better conclusion to a one-time event than a long boring one.

Jklint wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 4:34 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 7:15 am I promise not to be a major source of hate and misunderstanding in the world. On the other hand it might be fun.

That would make you one of many having fun already. Don't wait, join the global club of fun-lovers. As they say, you only live once. Living an intense short life is, I've discovered, a better conclusion to a one-time event than a long boring one.

As you know, I am gay and a theist. I like to speak my mind about those things. I am also a big fan of Logical Analysis as it came down to us from Cambridge a little over a hundred years ago. Bertrand Russell and that gang. Anyway, I mix all three of those together. Most people couldn't care less, but there are a sizable few who absolutely hate it and if I get close to them in my speaking, they fly into a hard rant. I love it. And they probably do to.

Belindi wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 2:31 pm
Conceptual art is not antisocial if the maker is skilled

I agree. If you judge a work of art by looking to see if the artist has skill, then it is not anti-social. Society is always built on some ordering principle. In this case it is built on the divide between those who have skill and those who don't. Art is defined as that which is made by those who have skill. It becomes aristocratic. The artist is exalted as special. He/she is the best society has to offer. An artist becomes a creator god. To be in the presence of a real artist is a humbling moment.

Jklint wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 4:34 pm That would make you one of many having fun already. Don't wait, join the global club of fun-lovers. As they say, you only live once. Living an intense short life is, I've discovered, a better conclusion to a one-time event than a long boring one.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 7:18 pmAs you know, I am gay and a theist. I like to speak my mind about those things. I am also a big fan of Logical Analysis as it came down to us from Cambridge a little over a hundred years ago. Bertrand Russell and that gang. Anyway, I mix all three of those together. Most people couldn't care less, but there are a sizable few who absolutely hate it and if I get close to them in my speaking, they fly into a hard rant. I love it. And they probably do to.

I’m not gay and thoroughly anti-theist and have no idea why it would bother me if someone else is. Animosity, as much as I may enjoy the feeling, fails me. What bothers me about theists is not their theism but the dishonest, hypocritical ways they argue. Of course you do realize being gay is not authorized by any theistic protocol I know of! For me it makes no sense to believe in something which damns you. But clearly nature speaks louder than the CEO of universe. If He didn’t want it that way He shouldn’t have been so clumsy to start off with! Just another bearded patriarch laying down rules contrary to his own creation. Was it really necessary to fill the universe with so many black holes? Was this a way of erasing his own failures? All very legitimate philosophical questions.

Jklint wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 8:23 pm

Jklint wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 4:34 pm That would make you one of many having fun already. Don't wait, join the global club of fun-lovers. As they say, you only live once. Living an intense short life is, I've discovered, a better conclusion to a one-time event than a long boring one.

I’m not gay and thoroughly anti-theist and have no idea why it would bother me if someone else is. Animosity, as much as I may enjoy the feeling, fails me. What bothers me about theists is not their theism but the dishonest, hypocritical ways they argue. Of course you do realize being gay is not authorized by any theistic protocol I know of! For me it makes no sense to believe in something which damns you. But clearly nature speaks louder than the CEO of universe. If He didn’t want it that way He shouldn’t have been so clumsy to start off with! Just another bearded patriarch laying down rules contrary to his own creation. Was it really necessary to fill the universe with so many black holes? Was this a way of erasing his own failures? All very legitimate philosophical questions.

I could easily and happily argue with you about the relation between being gay and the God of religion, but I have a feeling that you would rather I didn't.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 9:04 pm
I could easily and happily argue with you about the relation between being gay and the God of religion, but I have a feeling that you would rather I didn't.

Oh screw it, I'm just going to tell you what I think.

First you have to learn how to read historical texts with a critical eye. And not just get your information about religion from cable news. I think you have probably been indoctrinated by the popular media, though of course I could be wrong.

I am going to assume that every religion had a starting point and it didn’t just appear full blown out of nowhere. I am also going to assume that there are certain foundational texts and they are in the mix with all the other non-religious writings of the period.

The earliest texts of Judaism that we have are those that tell of Samuel in the time of David. Samuel and David probably never existed, but, nonetheless, we can glean some information about the early Israelite religion from that story and other writings. Samuel was sort of a shaman figure. He became a shaman when God exposed himself to him when he was a young boy. That’s a common feature of most initiation ceremonies throughout history. (God would be arrested today.) Anyway, Samuel eventually became the leader of a Phallic Cult on the “high places”. On the neighboring high place, there was a cult to the female vulva. One can find the same thing in early Hinduism and Greek religion. God and that goddess became “lover” of their devotees. Anyway, to make a long story short, the heterosexual Israelites soon got sick and tired of God’s “Love”. And they proceeded to write up laws against it and put them in the holy text. They began to insist that God have no body and that he become instead just a moral principle. In Greece and India, the heterosexualists also took over. The same thing happened with early Christianity. When “the people” get hold of religion they mold it in their image. The original impulse is covered over. Anyway, I think today many people become atheists because they, subconsciously, sense that the God of religion is really very fa**oty. Almost all mystical literature written through the centuries by males in every religion is homoerotic. That’s why it is made fun of. Queers are a favorite butt of straight jokes. Religion and being queer go together, in spite of the attempts of straight people to change it.

Jklint wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 8:23 pmWas it really necessary to fill the universe with so many black holes? Was this a way of erasing his own failures? All very legitimate philosophical questions. :mrgreen:

A good reason, because supermassive black holes are God and there are a lot of smaller wannabes around. SM black holes are huge beyond imagining, they are inconceivable, they are all powerful, they are creative (creating all galaxies). They are a realm which none may enter and leave and, at their cores, they are beyond time.

Sag A* + its creations + the self = our deity, God (or whatever name).

I admit to being sizist when it comes to black holes. Stellar black holes are wimps compared with the stars that produced them, let alone being worthy of the same generic label as galaxy-creating supermassive black holes. Like comparing a mouse with Everest.

When I saw the first rendering of Laniakea I imagined the realm in which it exists - the scale of it, and of its peers. I imagined that some of the entities would persist more or less, depending on how the areas they have with enough gravity to hold together for a while in the face of dark energy. They would have their own "survival of the persistent".

When looked at like that, it's hard to get worked out about what our other tiny Earthling post-apes are getting up to - at least until one of them tries to use you or rip you off, or shouts at you for not robotically following rules.

Politics v philosophy. We can be so very deep until some bastard pulls a stunt on us. At that moment ... straight back into MammonWorld. Years later, on our deathbeds, remembering a life of competition and struggle, we regret all the things we might have done ... had we not forgotten that the world has always been an intrusive bunfight and we didn't have all that much choice.

Some say that Earth is hell. It seems reasonable. After all, no matter how fab a person's life may be, in the end they will be agonisingly gasping for death and failing to achieve it, and then they will stop being and their carcass will rot. Like everyone else's. And that's the best possible result for biological beings - a pleasant life followed by a quick death that involves less agony than usual.