Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

"And her eyes if they were ever seen would be neither sweet nor subtle; no man could read their story; they would be found filled with perishing dreams and with wrecks of forgotten delirium."

De Quincy has already indicated the form by using semicolons.

A and C are basically made up of seven iambs , and B is three iambs.It's like musical sonata form exposition , development, and recapitulation. But it's better because besides having recognisable form the sentence means something.

Note also the alliteration, and the fluttering iamb that begins A and C.

I accept uncertainty but I don't like mystery for the sake of mystery. Form enhances meaning.

[GaryLouisSmith]

"And her eyes if they were ever seen would be neither sweet nor subtle; no man could read their story; they would be found filled with perishing dreams and with wrecks of forgotten delirium."

De Quincy has already indicated the form by using semicolons.

A and C are basically made up of seven iambs , and B is three iambs.It's like musical sonata form exposition , development, and recapitulation. But it's better because besides having recognisable form the sentence means something;

I like it because it feels like a dream. Abstract art also feels like a dream to me. That's why I like it. I think my writing, not here, also has that dream-like quality. And religion is a dream. Dreams are real. More real than the everyday world.

[GaryLouisSmith]

"And her eyes if they were ever seen would be neither sweet nor subtle; no man could read their story; they would be found filled with perishing dreams and with wrecks of forgotten delirium."

De Quincy has already indicated the form by using semicolons.

A and C are basically made up of seven iambs , and B is three iambs.It's like musical sonata form exposition , development, and recapitulation. But it's better because besides having recognisable form the sentence means something;

"Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin and a prominent 19th-century scientist in his own right, made an intriguing study of mental imagery. He asked people to visualize their breakfast table and describe the image that appeared to them in their mind’s eye. He reported “To my astonishment, I found that the great majority of the men of science to whom I first applied protested that mental imagery was unknown to them, and they looked on me as fanciful and fantastic in supposing that the words ‘mental imagery’ really expressed what I believed everybody supposed them to mean … They had a mental deficiency of which they were unaware, and naturally enough supposed that those who affirmed they possessed it, were romancing.”Galton found that imagery was frequently reported by women and children. Galton was not the only one to find a relationship between social position and imagery. Yale psychologist Jerome Singer found parallel results with fantasy daydreaming. He conducted a study in the 1950s and discovered that Jewish and African Americans had higher daydreaming frequency than those of Anglo-Saxon descent. This finding supports the association of imagery with marginal, low-status groups." (Hansen, George P.. The Trickster and the Paranormal . Xlibris US. Kindle Edition.)

What do you make of that Mr. Belindi?

[GaryLouisSmith]

"And her eyes if they were ever seen would be neither sweet nor subtle; no man could read their story; they would be found filled with perishing dreams and with wrecks of forgotten delirium."

De Quincy has already indicated the form by using semicolons.

A and C are basically made up of seven iambs , and B is three iambs.It's like musical sonata form exposition , development, and recapitulation. But it's better because besides having recognisable form the sentence means something.

Note also the alliteration, and the fluttering iamb that begins A and C.

I accept uncertainty but I don't like mystery for the sake of mystery. Form enhances meaning.

You seem to have the ability to edit your posts after you post them. It's a mystery to me how you do that. Can you share your wisdom on that matter?

[Felix]

GLS, Regarding the studies you mentioned, I suspect the upper class effect described is due more to nurture than to nature, cultivating reason and logic, often forcefully, in young children to give them a "head-start" in life. Get them reading and thinking horizontally at an early age so they can "make something of themselves," can't have them loafing about being daydream believers.

But the geniuses of science were dream weavers, e.g., Einstein and Tesla. Einstein did not learn to read until he was several years sold and he did poorly in school. And Tesla had integrated logic and imagination to a remarkable degree. It's said that he would visualize his inventions in great detail, envision prototypes of them and run test operations on them in his mind. So he knew before they were constructed that they would perform exactly as designed.

By the way, Ms. Belindi did not edit her post but reposted a corrected version of it. As a moderator she no doubt possesses powers that we mere members do not, but I don't know if editing posts is one of them. For us, the alternative is to type our post in a text file and copy and paste that into the chat box - a good idea anyway, so that if your browser crashes, your words won't vanish in the ether.

[GaryLouisSmith]

GLS, Regarding the studies you mentioned, I suspect the upper class effect described is due more to nurture than to nature, cultivating reason and logic, often forcefully, in young children to give them a "head-start" in life. Get them reading and thinking horizontally at an early age so they can "make something of themselves," can't have them loafing about being daydream believers.

But the geniuses of science were dream weavers, e.g., Einstein and Tesla. Einstein did not learn to read until he was several years sold and he did poorly in school. And Tesla had integrated logic and imagination to a remarkable degree. It's said that he would visualize his inventions in great detail, envision prototypes of them and run test operations on them in his mind. So he knew before they were constructed that they would perform exactly as designed.

By the way, Ms. Belindi did not edit her post but reposted a corrected version of it. As a moderator she no doubt possesses powers that we mere members do not, but I don't know if editing posts is one of them. For us, the alternative is to type our post in a text file and copy and paste that into the chat box - a good idea anyway, so that if your browser crashes, your words won't vanish in the ether.

Yes, I agree that it is probably nurture and not nature. As for Einstein and Tesla, they were both of low social status. Einstein was a Jew and Tesla was probably gay. Both had trouble fitting into the social scene, Tesla especially. I think it would be safe to say both were outsiders. Dreams come only to the outsiders and pariahs of society.

[GaryLouisSmith]

now what?

I know many people like to make arguments for God's existence. Let's say you convince someone. Is there anything else that follows? If so, what? And why?

I'm asking because I think arguments for God's existence are interesting, and I think they do provide a rational answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?". I don't think it's irrational to believe in God. I can even see myself believing in God as some kind of intelligent mind (I'm partial to arguments for panpsychism and a conscious universe... a conscious universe that could be considered to be God) that is the reason that everything exists. It's just that I don't see what, if anything, must follow from that belief.

I have been posting quite a bit on this thread and arguing with people. Have you found anything worth while in response to your question? Or did it deviate into nothing interesting?

[Belindi]

GaryLouisSmith wrote:

Yes, I agree that it is probably nurture and not nature. As for Einstein and Tesla, they were both of low social status. Einstein was a Jew and Tesla was probably gay. Both had trouble fitting into the social scene, Tesla especially. I think it would be safe to say both were outsiders. Dreams come only to the outsiders and pariahs of society.

Modern idea of how people become moral is that moral cognition arrives in age-related stages. The attainment of morality is learned, albeit like other learning the possibility rests with nature as well as nurture. The stage of moral conformity to peer judgements is a comparatively late stage but is not the most advanced stage. Few adults attain the most advanced stage of moral development which is characterised by by universal ethical principles. The person at this advanced moral stage can examine the rules and laws of his social group and behave contrarily to them according to his individual conscience.

Socialisation of the individual varies according to the surrounding social ecology e.g. family integrity or divorce, war or peace, famine or plenty, gangs, religious or political indoctrination, and so forth.

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith wrote:

Yes, I agree that it is probably nurture and not nature. As for Einstein and Tesla, they were both of low social status. Einstein was a Jew and Tesla was probably gay. Both had trouble fitting into the social scene, Tesla especially. I think it would be safe to say both were outsiders. Dreams come only to the outsiders and pariahs of society.

Modern idea of how people become moral is that moral cognition arrives in age-related stages. The attainment of morality is learned, albeit like other learning the possibility rests with nature as well as nurture. The stage of moral conformity to peer judgements is a comparatively late stage but is not the most advanced stage. Few adults attain the most advanced stage of moral development which is characterised by by universal ethical principles. The person at this advanced moral stage can examine the rules and laws of his social group and behave contrarily to them according to his individual conscience.

Socialisation of the individual varies according to the surrounding social ecology e.g. family integrity or divorce, war or peace, famine or plenty, gangs, religious or political indoctrination, and so forth.

What does your answer have to do with the ability to have a vivid imagination and dream?

[Belindi]

GaryLouisSmith wrote:



Modern idea of how people become moral is that moral cognition arrives in age-related stages. The attainment of morality is learned, albeit like other learning the possibility rests with nature as well as nurture. The stage of moral conformity to peer judgements is a comparatively late stage but is not the most advanced stage. Few adults attain the most advanced stage of moral development which is characterised by by universal ethical principles. The person at this advanced moral stage can examine the rules and laws of his social group and behave contrarily to them according to his individual conscience.

Socialisation of the individual varies according to the surrounding social ecology e.g. family integrity or divorce, war or peace, famine or plenty, gangs, religious or political indoctrination, and so forth.

What does your answer have to do with the ability to have a vivid imagination and dream?

Fantisising, reveries, and daydreaming are not imagination. Imagination actively creates. By "create" I mean create that good stuff which is avant garde or which explains present social or natural reality to us, including real life as it affects real people. The creators are often disinterested in financial gain as they frequently attain the moral stature I describe.

I'm aware that 'imagination' is often used as if it were coterminous with fantasy . In these days of sensationalist media including pornography of violence and of sex it's very important to distinguish between fantasy and imagination and rescue 'imagination' from the current intellectual pollution of media the only purpose of which is robbing the unaware of their cash.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Fantisising, reveries, and daydreaming are not imagination. Imagination actively creates. By "create" I mean create that good stuff which is avant garde or which explains present social or natural reality to us, including real life as it affects real people. The creators are often disinterested in financial gain as they frequently attain the moral stature I describe.

I'm aware that 'imagination' is often used as if it were coterminous with fantasy . In these days of sensationalist media including pornography of violence and of sex it's very important to distinguish between fantasy and imagination and rescue 'imagination' from the current intellectual pollution of media the only purpose of which is robbing the unaware of their cash.

Ok, that's a distinction I haven't heard before, but I can go with that. I must say though that you sound like one of those British Christian Missionaries that used to come here to the Sub-continent in centuries past preaching against scandalous Hindu art and vivid imaginings so full of sex and idolatry.

[Belindi]

Yes, I wondered if you would think this was prudish.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Yes, I wondered if you would think this was prudish.

I too like only the "good stuff", but I'm sure that your idea about what is good is very different from mine. As far as I can tell that's about as far as one can go with that idea. I guess things just devolve into a fight. I rather like fights. Good luck with your program of ridding the world of trash. What do you think of trashy drag queens? If you were a believer in religion would you be High Church Anglican? Are you post-modern? I'm ok with you being prudish. It takes all kinds.

[Belindi]

Pornographic trivia is bad because unwary people can be persuaded that casual violence and unreal sexual relationships are normal. Good art, like good religion, is defined not by sensation -seeking but by serious concern for truth and beauty.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Pornographic trivia is bad because unwary people can be persuaded that casual violence and unreal sexual relationships are normal. Good art, like good religion, is defined not by sensation -seeking but by serious concern for truth and beauty.

I rather doubt that those unwary people exist. People are not that stupid. As for whether or not art and religion is defined by sensation, I think they both sometimes are. Seriousness is prudish idea. You should stop trying to dictate to people what is good and bad.