Discuss your Opinion!

[BTGBullseye]

100% agree with Helio.

[Selfsurprise]

#27: Importance of a legitimately balanced, fact based, unbiased new source. do we need it, or is it un-imporant in our society

I'm not certain it's possible to have a 100% unbiased source of reporting, I think divisive human nature and culture being what it is renders the reality of unquestionably factual news an unattainable ideal that can only ever be aspired to in the spirit of criticism and debate. In a sense, if a genuinely unbiased and agendaless source of news existed some spark of it's human interest would likely vanish. Forgive my far-fetched extrapolating on the question, but I believe that we would find taking in and appreciating a detailed and overarching analysis of a situation (both past and present) free of any human pathos and sentiment to be difficult to the point of sheer futility. Truly unbiased news for surely require an agency outside of the human sphere of influence and control, and even if such a thing does or will exist, we may be psychologically unfit to validate or even comprehend it.

[Heliocentrical]

#29 What is X and Other Similar Questions:

These types of questions disturb me on a fundamental level. They aren't questions to begin with and would go as far to say they're anti-intellectual. Take for instance the question "What is Art?". For one the term art itself is nebulous at best and calling something art is an injustice to elements that make up the piece. On one hand I recognize the need for convenience that terms like Art provide but I also find these terms to be a hindrance because they effectively constrict the rhetoric we speak. By creating a compound term like Art we invariably lose ways to describe something due to the convenience that terms like Art provide.

 

So back on track, if the terms like art are nebulous then the question becomes "What is Anything?" or "What is x?" which is a completely asinine question which adds nothing to the overall conversation. This in turn weakens the overall conversation and leaves it intellectually lacking. Those question are posed purely for sound cool and deep without having to be either.

[Selfsurprise]

#29 What is X and Other Similar Questions:

These types of questions disturb me on a fundamental level. They aren't questions to begin with and would go as far to say they're anti-intellectual. Take for instance the question "What is Art?". For one the term art itself is nebulous at best and calling something art is an injustice to elements that make up the piece. On one hand I recognize the need for convenience that terms like Art provide but I also find these terms to be a hindrance because they effectively constrict the rhetoric we speak. By creating a compound term like Art we invariably lose ways to describe something due to the convenience that terms like Art provide.

 

So back on track, if the terms like art are nebulous then the question becomes "What is Anything?" or "What is x?" which is a completely asinine question which adds nothing to the overall conversation. This in turn weakens the overall conversation and leaves it intellectually lacking. Those question are posed purely for sound cool and deep without having to be either.

Now this is the sort of conversation I feel better qualified to wade in on! :3

 

I think your choice of art as a subject of the "what is/is it [***]?" trope to be fundamentally interesting. Many fields of human endeavour, regardless of their absolute necessity or apparent frivolity, have a certain amount of wriggling room for those questions. One would unlikely ask "is it architecture?" of a new building if the building in question, regardless of how much or how little it conforms aesthetic norms, is actually functioning as an architectural object. By extension who would even necessarily think to ask "what is architecture?" and thusly subject buildings to much more fundamental hermeneutic scrutiny. But then why do we stop short of asking those questions of the various artificial and natural elements that compose our world and interaction therein?

 

One catch-all definition of art is that as a medium or mode of human activity, it is defined by its indefinability. Of course this indefinability is usually considered a matter of academic nitpicking, as most perfectly reasonable and intelligent people probably aren't overtly concerned with the inability of post-modernist cultural discourse to define what does or does not constitute art, or what can or cannot constitute art if it is so declared by an almost equally indefinable self-imposed status as "artist". For many people the hierarchical status of mediums (painting, sculpture and craft in a traditional sense, or in a latter neo-avant gardist sense performance, concept, situation, etc.) will always define their understanding of what currently constitutes art by cultural consensus - something inversely affected by a society's given capacity for tolerance and accessibility.

 

The fact that contemporary artists are by now are so well versed in the Duchampian model of object making (read "appropriating") that the "what is?/is it?" question has become an increasingly a tedious affair, and not simply some wholly accepted constituent of contemporary art accepted as a viable working strategy, a stand in for some other concept or idea, or simply a motif employed by the artist in an ongoing body of work. Yet there remains a gap between the mainstream understanding of art and the tumultuous criticism and analysis of art since the advent of modernism up until the present. Whether artists, art critics or just avid followers of art (such as myself) like it or not, the "what is?/is it?" question regarding art has yet to be resolved for anybody unversed in the history and theoretical frame-working of modern art - and we must also face the haunting possibility that because of the disconnect between mainstream perception of and active engagement with modern art, it's a debate that is inherently unresolvable. An intriguing poisoned chalice inherited from modernism and further compounded by post-modernism.

 

So in an attempt to give an answer to your point about the "what is?/is it?" question being anti-intellectual, I'm not sure I can concur with that assessment. It depends how we choose to define intellectualism. Do we define intelligence as a monolithic and unyielding arrangement of unassailable assertions, or do we define intelligence as a far more nebulous phenomena prone to both positive and negative transformation? My instinct and experiences argues that in regards to the subject of art at least, the latter definition is the more apt fit for the ghostly model presented by the subject. I put it to you that the "what is art?/is it art?" question cannot be anti-intellectual because the endeavour of art itself is constantly haunted by the uncertainties conjured up by several centuries of philosophical inquiry into the notion of thingliness, the notion of self and others, the very certainty of existence itself. Without that inherent uncertainty we would lack our current conception of art and as such much of the art of the 20th century onward may never of occurred.

 

We might instead of had relatively separate worlds of painting, pottery, figurative sculpture, etc. as conceptualization of "high" crafts and their attendant isolated prejudices and hierarchies. Without the "what is?/is it?" question art might of sidestepped its role as a system of subjective engagement and instead of been relegated as a morally indefensible move on the part of social elites. This may of rippled outwardly to other mediums like music, literature, dance, etc. and ultimately made human creativity a much stifled activity and definitely less diverse than it is today. Without the constant overarching threat of it's subjective status being undermined and scrutinized, art could be likened to civic maintenance or people resource management It might of remained a necessity but it would be devoid of spirit. What is right? Is it clothing? What is wrong? Is it writing? What is nothing? Is it alive?

Edited August 3, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[BTGBullseye]

What he said.

 

Lol

 

Nice long post there dude. (and an interesting read as well)

[Selfsurprise]

What he said.

 

Lol

 

Nice long post there dude. (and an interesting read as well)

Thank you BTG I haven't seen thee around these parts for a little while. Sometimes I simply cannot rein-in my inner Theodor Adorno.

 

ARTWANK ACTIVATE

[BTGBullseye]

You haven't seen me around for a while because I'm in Europe for World Youth Day.(I'm bringing pictures back so you can see where I went)

[Selfsurprise]

You haven't seen me around for a while because I'm in Europe for World Youth Day.(I'm bringing pictures back so you can see where I went)

I hope you're enjoying yourself! I want to see if you truly are a spitting image of Data - as I unconditionally imagine you to be :3

I just looked at a map detailing where the festival has been held since it's founding in the 80's, I'm quite surprised to see that there hasn't yet been a host city in Britain.

[Descriptor]

You haven't seen me around for a while because I'm in Europe for World Youth Day.(I'm bringing pictures back so you can see where I went)

Oh, wow, awesome, did you get to see the Pope speak?

Also, you should visit Ross while you're there!

It's in Poland, right?

[BTGBullseye]

I just looked at a map detailing where the festival has been held since it's founding in the 80's, I'm quite surprised to see that there hasn't yet been a host city in Britain.

Britain won't allow it, that's why.

 

Oh, wow, awesome, did you get to see the Pope speak?

Yes I did, from the jumbotron a mile and a half away from the platform. (when there are 2+ million attendees, it's kinda hard to get close)

Also, you should visit Ross while you're there!

Wrong area of the country, and no spare time. (I was with a group that had a lot of stuff planned)

It's in Poland, right?

Only for a few days. Most of my time was actually spent outside of Poland.

[SCZephyrinus]

#29 What is X and Other Similar Questions:

These types of questions disturb me on a fundamental level. They aren't questions to begin with and would go as far to say they're anti-intellectual. Take for instance the question "What is Art?". For one the term art itself is nebulous at best and calling something art is an injustice to elements that make up the piece. On one hand I recognize the need for convenience that terms like Art provide but I also find these terms to be a hindrance because they effectively constrict the rhetoric we speak. By creating a compound term like Art we invariably lose ways to describe something due to the convenience that terms like Art provide.

 

So back on track, if the terms like art are nebulous then the question becomes "What is Anything?" or "What is x?" which is a completely asinine question which adds nothing to the overall conversation. This in turn weakens the overall conversation and leaves it intellectually lacking. Those question are posed purely for sound cool and deep without having to be either.

 

Humm, I'd refer to denotation and connotation. It's either denotative, in which X is literally X, or it's connotative, where X is what it is in the current context of the conversation. So it's essentially what everybody agrees upon it to be, on varying scales.

 

I'm also assume you didn't mean people asking "what do you /mean/ by X?" but it's still worth mentioning, in which case they're raising it by making sure they're on the same page.

 

I'd also like to add... that usually when I hear these questions asked they aren't asked in an attempt to sound cool or deep, but rather because it's what's actually crossed their minds. Because they don't have a full understanding what it means I guess. Also, intellect/smart is something that's usually broad and has different meanings to different people. Kind of bothers me sometimes that most assume good grades=smart/intellectual.

 

TL;DR: open a dictionary and tell them what it is when someone asks you questions like that.

art- "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

I like that definition.

 

[Heliocentrical]

#30 Reality

Lately I've been having a bit of introspection in regards to the way I go about things. I treat reality the same way a dispassionate stock broker would. I calculate all the values involved factor in risk and back out when I'm likely to be burned. I also don't take stock in something that is unlikely to or doesn't have any return as I consider this to be just a waste of my time.

 

I feel that this a very logical approach to the world and causes many ideas to fall flat on their face. It's the reason that I don't engage in such things as religion, relationships, politics, etc. I can never be 100% sure that they're to my benefit at all times and it's unlikely that they will. So therefore I put no stock in them and walk away completely unharmed. While I'm fine with being passionate towards these concepts asking me to have faith in them without a 100% assured return on the investment is asking too much.

 

As for my sole investment and obsession with video games I know what the return is because I have experienced it first hand. As a game designer I can say without a shadow of a doubt that it's potential is endless so the return of my investment is endless. The medium has so many concepts left unexplored it would be an injustice to leave them as such. I've been obsessed with this idea as long as I can remember. The only limits of this medium's potential is the capacity of the human mind. So I must do everything in my power to spread this idea beyond my own mind and I have been doing so. Everything I have done, everything I have questioned has been in the name of this medium and to know the whole picture of it.

 

This so called reality with it's inherit limitations and constraints will not impede me nor will I give it the mercy of a passing glance. I will not give it the recognition it demands of me because at it's core reality is nothing more than a hollow construct. Reality is dead.

[Vapymid]

But the problem is - as any investor knows - if you don't take the risk, you will never get a return on your investment.

 

Avoiding risk altogether does not work - you just need to think carefully and not put all the eggs in one basket and not risk at any one time more than you can afford to lose and not put good money after bad.

 

I can never be 100% sure that they're to my benefit at all times and it's unlikely that they will. So therefore I put no stock in them and walk away completely unharmed.

You can never be 100% sure of anything. But if you don't invest into something - you are not walking away unharmed. You are harmed just by the fact that you gain nothing while your time on this Earth is ticking away. It's like inflation - if you hold on to your 100 dollar bill for 20 years without putting it to use - you will end up with 50 bucks or so in real money. Even though the piece of paper you're holding is the same and you haven't lost it - you have lost half its value just because of the passage of time... So...

 

Regards

[Heliocentrical]

But the problem is - as any investor knows - if you don't take the risk, you will never get a return on your investment.

Avoiding risk altogether does not work - you just need to think carefully and not put all the eggs in one basket and not risk at any one time more than you can afford to lose and not put good money after bad.

 

I can never be 100% sure that they're to my benefit at all times and it's unlikely that they will. So therefore I put no stock in them and walk away completely unharmed.

You can never be 100% sure of anything. But if you don't invest into something - you are not walking away unharmed. You are harmed just by the fact that you gain nothing while your time on this Earth is ticking away. It's like inflation - if you hold on to your 100 dollar bill for 20 years without putting it to use - you will end up with 50 bucks or so in real money. Even though the piece of paper you're holding is the same and you haven't lost it - you have lost half its value just because of the passage of time... So...

But I need to know if there's a return on my investment. If there isn't or if it's unlikely then my time would still be wasted and I consider the notion of action vs inaction be irrelevant since the result is ultimately the same, a waste of my time. Action needs warrant I don't just do things for the sake of action in of itself. In order for an action to be warranted I must see the value of doing so and if I can't see the value then I simply don't do it. Do the positives/negatives of participation outweigh the positives/negatives of non-participation and if so by how much? Is there enough value to warrant my attention?

[Selfsurprise]

#30 Reality

Lately I've been having a bit of introspection in regards to the way I go about things. I treat reality the same way a dispassionate stock broker would. I calculate all the values involved factor in risk and back out when I'm likely to be burned. I also don't take stock in something that is unlikely to or doesn't have any return as I consider this to be just a waste of my time.

 

I feel that this a very logical approach to the world and causes many ideas to fall flat on their face. It's the reason that I don't engage in such things as religion, relationships, politics, etc. I can never be 100% sure that they're to my benefit at all times and it's unlikely that they will. So therefore I put no stock in them and walk away completely unharmed. While I'm fine with being passionate towards these concepts asking me to have faith in them without a 100% assured return on the investment is asking too much.

 

As for my sole investment and obsession with video games I know what the return is because I have experienced it first hand. As a game designer I can say without a shadow of a doubt that it's potential is endless so the return of my investment is endless. The medium has so many concepts left unexplored it would be an injustice to leave them as such. I've been obsessed with this idea as long as I can remember. The only limits of this medium's potential is the capacity of the human mind. So I must do everything in my power to spread this idea beyond my own mind and I have been doing so. Everything I have done, everything I have questioned has been in the name of this medium and to know the whole picture of it.

 

This so called reality with it's inherit limitations and constraints will not impede me nor will I give it the mercy of a passing glance. I will not give it the recognition it demands of me because at it's core reality is nothing more than a hollow construct. Reality is dead.

Are you aware of a branch of philosophy and critical thinking called phenomenology, Helio? At it's core phenomenology posits that as much as we subject and invest the world and all the things therein to our own individual sense of meaning - or assign a lack thereof, which is hardly any different to reading symbolism or purpose into an object - our sense of "self" is equally shaped by the "thingliness of things" (to paraphrase Heidegger) and that our sense of personable subjective mindful self interacts with a much more objective world of artefacts, materials, states of matter, events and bodies in a way that's much more dualistic and complementary than our egos might openly willing to recognize.

 

This is actually less harrowing and shallow than it might first seem. Unlike entropic and nihilistic trains of thought that contend with the idea that life and human endeavour is inherently devoid of meaning, or even Rand-esque objectivist modes of thinking that argue that reality exists separately from individual will, phenomenology contests the idea that human thought and agency are somehow divided apart from their immediate situation, or that somehow humanity has a binary choice between either ideologically removing ourselves from or subjecting ourselves to reality as the only possible philosophical stances. One French writer who was associated with the phenomenological school that might be prudent to bring up is the erstwhile Maurice Merleau-Ponty.

 

Merleau-Ponty conceived of the human mind and body in an unusual but useful manner. He proposed that as individuals we were in possession of two bodies simultaneously, or more accurately two conceptual iterations of our bodies. He called the more familiar of the two iterations the "personal body" which he associated with both conscious and subconscious thought, our emotional and sensate feelings, our sense of personality and selfhood, and all natural senses and feelings associated in living within and experiencing life within our own bodies. The second and seemingly more distant iteration he called the "prepersonal body" which he associated with a biological and historical truth that (to a degree) separated the fleeting "self" from the organic lineage of our bodies, essentially arguing that the prepersonal body was an element in an inscrutable cosmos of matter. Whilst we are undeniably in possession of a personal and prepersonal aspect from birth, the prepersonal body "existed" long before our individual birth and will continue to exist long after our eventual deaths. In his own words, the prepersonal body invoked a "world more ancient than thought".

 

You might be wondering where I'm going with my knowingly strange ramblings, so I'll surmise the point I was trying to relieve your apparent fears with. You seem to be worried that somehow your interest in computer games overrides everything else you perceive as being meaningful, i.e. relationships, family, creative endeavour, etc and all those other semi-fictitious things found on the rose-tinted pathos-laden checklist that societal norms uncritically demands we desire. Ignore all of my outré preambling the just ask yourself the one real simple question that your commentary raises. Do you feel as though you are missing out?

I think Vapymid's point that if "you don't invest into something - you are not walking away unharmed" is quite prescient and has a sincere value, but only you can honestly determine what it is you value and what it is that makes you content in the-here-and-now. I'm not going to patronise you or presume to "know" what you are feeling, but given that I've garnered an impression that you and I aren't entirely dissimilar from each other, I'll share a little something of my life experience and that which personally drives me.

 

Things that tend to depress me these days are other people's prescribed agendas and uncritical/insincere conduct. Adulthood for me has been a slow but steady acceptance that I'm not cut out for all the social trappings, familial desires or even cherished tropes of individual fulfilment. I'm not against those things, in my opinion misanthropy (for all it's rad cultural cachet) is too futile and one-dimensional to sustain oneself. But I've ultimately come to realize that I'm most content with a roof over my head, a full belly, a desire to keep in touch with friends and family out of love and a need to remain earthbound, but peculiarly at peace with nobodies company other than that of a good book or two, or three... For all the stress, hardship and suffering that life subjects us to, do you truly need to subject yourself to such despairing scrutiny in regards to being involved with something you adore?

 

"A wise man needs few things to make him happy; nothing can satisfy a fool. That is why nearly all men are wretched." - La Rochefoucauld, Réflexions ou Sentences et Maximes morales

[Heliocentrical]

You might be wondering where I'm going with my knowingly strange ramblings, so I'll surmise the point I was trying to relieve your apparent fears with. You seem to be worried that somehow your interest in computer games overrides everything else you perceive as being meaningful, i.e. relationships, family, creative endeavour, etc and all those other semi-fictitious things found on the rose-tinted pathos-laden checklist that societal norms uncritically demands we desire. Ignore all of my outré preambling the just ask yourself the one real simple question that your commentary raises. Do you feel as though you are missing out?

To be honest no, I don't feel that I'm missing out. As hard as I try to find a sense of belonging by empathizing with what regular people value I can't help but find them superfluous which ultimately alienates me even further. Maybe the idea of a community is a misnomer since everyone is different in one way or another. At times it does seem like I'm destined for solitude as an outcast that no one understands. I do apologize for that bit of pretentious dribble and I will say I didn't come up completely empty handed by attempting to seek out others that are like me. I mean I did meet you after all didn't I?

[Selfsurprise]

To be honest no, I don't feel that I'm missing out. As hard as I try to find a sense of belonging by empathizing with what regular people value I can't help but find them superfluous which ultimately alienates me even further. Maybe the idea of a community is a misnomer since everyone is different in one way or another. At times it does seem like I'm destined for solitude as an outcast that no one understands. I do apologize for that bit of pretentious dribble and I will say I didn't come up completely empty handed by attempting to seek out others that are like me. I mean I did meet you after all didn't I?

That's why I still come to the forums. I might meet a like-minded individual or two.

[Heliocentrical]

#31 Romantic Relationships

Alright, I think it's time I confronted this. It's been bothering me so much that I need to talk about it.

 

So my issues with romantic relationships stem from two things, ego and pessimism.

 

Let's start with ego. If I were to even consider a relationship with someone that person would essentially have to be me and I'm not willing to settle for anything less. I've seen what marriages between differing personalities can be like and it isn't pleasant. I don't want to end up in what seems like an unending hell for the rest of my life.

 

Onto pessimism, if I were in a relationship I couldn't help but put it in most negative pessimistic light possible. "She probably hates my guts but she keeps her mouth shut so she can steal money from me." That's what I'll be repeating in my head constantly, over and over again. Romantic relationships sound too good to be true so I immediately suspect they're a scam and something else is going on. It's a defense mechanism to keep me safe.

 

So yeah, basically she would have to be exactly like me and not screw me over at any point. Otherwise no dice. I feel so much better now that I've talked about it.

[BTGBullseye]

Hell is spending an eternity in a room with a duplicate of yourself.

 

It's inevitable that you'll start arguing, then hating each other if you're too similar mentally. There needs to be a moderation between your likes, and hers. Look for someone who likes the 3 or 4 things you like the most, but has other likes that just don't interest you that much. Trying to match the things you DISLIKE is a lot more important, as you'll never go wrong if you both dislike the same things.

[Vapymid]

Hell is spending an eternity in a room with a duplicate of yourself.

Oh, yes! Couldn't agree more with this ^

 

But, Helio... that trust issue is going to poison any relationship... As long as you retain that kind of paranoia - there is a very little chance you will be able to hold a relationship.

 

You can and should be cautious in the beginning, of course, but you must always give your counterpart the benefit of the doubt. Presumption of honesty and not the other way round.

 

Regards