Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - dead last

1 [2] 3 ... 42
Interzone / Re: On the function of art
« on: March 25, 2014, 10:38:54 AM »

Interzone / Re: On the function of art
« on: March 25, 2014, 12:09:20 AM »
LOL "copycrow"! I can only hope that will become the first board-specific meme since I've joined in as an active poster. (On another note; if that is really "not funny", then please let me know! The last thing I would want to do is "ruffle some feathers!

Oh, me!)

A friend of mine (who is fun to talk to because his viewpoints are only half-the-time in opposition to mine, and if you don't have at least one friend like this, then you are missing out on a most constructive and entertaining relationship) had a discussion about what art really "is" recently. We came to the agreement that art is defined in the context of utility.

First, we drew a distinction between art and tools. Things get kind of sloppy here but do try to follow if you are that curious. We decided that tools are inventions that exist in the outside world (outside of our minds, wishes, and fantasies), put together by humans for other humans to use, with the express purpose of physically altering the reality acted upon by that tool.

In contrast, art is something that has little (or zero, or negative) practical utility for directly altering the configuration of the physical world. Instead, art is indended to interact most directly with the human psyche, exploiting its reliance on symbols and genetic memory. In this sense, art has utility, because it can indirectly alter the physical constructs outside of mental reality, even though the changes begin in mental constructs, thanks to the art for providing initial blueprins ts for such a construct.

Anyway, whether emotion or feeling has much to do with separating art from tools in the context I've established is an awesome question to think about. Great posts, all.

Interzone / Re: Matter.
« on: March 23, 2014, 05:38:01 PM »
The first time I heard the term 'self-evident' was while reading the US Declaration of Independence. "What a strange word," my adolescent brain mused. "If more truths were self-evident, people would not have much reason to argue." At that age, I still trusted adult creations, institutions, and language completely. The importance of the things that adults did and engaged in was quite 'self-evident' so why question them?

Interzone / Re: The Void.
« on: March 23, 2014, 11:53:01 AM »
Well said! The strange but consistent 'risk versus reward' model could be one of the mind's most powerful defenses against total nihilism (annihilation of meaning and values). Maybe it is such a robust model because it so so flexible, as well as highly personal and therefore very motivating. At any rate, I'm glad that my brain rewards me with a squirt of happy juice whenever I do something risky (favoring intensity of experience over likelehood of safety to body). It's a good thing I'm not genetically or otherwise predisposed to using drugs. My conservative upbringing probably tempered me in just the right way to keep me away from frantic self-destructive experimentation. But only by *this* much.

Metal / Re: Goatcraft to perform in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
« on: March 22, 2014, 07:15:55 PM »
Say what you will about the dude's music, but this establishes his status as " metal as fuck".

Interzone / Re: The Void.
« on: March 22, 2014, 05:38:58 PM »
By the time the ship is submerged, does it even matter?

I also imagine that i know what you mean by "stop-gap" measures. One time I wondered/wandered to the point that my mind was tossing out activity ceaselessly to prevent me from getting to the central production facility of thoughts. Evidently that place is not meant for me. I'm thankful, to an extent. Sort of disappointed, as well.

Interzone / Re: Matter.
« on: March 22, 2014, 05:19:20 PM »
To call something obvious, to me, means that it doesn't need to be questioned. But I guess thay's why we have the term 'self-evident'. Then again I will probably question self-evidence too.

Interzone / Re: The Void.
« on: March 22, 2014, 05:10:00 PM »
Aquarius; I hear what you say. I would even say that anxiety necessitates creativity. Have you ever felt creative without being at least a little anxious ("how will this turn out?")? Not I. Neither can I imagine feeling anxiety without any creativity. That would be hell.

I also copy what you say about the thin line between relaxation and total loss of grip. I've been in such a situation before that I was sure that I'd lost my mind-as-I-know-it, and I knew I was close because I wasn't afraid of never being able to go back. Turns out, the mind is one of the more resilient systems known to man, despite its handful of flaws. A healthy usually has plenty of redundancies to fall back on in cases of exceptionally high stress.

Metal / Re: Best Death Metal Demos
« on: March 22, 2014, 09:00:51 AM »
Sacramentum - Finis Malorum

That and the following album have become my most-listened-to metal recordings over this winter.

Interzone / Re: Now admit it
« on: March 21, 2014, 04:43:10 PM »
Q: How many crows does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: You can't fit crows in a lightbulb.

Interzone / Re: Matter.
« on: March 21, 2014, 04:39:23 PM »
Reading this thread made me think about how I and many people use the word "matter" to describe totally different things.

Technically and for scientific purposes, matter describes most all physically evident stuff that isn't energy. But, when you see a friend looking anxious, you might ask them, "What is the matter?" In that case, you are using the word "matter" in reference to something that is literally immaterial; a psychological condition or situation that your friend is dealing with, or a looming threat or challenge or struggle. So matter also describes something more like a conflict or friction between systems rather than some indivisible piece of real-world substance with a distinct and unique position in space-time.

How did that happen?  Maybe the two definitions do not really describe two clearly different things, and I'm not aware of some deeper root definition that ties them together.

There's your daily dose of dm.org autism.

Interzone / Re: Now admit it
« on: March 21, 2014, 03:24:35 PM »
That would explain why the sneaky slut wears a filter mask in her facebook profile picture.

Interzone / Re: Now admit it
« on: March 21, 2014, 02:25:17 PM »
I'm happy to contribute to this crow-pius display of corny wordplay..

Regardless of our great leaders' various traits and our personal preferences, crow is the best to engage in bouts of humour. That's what I come here for, after all.

Interzone / Re: What does it mean?
« on: March 09, 2014, 08:49:31 PM »
Another response to Wild (and an apology; my smart phone is the only way I have of getting online and its interface makes copying/pasting and quoting more difficult than it should be):

You get my point. I'm not trying to argue for a reason to anthropomorphize the universal mechanisms that keep everything the way it is necessarily. I'm just trying to draw a parallel between that immutable set of universal mechanicis and the traditional notion of God. You understand what I'm saying already.

And in response to crow's last question: Yes. Things do what they do because they can. If water could flow out of your glass, then it would. All things do everything they can, whatever it is. And, if they can't do something right away, they try over and over, until they can. I went for a hike recently (since it was one of the first days this year over 50 degrees and without much snow on the ground) and saw a lot of cliffs with newly dropped boulders. In the cracks of the cliff, water was still frozen, still expanding given the chance, tearing apart the rock further. After years, those cracks will break new boulders off the cliff, destroying it piecemeal. Evil is just as natural process as this. Why do evil? Isn't there a better way? Yes, but if there are alternate paths, they will be explored too, by any organism, or even simpler system.

That's just something I figured, maybe intuitively, but not with much thought, which is why it still makes sense to me after so much time. You know differently?

Interzone / Re: What does it mean?
« on: March 09, 2014, 08:40:19 AM »
In response to Wild's question: I'm not sure what you are asking. Atoms come apart all the time. I was trying to say that nothing is forbidden. If we can't do something, is is because we are incapable, not because we are being obstructed by God or deemed unworthy somehow. It is just that some things cannot be done (like trying to stop or reverse entropy). It is that ilimit of our capacity to enact change on the universe, where begins God's realm. He may as well have nothing to do with us, then, nor us with him.

1 [2] 3 ... 42