First, we discussed apirori knowledge and all that in that other thread which also led to perception between you and I.. (oops)..

ok, love.

Love = Energy = Force = Physics = Motivation = Action/Reaction -- Cause/Effect.. I could go on.

The point of that was to draw a universal. Something connects us: what is it? We implement standards, policies, beliefs, norms. We live in different ways, we interpret our environment differently and yet we all share some common universals..here are some:

- all cultures (people) create art as a manifestation of their experiences. also, to add, cultural artifacts are always left behind as archeology holds true for every society.
- all cultures create a form of government (some are even stateless societies, but it can still be classed as such)
- all cultures reproduce
- all cultures consume food

What's the motive? What's the drive? yeah, yeah, you eat cause you're hungry. Your body tells you to eat, blah blah... cutting past the crap.

Love = every emotion in my arguement. I'm not talking about the expressions of love, not at all. I'm just labelling it "Love" because it's what I'm dubbing the Positive Energy in which we continue our existence and somewhere in there, our sense of Truth that we are doing something Right because We Are Still Alive. (until the sun blows up...to me, the Sun is God to let you in on a personal belief..). So, by that, you could call it Hate or Angst or Whatever for all I care. "Love" just makes more sense, appropriately, at that... hope that's clear.

So, we exist. We live, we do our thing and we all end up creating a piece of "art" at some point. No matter class, gender, race, etc..

Art not being music or poetry or whatever per se.. art being artifacts that your given culture/society utilizes in order to function.. not based on necessity either.. although, I am (slightly) arguing that even things like songs and poetry are a necessity of society since a healthy/happy mind needs to exist (and encouraged through poetry) to persist in life....which leads to the Love or Desire to create....

Link this to any action we perform that is linked to the universals I listed above and a picture begins to form.....and how does this link to Truth? Truth is our existence, and again, our perception that our actions and our thoughts (whatever way you want to define that paradox) are reflected upon our creations, our work, our emotions (our Love).

To maintain a sense of existence requires acknowledgement of this kind of cycle... mind you, I do not want to hear anything Descartes said....the man was just trying to make ends meat and be famous. If he really believed that we didn't exist or that nothing was real, well, he shouldn't have gone to the toilet when he felt he had to take a shit. He should have shit on his leg and laughed and said that his shit was non-existent and I would rub it in his stupid-ass face and he can't get mad, because..! That shit doesn't exist!! (yes, obviously i don't like Descartes...)

Well, if that made any more sense (hopefully)...suggest your counter-arguement or take it somewhere else.. like the Self or deeper insets to morals perhaps..as this thread is supposed to stick to.. which it sort of is.. somewhat, heh..

okay, so let me see if i got this...

you're saying, that because mankind shares a common goal, which is to maintain survival and structure with one another, to better suit ourselves, is an indication that by doing is justified, and "right," in as much as it sustains our existence, proving our existence, whereby we can see it as a truth?

and by doing so, we share a sense of "love" which is a "positive approach" to it by the fact what we create (art, and things to ensure our survial), all of which is the product of our perception....

thus, our experiences (which is based on perception), is re-created and manifested by our human-ness (creating art, ensuring survival) all for the sake that we "love" our human-ness, in as much as it proves we exist?

Yes! (it sounds like you're about to say, "you're a moron!") but.. yes!

And it even incorporates that crap about "we're all selfish fucks" in it too..

I can only hold the drumroll for so long

hmmm....i'ma hafta ponder on this for awhile, hopefully someone else will have something to add....

cool. take your time, dude..

By the way; just wanted to add; I think Nietzsche was quite the nut. Yes he had some quite memorable quotes and some interesting things to say and yet overall I would have to say that he rambled on a bit too much.

okay, i don't know if this is really going to be effective or not, but something about your response just doesn't sit with me, and so here i am, trying to think of something, to pinpoint what it is that bothers me, and lo-and-behold, i look down, and staring right at me is: Philosophies of Art & Beauty....which even has the "Birth of Tragedy" by Nietzsche in it (which occured to me, i need to read up on)

anywho, i'm sitting here thinking, and BAM!

The recreations:

there have been a multitude of theories written on this subject....you have the philosophy of art itself, Sartre's essay on "Writing," and you even have Heidegger's theory on "the thing" (i forget the actual term, but i shall locate it)....all of which have to do with creation.

In terms of the artist, I did some brief skimming through my "Philosophies of Art" and found a few things of interest.

Nietzsche's statement that "the artist truly sees the world" and Plato's ideas about the three arts concerned with all things.

In Nietzsche's statement (and I'm making a bold proclaim here), is that of all the people create, all the people that represent the human-ness, only the artist does it truthfully. An artist sees the world more so than a shovel-maker. An artist sees the world more so than a priest. The artist sees the world, sees within himself, and re-creates what he's seen. From the artist, the rest of us can achieve a truth pertaining to life. That there exists a human, in touch with the world and his own human-ness, and has the capacity to show it to us.

But then there arises a problem. You have all the approaches of "what did the artist really mean?" Was the artist trying to say X? Was the artist trying to say Y through X? Was the artist trying to say "make up your own letter." Or, was the artist trying to say, it is X, but only in as much as you start at A.

Which is the answer? Which is the truth? One could argue they're all truths (as would be perception's proclaim), but you cannot avoid the theory that there only is one truth that outweighs the other. And in fact, many artists proclaim that the answer is the one they give (it is X ), while most criticis/onlookers proclaim the answer is the one they proclaim (make up your own letter).

Which is where Sartre comes to mind. In his essay on writing, he proclaimed that only the writer of prose can truly portray the sense of truth. For only the prose writer can leave no error in ambiquity, false themes, hidden symbolism, etc. Writers of "poetry" can't accurately proclaim X, for they leave room for error as seen by the onlookers. If the onlooker can't see X, then X hasn't been fully justified. But with prose, it is possible to see X...or rather, more so of X than that of the poet's

So what you have, is that with perception, some people are more intune with their human-ness than others. The prose writer sees the world, shows it to an onlooker, and if done correctly, and justifiably so, then the onlooker too has seen X. The onlooker has shared a sense of the writer's human-ness. If a poet sees the world, recreates it, shows it to an onlooker, then the onlooker might see X, but not as much as the poet sees X; or the onlooker might not see X at all. Thus, the onlooker has shared a sense of the poet's human-ness, but not as much as the prose writer's.

And then again, the onlooker's human-ness must also be taken into question. Which is where Heidegger comes to mind.

I forget the actual terms, but roughly stated: the evolution of thing:

1. the thing in concept.
2. the thing in the natural world.
3. the thing being created.
4. the thing thinging.

SO: a shovel.

1. the concept
2. the tree, the metal.
3. the handle, the spade.
4. the digging.

At what point in time is the shovel a shovel? And here is a definate question for perception. Perception again, could argue, that at every stage the thing is the thing! Even as a tree, and as metal, the shovel is a shovel?! I think not...

Evidently, even when the shovel has been put together, and sits at a department store, it still isn't a shovel. The shovel truly isn't a shovel until it does some shoveling. (the thing thinging)

So, what you have, is that the characteristic of human-ness is truly so when it is human-ness-ing. But even then, how far should it be human-ness-ing? Is the prose writer more human-ness-ing than the poet? The artist than the priest? The onlooker than the ignorant?

And here we have Plato...

"That there are three arts concerned with all things: one which uses, another which makes, a third which imitates them."

You have the shovel maker, the shoveler, the artist protraying these.

Which is the true artist? Which one truly represents the truth behind perception? Which one portrays the human-ness? All three? Can we not live without one? Does this in turn justify one's human-ness as more human-ness-ed? Which one is of the gravest importance? Or, is that all an argument of perception itself?

Nietzsche's artist arguement is too romantic. I'd love to agree with it, but it's unfair, it's biast and it's unfair. If anything, it's Wrong (morally & academically)... you get conflicting perspectives wherever you go.....but I would love to agree, don't get me wrong...i would, i would.....but anyway, this would lead to a discussion on how Art is so overlooked these days.. (we'll talk about that in another thread; make a note to do so if you want..)

Heidegger is just being structuralist in his arguement. Structure has a simple flaw to it. It requires all parts and if one part is questioned or removed, it seems to all fall apart and be critisized (and often, immaturely ridiculed) to no end until it gets thrown in the waste-bin. To address it more philosophically: if I have a band and there are 4 members making up said band (we're called "Cobwebs Fear Vacuums" ) and then one of the band members decides to up and shoot himself full o' heroin and he's dead. Typical. Does that mean it's the end of Cobwebs Fear Vacuums? No! They will persist with only 3 members! (unfortunately)....but they still exist and they still make the same sounding (perception) music. Obviously, they still exist and they are still unchanged they are still "thinging" as the shovel does...

As for Plato's little synopsis there...well.. a band example again. Me: I own a guitar. I am a guitarist. I make music (or at least a lot of noize) with said guitar. I am all three: the supreme being (as is anyone else) condensed to one being, one perception, one Self, one reality.

I think it is a bunch of poppycock. The world is as real and as spiritual to a street beggar as it is to a famous oil painter. Both just have differing perspectives and environments from which to draw thier perspectives from.

To say and/or to justify that one perspective is more real or more textured than another is to demean the others sense of reality.

The only truth in life is that which we create and is a self-justified reality.

Philosophy waxes over romantic often times and attempts to justify feelings of superiourity that are self-created. I am not sayinhg persay that philosophers are superiour-minded and yet this often seems to be the case. Lofty words and ideals often lend credence to this perspective.

Well said, Dyshade. Although, the Superman avatar you sport at the moment now reeks of irony.

Take care to note though: any position of power (government, artistic, domestic, etc) gives rise to "superior" judgement which impacts on decisions and ultimately the lives of those with less power. That's the paradox.

Possible escape? It involves throwing away all our materialistic desires (a spiritual path)...which is just horribly unfathomable to our reality. No sarcasm intended...here is where Hobbsian theory (and others) comes into play (arguements concerning selfishness and the will to survive...which I think is just on the other end of the spectrum laced with a love for capitalism)...

Paradox. Gotta choose a side. Gotta fight the fight. Go team go.

Irony my pants

Anyways I live in constant paradox. And why not. Hell the human body is one huge paradox of being and thought. At constant odds with itself and everything around it.
The only peace to be found is the peace of acknowledgement of strife. Realization that every step we take will be one met with resistance.

I can be selfish and yet love at the same time. Hell sometimes love is the most selfish of feelings and yet exactly the opposite because one would sacrifice in order to preserve that love.

Yes, yes, being in balance. Sounds neat and tidy, but to actually practice this where it becomes a norm of our every day lives..?

It's easier said than done, easier preached than practiced...and so on.

I mean, here.. on DF.. a dark, gloomy, morbid, mean kinda place...loaded with seemingly lots of insightful, nice people and yadda yadda...but for some reason, we all like shades of blacks and greys (over yellows and oranges) for instance.. why is this? Of course it's all semantics but so is the process of becoming a successful, rich lawyer for instance. You're gonna die, maybe tomorrow, who knows...so why "plan for the future"..? Lets live for the moment. Lets live for tomorrow. Lets live for yesterday. No one really cares, ultimately, how a person lives (unless it's a personal relation)... but it's fun, I suppose, to understand why.

At least for the "soft science" types...if not for that interest.. I'd never get a job in the future! hah!

p.s. superheroes don't wear pants, do they? i thought it was stretched spandex..

quite interesting, and i see where your arguments are stemming from (both of you)....but i still think there is something to be said about (by what Dyshade's dubbed) superior-perspective.........everyone's perspective might help justify the sense of "self".....but one's sense of "self" can be far more superior than another's.....

and to be sophisticated about it, i'm an existentialist.....cogito ergo sum......my sense of my "self" is far more superior than your sense of your "self," for no matter how you justify it, i'm not you, i don't understand your "self" and yaddah, yaddah, yaddah......my sense of my "self" is superior to everyone elses.....if it weren't, if they were all equal, then the very semantic definition of "self" should be tossed out the window and replaced with "humanity" or no, with "HUMAN-NESS"

also, Quiet..... you're mistaken: your band argument

1. the concept
2. the people, the instruments
3. the 4 of you getting together
4. the 4 of you making music....

should one up and die from an overdose, nothing's really changed from the structure other than a minor detail that doesn't even effect the structure at all.....

and with Plato's....well, one could argue that you're not all three condensed into one, for you can only be one in according to the THING, based on the subject(s) of the THING......

you, MUSICIAN.....

you make music, you use music, you imitate music? what's the subject of each?

it would change......

you make music (why?).....you use music (how?)......you imitate music (in what way?)

the subject of all three has changed......

thus, you do have three types of artists in accordance with the thing....the artists portrays the subject, which is different in each context.....there isn't one direct object linking them all together, except for music......

now, i think i know what your argument might be, and i'm already preparing a counter-argument....so bring it! muwahahahahahaha! no but seriously, good discussions all the way around....

haha. this is a right vs. wrong eh? well, how 'bout i shoot bullets at your feet and send you dancing on your way! erhm.. i'll respond soon enough..

quickly though, as to the band thing..

STRUCTURE

i should rephrase/correct myself: one member dies, and never replaced means that the band is without their singer. they'll never be the same. i should have stated that they will never be that same band again. They can carry the same name and perceive the same "spirit" of the band, but to our eyes, that band is forever changed. Kind of if Guns n' Roses got rid of Axel. You cannot have that band without Axel. Period.

Sorry, that's what I meant..

PLATO EXAMPLE

As for the Plato thing.. I fail to understand it at this point..??? I don't understand the motive behind it, I guess. Explain (again).

oh, well then in accordance with structure, you would have a new one:

1. concept (with singer dead)
2. the musicians left, the instruments
3. the 3 of them
4. the 3 of them making music....


okay, Plato.....now, i'm by no means that well trained in Plato, but it would seem:

THE MAKER, THE USER, THE IMITATOR

you make music, you use music, you imitate music...

OBJECT: music

SUBJECT(s) of MAKE: how it's made (with tones, structure, style, meaning, instruments used, etc. etc. etc. etc.)

SUBJECT of USE: the intent, purpose? (for the love of music, to get chicks, recognition, fame, etc. etc. etc. etc.)

SUBJECT of IMITATION: the portrayal? (now, i don't quite know exactly in what way this context should be used....but let us say: the fan......he imitates the music [which you created] by achieving an emotion......his perception of your music, the mood....he imitates it.....[the Dyonisian concept of it -- Nietzsche]).........i dunno, confusing.....

and again, maybe i'm just talking out of my ass.....but what do you think? got any thoughts on this idea?

READ NEXT POST

OR....hell....what if it means:

THE MAKER: the musician

THE USER: the fan

THE IMITATOR: of the fan or of the musician.....

so, in accordance with you.....

you can be a MAKER, you can be a USER, you can be an IMITATOR, but not as one sole intity of the object music

as MAKER, you make music

as USER, you're a fan of music

as IMITATOR, because you're a fan, you make music......you listen to "goth," you play "goth" music....

i dunno.........AHHHHH!!!!!!!

can we discuss something else now?