Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Do you Tao?

13567

Posts

  • TiemlerTiemler Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I checked out the Tao te Ching at a bookstore once. Opened it up, and the first thing it said was, "The Tao which can be written down is not the true Tao." I put it back on the shelf and said, "well, that just saved me eight bucks."

    Seriously, though. I am fascinated by the aspects of Buddhism that are based on empirical observation of the world around us. And recognition of our intertwined fate. But when it overreaches by getting into enlightenment and reincarnation and all that, I lose interest.

  • NisslNissl Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Sarcastro wrote:
    This is why so many lessons appear to be nonsense or paradox, because they are designed to be easily reversed in this way to establish the real meaning and understanding of what is meant. This is the way when one must work without inherently defining the things they are realizing. In the Tao, to define the nature of a thing is to lose it. In knowing the Tao, you can see why this is true, but you cannot really explain how this is true, only bring someone else to the same undefined open-ended conclusions and way of thinking.

    Well, I agree with everything Sarcastro wrote about paradox and the nature of eastern texts like the tao te ching and the zen koans. It took me a couple years of reading eastern texts to wrap my mind around the fact that I couldn't truly wrap my mind around reality, that thoughts, symbolic logic, etc. are the mind's attempt to get a handle on reality rather than representing reality itself. In some ways this insight is blindingly obvious, but at the same time its implications can be extremely subtle and complicated to sort through.

    I thought was the end of the road at first, but gradually realized I wasn't satisfied. I kept pushing and eventually had a direct experience of reality from a perspective far... less restricted than that of my normal functioning mind. Yep, a true kensho experience. What did it change? In the short term, not much. In the long term, it showed me how restricted my perspective was and pushed me to first get outside and observe my thoughts, then the (emotions? not really the right word) that undergird those thoughts. From there it is a long slog to gradually bring (negative patterns of holding?) to the surface, dissolving them. Because if I observe them, they are not me, they are things I'm holding onto. A breakthrough experience is in no way necessary to start this kind of practice, by the way, and I wish I hadn't been so hung up on it beforehand.

    I'm not affiliated with any religious groups, nor do I really consider myself a buddhist or taoist, nor have I found it useful to continue reading eastern texts. There's just practicing to be done, and it tends to be slow and difficult. I do like Charlotte Joko Beck's books, as she has adapted zen teachings to modern American culture and emphasizes the process rather than the insight.

    360: Purkinje
  • ihopiusihopius Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Tiemler wrote: »
    I checked out the Tao te Ching at a bookstore once. Opened it up, and the first thing it said was, "The Tao which can be written down is not the true Tao." I put it back on the shelf and said, "well, that just saved me eight bucks."

    All that koan is really saying is that there is information that cannot be described completely, or at all, by abstract symbolic systems. Be it language, math, art or culture, each medium has it's limitations. For example, one's idea, conception or description of a pipe is not in fact a pipe.

    I'm curious if there is something in modern information theory which basically says the same thing.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    A block of wood untooled, though small, may still excel the world.

    Taoism is the shit.

    The empty bowl isn't defeatist, Shinto. It's just to show you how something can be valuable precisely for what it isn't.

  • METAzraeLMETAzraeL Registered User
    edited May 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    The bits that veer into... I suppose you could call it overspecificity, I can't think of a better word. The bits that are clearly more strongly linked to cultural norms at the time of writing - a fair chunk of the instructions for ruling type stuff, and the gender-essentialism evident in a few other passages, basically.
    Sorry if this was already replied to...in the introduction of the Tao Te Ching that I mainly use, translated by Hua-Ching Ni, he states that the original Ancient Chinese language did not have gender-specific pronouns, but translating it into English has introduced this concept to the book. Of course, there are the sections that talk about the feminine and masculine power, such as in the use of hands in peace and war, that obviously have some sort of discrimination built in. But then again, you have to wonder how much of that is just finding something to convey the same message to English people. Another thing is that Lao Tzu was opposed to government and ruling, yet the Tao Te Ching was meant to guide rulers into being better. And Taoism is specifically not a religion, but I'm sure you know that already.

    I got into it a few years ago when I was sick and had nothing to read but a copy of the Tao of Pooh that I found in the house. Great introductory book :^: I've checked out a bunch of different books and translations, but I mostly stick by the one I already mentioned. This book also includes the first (apparently) translation of the Hua Hu Ching, one of Lao Tzu's later teachings that was passed on by word-of-mouth.

    I've looked at the I Ching a few times, but the only ones I've liked are the huge, expensive ones I've seen at stores. Does anyone have a version they'd recommend? I'd also like to find good books on the mythology and culture of these times.


    dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
    sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
  • GoodOmensGoodOmens Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    ihopius wrote: »

    All that koan is really saying is that there is information that cannot be described completely, or at all, by abstract symbolic systems. Be it language, math, art or culture, each medium has it's limitations. For example, one's idea, conception or description of a pipe is not in fact a pipe.

    I'm curious if there is something in modern information theory which basically says the same thing.

    It certainly resonates with Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and quantum uncertainty.

    steam_sig.png
    IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Tiemler wrote: »
    I checked out the Tao te Ching at a bookstore once. Opened it up, and the first thing it said was, "The Tao which can be written down is not the true Tao." I put it back on the shelf and said, "well, that just saved me eight bucks."

    Seriously, though. I am fascinated by the aspects of Buddhism that are based on empirical observation of the world around us. And recognition of our intertwined fate. But when it overreaches by getting into enlightenment and reincarnation and all that, I lose interest.

    Daoism isn't Buddhism.

    That's not some clever joke about cryptic phrasing, it's a statement of empirical fact.

    irtt;
    I think there are a lot of useful perspectives to be gained from a serious reading of the Daodejing (I hate T's and ch's, so I like the old spelling conventions and will stick with them since neither one is right or wrong anyway kthxgofuckagoat). The idea that everyone's path will be different, the stuff about duality, the water metaphors are fun, the influence it had in the development of jeet kune do is pretty interesting, etc. What it really comes down to is that you can get as much use out of it as you want to. Some people don't want to because it's more fun to go "ololz ancient chinese secret ninja-majik rofl!"

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    It's there in Tai Chi as well. The game of push-hands is all about combining offensive power with completely passive resistance. By making yourself completely passive you can force someone else to waste his energy. The passive meeting the active is the root of all Chinese Philosophy particularly Taosim. The "feminine" aspect Cat seems to take exception to is just a metaphor for passive energy. If anything it's valued higher in Taoism and other schools than the masculine or active energy. It's there in Confucianism as well since Confucius teaches more about leading through example and wise advice than through active leadership.

  • Rolly RizlaRolly Rizla __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Tiemler wrote: »
    I checked out the Tao te Ching at a bookstore once. Opened it up, and the first thing it said was, "The Tao which can be written down is not the true Tao." I put it back on the shelf and said, "well, that just saved me eight bucks."QUOTE]

    That right there is the essence of Tao... wisdom plucked from the river.

    Personally, I enjoy a form of meditation through information overload.

    Letting your thoughts flow freely, while your mind assembles relevant information in the background.

  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    A block of wood untooled, though small, may still excel the world.

    Taoism is the shit.

    The empty bowl isn't defeatist, Shinto. It's just to show you how something can be valuable precisely for what it isn't.

    I didn't say it was defeatist. I was just making fun of its vagueness. Or maybe just the vagueness of its defenders sometimes.

    And to be fair, the empty bowl and the uncarved block are some of the clearer ideas.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I wouldn't term Taoism anti-intellectual. it's anti-logical. The difference is Tao doesn't encourage you to not think at all but rather to be intuitive rather than overly analytical.

    Considering that logic is one of the biggest parts of intellectualism, being anti-logical is pretty much the same thing.

  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    I wouldn't term Taoism anti-intellectual. it's anti-logical. The difference is Tao doesn't encourage you to not think at all but rather to be intuitive rather than overly analytical.

    Considering that logic is one of the biggest parts of intellectualism, being anti-logical is pretty much the same thing.

    It's a little bit of a stretch to go from the fact that the definition of intellectualism technically references logic to the claim that it's impossible for anything not to be retarded unless it's grounded in conventional formal logic.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    I wouldn't term Taoism anti-intellectual. it's anti-logical. The difference is Tao doesn't encourage you to not think at all but rather to be intuitive rather than overly analytical.

    Considering that logic is one of the biggest parts of intellectualism, being anti-logical is pretty much the same thing.

    So is every form of art anti-intellectual? Ever notice how most logical explanations of how art works end up muddled and incomprehensible? Even the ones that work still leave plenty of unanswered questions. That's because it works off a different kind of intelligence. People are not logic computers or if they are they're so complex we don't even halfway understand it. That's honestly why I find people like Loren so infuriating even when i agree with them. The non logical = inherently stupid mentality simply ignores a enormous chunk of human experience. Think about it for a second. How fucking dull would life be if everything made perfect logical sense?

  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    I wouldn't term Taoism anti-intellectual. it's anti-logical. The difference is Tao doesn't encourage you to not think at all but rather to be intuitive rather than overly analytical.

    Considering that logic is one of the biggest parts of intellectualism, being anti-logical is pretty much the same thing.

    So is every form of art anti-intellectual? Ever notice how most logical explanations of how art works end up muddled and incomprehensible? Even the ones that work still leave plenty of unanswered questions. That's because it works off a different kind of intelligence. People are not logic computers or if they are they're so complex we don't even halfway understand it. That's honestly why I find people like Loren so infuriating even when i agree with them. The non logical = inherently stupid mentality simply ignores a enormous chunk of human experience. Think about it for a second. How fucking dull would life be if everything made perfect logical sense?

    Around 15.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Think about it for a second. How fucking dull would life be if everything made perfect logical sense?

    I wouldn't have a problem with it. Just because things make logical sense doesn't mean they are easily predictable.

  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Think about it for a second. How fucking dull would life be if everything made perfect logical sense?

    I wouldn't have a problem with it. Just because things make logical sense doesn't mean they are easily predictable.

    Dude, there's way more to keeping things interesting than just going "surprise!" all the time.

    Edit: Nearly everything pertaining to aesthetics employs illogic as a core mechanic.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    ^ True.

    A painting for example is just a really neat trick, a way of organizing brush strokes so they come to represent understandings. But a painting is not 'real', if you take a close enough look the illusion dissapates. Since brush strokes can never be the reality of what is represented, the art is contained into how to lie and misrepresent one's self so effectively that the veiwer may actually become confused as to whether or not the painting is as real as any of thier other observations.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • Rolly RizlaRolly Rizla __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Taoism appeals to the emotional intellect. It is more concerned with quality than quantity. It's not anti-intellectual. If anything, it's intellect overdrive.

    Learning how to tap your dreaming mind while still awake is not what one would consider a logical endeavour. But accessing the wealth of information that normally lays dormant in one's sub-conscious mind allows one to surpass normal logical limitations, which is what allows a taoist to 'feel the flow of reality' around them.

    It's not illogical... it's just a quality-based logic which defies a universal definition by it's very nature of being based on individual perspective.

  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    ^ True.

    A painting for example is just a really neat trick, a way of organizing brush strokes so they come to represent understandings. But a painting is not 'real', if you take a close enough look the illusion dissapates. Since brush strokes can never be the reality of what is represented, the art is contained into how to lie and misrepresent one's self so effectively that the veiwer may actually become confused as to whether or not the painting is as real as any of thier other observations.

    Doesn't even have to be about being realistic, man. How much logical sense does it make to try to draw a picture of a feeling? Particularly when it's not even a pleasant feeling?

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    ^ True.

    A painting for example is just a really neat trick, a way of organizing brush strokes so they come to represent understandings. But a painting is not 'real', if you take a close enough look the illusion dissapates. Since brush strokes can never be the reality of what is represented, the art is contained into how to lie and misrepresent one's self so effectively that the viewer may actually become confused as to whether or not the painting is as real as any of their other observations.

    Doesn't even have to be about being realistic, man. How much logical sense does it make to try to draw a picture of a feeling? Particularly when it's not even a pleasant feeling?

    Painting an unpleasant feeling could be considered a form of catharsis.

    Just because a painting uses an illusion to look like something does not mean that there aren't good reasons for making the painting.

  • Rolly RizlaRolly Rizla __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Sneezer wrote: »
    I am a Taoist, I meditate, read the Tao Te Ching (Dhow Day Jing) and Zhuangzhi and try to follow some of the teachings of Lao-Tzu and Zhuangzi. What i'm asking is when someone mentions Taoism, what do you think of? Ying-Yang, bunch O' monks or a crazy patch of people following a non-existant 'code'?

    The Matrix has you.

  • Bad KittyBad Kitty Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Chapter 3 wrote:
    Therefore, in the government of the Sage:
    He empties their minds,
    And fills their bellies.
    Weakens their ambition,
    And strengthens their bones.

    He constantly causes the people to be without knowledge and without desires.
    If he can bring it about that those with knowledge simply do not dare to act,
    Then three is nothing that will not be in order.
    Chapter 65 wrote:
    Those who practiced the Way in antiquity,
    Did not use it to enlighten people.
    Rather, they used it to make them dumb.
    Now the reason why people are difficult to rule is because of their knowledge;
    As a result, to use knowledge to rule the state
    Is thievery of the state;
    To use ignorance to rule the state
    Is kindness to the state.

    Well, I suppose these passages can be justified if you somehow define knowledge as a bad thing. After all, it is true that an educated and skeptical general public is much more difficult to rule.
    My translation says that the knowledge referred to here is the self-serving Confucian wisdom and intellect. But these are passages on government ruled by the Sage and whenever I read them I get reminded of Machiavelli.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    if you're talking Confucius or tao I'm not sure here but the two are quite different

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I wouldn't think that a Taoist would be on the penny-arcade forums.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    When did they let you out of your cage?

  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    ^ True.

    A painting for example is just a really neat trick, a way of organizing brush strokes so they come to represent understandings. But a painting is not 'real', if you take a close enough look the illusion dissapates. Since brush strokes can never be the reality of what is represented, the art is contained into how to lie and misrepresent one's self so effectively that the viewer may actually become confused as to whether or not the painting is as real as any of their other observations.

    Doesn't even have to be about being realistic, man. How much logical sense does it make to try to draw a picture of a feeling? Particularly when it's not even a pleasant feeling?

    Painting an unpleasant feeling could be considered a form of catharsis.

    Just because a painting uses an illusion to look like something does not mean that there aren't good reasons for making the painting.

    Trying to create an image of something that can't be seen doesn't sound illogical at all to you? What about drowning a fish?

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    ^ True.

    A painting for example is just a really neat trick, a way of organizing brush strokes so they come to represent understandings. But a painting is not 'real', if you take a close enough look the illusion dissapates. Since brush strokes can never be the reality of what is represented, the art is contained into how to lie and misrepresent one's self so effectively that the viewer may actually become confused as to whether or not the painting is as real as any of their other observations.

    Doesn't even have to be about being realistic, man. How much logical sense does it make to try to draw a picture of a feeling? Particularly when it's not even a pleasant feeling?

    Painting an unpleasant feeling could be considered a form of catharsis.

    Just because a painting uses an illusion to look like something does not mean that there aren't good reasons for making the painting.

    Trying to create an image of something that can't be seen doesn't sound illogical at all to you? What about drowning a fish?
    A photo is a 2D image of a 3D event but that doesn't mean photos are illogical. How is attempting to represent a 3D image on a 2D thing different from attempting to represent an emotion in a painting?

  • Rolly RizlaRolly Rizla __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    I wouldn't think that a Taoist would be on the penny-arcade forums.

    Can you imagine a better place?

    The price is right, after all...

  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Bad Kitty wrote: »
    Chapter 3 wrote:
    Therefore, in the government of the Sage:
    He empties their minds,
    And fills their bellies.
    Weakens their ambition,
    And strengthens their bones.

    He constantly causes the people to be without knowledge and without desires.
    If he can bring it about that those with knowledge simply do not dare to act,
    Then three is nothing that will not be in order.
    Chapter 65 wrote:
    Those who practiced the Way in antiquity,
    Did not use it to enlighten people.
    Rather, they used it to make them dumb.
    Now the reason why people are difficult to rule is because of their knowledge;
    As a result, to use knowledge to rule the state
    Is thievery of the state;
    To use ignorance to rule the state
    Is kindness to the state.

    Well, I suppose these passages can be justified if you somehow define knowledge as a bad thing. After all, it is true that an educated and skeptical general public is much more difficult to rule.
    My translation says that the knowledge referred to here is the self-serving Confucian wisdom and intellect. But these are passages on government ruled by the Sage and whenever I read them I get reminded of Machiavelli.

    The smart ruler keeps his people sufficiently stupid such that they're easily controlled. That actually isn't even fuzzy, that's blatantly obvious. Being smart doesn't necessarily mean being a decent human being. Basically my read on both those passages is that Daoism justifies my being very, very leery of the government.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    That and fish can, in fact, drown.

    So.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    ^ True.

    A painting for example is just a really neat trick, a way of organizing brush strokes so they come to represent understandings. But a painting is not 'real', if you take a close enough look the illusion dissapates. Since brush strokes can never be the reality of what is represented, the art is contained into how to lie and misrepresent one's self so effectively that the viewer may actually become confused as to whether or not the painting is as real as any of their other observations.

    Doesn't even have to be about being realistic, man. How much logical sense does it make to try to draw a picture of a feeling? Particularly when it's not even a pleasant feeling?

    Painting an unpleasant feeling could be considered a form of catharsis.

    Just because a painting uses an illusion to look like something does not mean that there aren't good reasons for making the painting.

    Trying to create an image of something that can't be seen doesn't sound illogical at all to you? What about drowning a fish?
    A photo is a 2D image of a 3D event but that doesn't mean photos are illogical. How is attempting to represent a 3D image on a 2D thing different from attempting to represent an emotion in a painting?

    The photograph looks like the 3D event. The Scream does not look like fear. Fear looks like the marked parts of this brain displaying heavy activity:
    mrifeartopvz4.jpg

    Logic is not a substitute-God. It doesn't have to be. You don't need a substitute-God anyway. Get over it.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • Rolly RizlaRolly Rizla __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Bad Kitty wrote: »
    Chapter 3 wrote:
    Therefore, in the government of the Sage:
    He empties their minds,
    And fills their bellies.
    Weakens their ambition,
    And strengthens their bones.

    He constantly causes the people to be without knowledge and without desires.
    If he can bring it about that those with knowledge simply do not dare to act,
    Then three is nothing that will not be in order.
    Chapter 65 wrote:
    Those who practiced the Way in antiquity,
    Did not use it to enlighten people.
    Rather, they used it to make them dumb.
    Now the reason why people are difficult to rule is because of their knowledge;
    As a result, to use knowledge to rule the state
    Is thievery of the state;
    To use ignorance to rule the state
    Is kindness to the state.

    Well, I suppose these passages can be justified if you somehow define knowledge as a bad thing. After all, it is true that an educated and skeptical general public is much more difficult to rule.
    My translation says that the knowledge referred to here is the self-serving Confucian wisdom and intellect. But these are passages on government ruled by the Sage and whenever I read them I get reminded of Machiavelli.

    The smart ruler keeps his people sufficiently stupid such that they're easily controlled. That actually isn't even fuzzy, that's blatantly obvious. Being smart doesn't necessarily mean being a decent human being. Basically my read on both those passages is that Daoism justifies my being very, very leery of the government.

    Ignorance isn't stupidity.

    Suppose the knowledge you're being kept ignorant of involves the evils of the world?

    Knowledge is powerful, but it can also degrade humanity.

  • AresProphetAresProphet you would look a little better don't you know if you just wore less makeupRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Reading through this thread has brought me a new understanding of why my hippy sister likes Tao. It makes perfect sense if you're stoned out of your mind.

    Everything she, or anyone else, has ever told me about Tao leads me to believe it's really just about using flowery language to obfuscate meanings. I would hate to try to be a Taoist writer, in the same way I'd hate to be a vampire who's allergic to blood.

    but it's hard to realize
    when you're sky high
    fighting off the spaceships
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    ^ True.

    A painting for example is just a really neat trick, a way of organizing brush strokes so they come to represent understandings. But a painting is not 'real', if you take a close enough look the illusion dissapates. Since brush strokes can never be the reality of what is represented, the art is contained into how to lie and misrepresent one's self so effectively that the viewer may actually become confused as to whether or not the painting is as real as any of their other observations.

    Doesn't even have to be about being realistic, man. How much logical sense does it make to try to draw a picture of a feeling? Particularly when it's not even a pleasant feeling?

    Painting an unpleasant feeling could be considered a form of catharsis.

    Just because a painting uses an illusion to look like something does not mean that there aren't good reasons for making the painting.

    Trying to create an image of something that can't be seen doesn't sound illogical at all to you? What about drowning a fish?
    A photo is a 2D image of a 3D event but that doesn't mean photos are illogical. How is attempting to represent a 3D image on a 2D thing different from attempting to represent an emotion in a painting?

    The photograph looks like the 3D event. The Scream does not look like fear. Fear looks like the marked parts of this brain displaying heavy activity:
    mrifeartopvz4.jpg

    Logic is not a substitute-God. It doesn't have to be. You don't need a substitute-God anyway. Get over it.
    The point of Scream is to make an image that people know represents a person in fear without being told what it represents.

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    The photograph looks like the 3D event. The Scream does not look like fear.

    If the artist was trying to actually paint fear then they would, indeed, be making a catagory mistake. Like trying to give the prime factorization of Ceasar.

    But if they were trying to paint something that would merely communicate a fact about the nature of fear, then there would be nothing at all irrational about their behavior. This is also, in my opinion, a far more natural way to interpret their activity--especially because when interpreted in this manner, said behavior actually makes sense.

  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Ignorance isn't stupidity.

    Suppose the knowledge you're being kept ignorant of involves the evils of the world?

    Knowledge is powerful, but it can also degrade humanity.

    Hard to destroy, fight or defend against things that are effectively kept hidden from you.
    Reading through this thread has brought me a new understanding of why my hippy sister likes Tao. It makes perfect sense if you're stoned out of your mind.

    Everything she, or anyone else, has ever told me about Tao leads me to believe it's really just about using flowery language to obfuscate meanings. I would hate to try to be a Taoist writer, in the same way I'd hate to be a vampire who's allergic to blood.

    I can crap all over ideologies without bringing up any points of substance too, but I don't want to look like a colossal douche.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    The photograph looks like the 3D event. The Scream does not look like fear.

    If the artist was trying to actually paint fear then they would, indeed, be making a catagory mistake. Like trying to give the prime factorization of Ceasar.

    But if they were trying to paint something that would merely communicate a fact about the nature of fear, then there would be nothing at all irrational about their behavior. This is also, in my opinion, a far more natural way to interpret their activity--especially because when interpreted in this manner, said behavior actually makes sense.

    Yeah because Munch and expressionists in general are notoriously level-headed and sensible people. No mental illness or anything. Of the movement in general I have to say, if chopping of your ear isn't a logically sound way to get laid, I don't know what is.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    The photograph looks like the 3D event. The Scream does not look like fear.

    If the artist was trying to actually paint fear then they would, indeed, be making a catagory mistake. Like trying to give the prime factorization of Ceasar.

    But if they were trying to paint something that would merely communicate a fact about the nature of fear, then there would be nothing at all irrational about their behavior. This is also, in my opinion, a far more natural way to interpret their activity--especially because when interpreted in this manner, said behavior actually makes sense.

    Yeah because Munch and expressionists in general are notoriously level-headed and sensible people. No mental illness or anything. Of the movement in general I have to say, if chopping of your ear isn't a logically sound way to get laid, I don't know what is.

    Gogh wasn't trying to get laid when he cut part of his ear off. Being insane doesn't mean that you can't do anything that makes sense. Not everybody in the expressionism movement was insane.

  • Katchem_ashKatchem_ash __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Eastern Religions always were interesting to me. Sorry if this is off topic but whats the difference between Confusium, Shinto and Taoism? All of these seem interesting to me.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Gogh wasn't trying to get laid when he cut part of his ear off.

    Oh well in that case the act of cutting off his ear makes perfect sense.
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Being insane doesn't mean that you can't do anything that makes sense.

    No but it does mean you're prone to doing things that don't make sense, thus that it would be pretty silly to maintain "whatever makes the most sense" as the default assumption for your motivation in doing things most people don't do, let alone to make absolute claims that everything you do is for reasons that make sense.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Sign In or Register to comment.