Is This Art ... ??
Rob
Came across this recently - huge screen printed train tickets - is
this really art? Is it a joke? Anyone heard of K Harper?
Rob
A debate on the above is raging over here:
http://www.minigallery.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=708
Thur
"Rob" <dmo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7762ba64.05032...@posting.google.com...
The reply must go like this.
If you accept the 20th century notions on art, then there is no
point offering an opinion, because it will not be regarded as
anything more than a subjective opinion. There being no absolute
values in art, which to be fair is consistent with the society from
which the art has sprung.
There have always been loud objections to these ideas, from
all quarters, and mine is (just)one.
From my point of view, he might have well as flung a piece of
dung on the floor of an art gallery, for it shouts look, no values,
look, no content, look, no talent, look, no soul.
--
Thur
the_...@yahoo.com
Rob wrote:
> Hi
>
> Came across this recently - huge screen printed train tickets - is
> this really art? Is it a joke? Anyone heard of K Harper?
+++++++++++++++++++++
there is a great acceptance of sterile graphics in the art scene today,
but this are ultimately is boring. the artist's use of cliches displays
an immature political and social consciousness.
the sarp
Rob Parker
> but this are ultimately is boring. the artist's use of cliches displays
> an immature political and social consciousness.
>
> the sarp
I liked them. Look good as a series and with a bit of humour too. I
don't think the artist requires the onlooker to consider his
political/social consciousness(?) just enjoy them!
Jud Turner
framed as an objective question, but there's really no objective
answer. A better question is "Do I like to look at this" as it is
subjective.
Neil Maxwell
There's no doubt that it's art.
More important questions: Is it meaningful? Does it speak to anyone?
Will it still evoke responses in 100 years? Will anyone care once the
fuss dies down?
Even more important - If you buy it and put it on your wall, will you
kick yourself in a few years?
There's been a huge amount of ultimately meaningless art produced over
the centuries, including stuff that was quite hot in its day. Really,
only 3 things matter:
How does the artist feel about it (this will cease to mean anything
when he shuffles from this earthly vale)?
How does the owner feel about it (ditto)?
How does history view it?
--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Thur
"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@intel.com> wrote in message
news:m3ol41ha8oulnktbo...@4ax.com...
I don't doubt that this thread will - if people have the the energy -
eventually address the ultimate question on the defintion of art.
The basic assumption that an artist produces an art object with
viewers/buyers in mind is not too big a leap for a start.
When I read, as I do occasionally, some of the texts which advocate
and explain "Modern Art", even this assumption is not allowed.
Some texts claim that pure creativity cannot be fettered by such
concerns.
It's all part of the general movement in art, and in society too, to
eliminate any trace of objective values, which then defeats any
criticism.
The whole idea is then overturned by the same artworld which
unashamedly prostitutes itself to the highest bidder. The very idea
that once someone is famous, then their works become famous,
and are sold for ever more ridiculous prices, and of course, the
reverse side of this is that the artist and his work becomes old hat
and the prices drop.
A perfect reflection of what values we have left for ourselves.
What will history make of it all? Well it seems to me that art history
and art historians gather to acclaim such works. However, like Modern
Artists and their public, they are just as fickle and likely to condemn
all they acclaimed just a few years ago.
Art "style" has become art "fad". It can come and go for no reason,
and it does not stay in fashion long enough to let itself become
criticised.
Within such a mad world, we have works seriously publicised as
art which really qualify for some sort of cartoon, projecting some
mysterious joke.
For such a young person, where is the wonder, the adventure, the
flourish, the passion and the idealism?
God help us.
--
Thur
scul...@tfb.com
that anything can be art-
But, in truth, this is not the case, for the fine art elite do not see
the artistic merit of an injection molded office chair unlesss some
"artist" has taken said chair and displayed it in some context that
makes it "art:, i.e. a museum, gallery or other space clearly intended
to be a FRAME for an artwork.
So artists take stuff out of context, make it larger, smaller, a comfy
looking sofa made of concrete, turn a dress form into bulletin board,
or a urinal into an installation, even put a crucifix into a jar of
urine, and in placing it in the 'venue' of art, they make it art. But
the designer, who tried to create the original office chair to be
aesthetically satisfying, is disregarded because his 'chair' was not in
the context of 'art' and therefore is not 'commentary' in nature.
This is why the urinal at the train station is worthless, but DuChamps
urinal, the same brand- from the same mold, is priceless. And the fact
that DuChamp already did this is why your urinal in the gallery is also
worthless.
The trap in all of this is that fine art has become a competition to
see who can come up with the most outrageous "comment", since the only
art that REALLY counts is that art that shows something else, something
new, something different than anyone has seen before. Hence the piss
crucifix and dung madonna. The comments are too often no longer
socially relevant, they are novelty comments for the sake of novelty-
the shock of the new become mundane, de riguer, expected and
conditional.
Where I see that they have gone wrong is that none of what they are
doing matters. DuChamp already made the point, ANYTHING can be art-
okay, I get it, let's move on beyond that. Don't try to shock me with
something I really don't want to look at as art- I understand that even
something I find offensive or disgustiung can be art, I understand that
you can create outrage by taking cherished idioms or icons and defiling
them. I comprehend that symbology is symbolic and that a belief system
has no objective reality.... fine, that being said, what can you tell
me about being human that will make me feel something?
The best art is a communication, and the art that lasts in the public
mind is the art that communicates something to most of humanity. A lot
of Fine Art has become an inside joke between snobs and elitists, and,
to a certain extent, a joke played upon the elitists by artists who
make crap and laugh that it is taken seriously.
BUT- there is still a subcurrent in fine art that believes that art
should move people- maybe in ways that are not readily apparent. To me-
the fun thing about designing public art spaces is being able to
control people's experience of a location- of what they see and how it
is revealed to them, to create a mood and bring them to a realization
over an idea that I am confronting them with- not to get them to
realize what I want, but, rather, to think about something from their
own perspective and. maybe, create some new understanding.
I believe art should take people by surprise- but not in the same
manner as a banana peel... too much of fine art has become slapstick in
its impact.
Rather, art should surprise people in the way that a very well thought
out gift surprises the recipient as they realize, over a long period of
time, how much thought went into something you chose, or created,
especially for them.
christopher
Neil Maxwell
>The basic assumption that an artist produces an art object with
>viewers/buyers in mind is not too big a leap for a start.
I'd say this is true for many, but not for all. I have a fondness for
art that is an expression of vision, inspiration, whatever, with no
regard for marketability or audience.
Still, that art is not as likely to hold up over time, because it
doesn't always get the Critical Acclaim that's so important to
historic standing.
>When I read, as I do occasionally, some of the texts which advocate
>and explain "Modern Art", even this assumption is not allowed.
>Some texts claim that pure creativity cannot be fettered by such
>concerns.
>It's all part of the general movement in art, and in society too, to
>eliminate any trace of objective values, which then defeats any
>criticism.
Yes, but if it's boring, banal, uninspired, and such, it won't last,
and the art-column darlings of this year will be forgotten in 1, 5, or
10 years. There are exceptions to this, too; we'll see how long-term
history treats Thomas Kinkade.
>The whole idea is then overturned by the same artworld which
>unashamedly prostitutes itself to the highest bidder. The very idea
>that once someone is famous, then their works become famous,
>and are sold for ever more ridiculous prices, and of course, the
>reverse side of this is that the artist and his work becomes old hat
>and the prices drop.
Yep, capitalism at work. It may not be optimal, but it works.
>A perfect reflection of what values we have left for ourselves.
>
>What will history make of it all? Well it seems to me that art history
>and art historians gather to acclaim such works. However, like Modern
>Artists and their public, they are just as fickle and likely to condemn
>all they acclaimed just a few years ago.
>
>Art "style" has become art "fad". It can come and go for no reason,
>and it does not stay in fashion long enough to let itself become
>criticised.
>
>Within such a mad world, we have works seriously publicised as
>art which really qualify for some sort of cartoon, projecting some
>mysterious joke.
Sturgeon's Law states "90% of everything is crap". I find this
applies to all aspects of life. My 10% is not the same as someone
else's 10%, but the numbers hold pretty true, IMO.
>For such a young person, where is the wonder, the adventure, the
>flourish, the passion and the idealism?
>God help us.
If they feel it, it will come. They may not be successful, but that's
life. Many accomplished, inspired, passionate people die in obscurity
every year. I expect to be one of them, and frankly, my dear, I don't
give a damn, as long as I'm happy with what I've done.
Neil Maxwell
<snipped interpretations>
>I believe art should take people by surprise- but not in the same
>manner as a banana peel... too much of fine art has become slapstick in
>its impact.
>Rather, art should surprise people in the way that a very well thought
>out gift surprises the recipient as they realize, over a long period of
>time, how much thought went into something you chose, or created,
>especially for them.
Lots of good points there. I like the analysis, and the conclusions,
but I'd also add that there's plenty of room for disposable art in our
disposable culture.
It's OK (maybe even necessary), in this era of short attention spans
and TV literacy, to have clever art that loses its meaning and context
in a short time.
Dunno if you're familiar with the Burning Man festival
(www.burningman.com), but there's a ton of public art and art spaces
there built to last a week or so, then disappear. There's a lot of
passionate, inspired, articulate work there that would stand the test
of time (and lots more that won't), but I get something extra out of
the ephemeral nature of it, both in what I make and what I experience.
Lots of artists don't agree with this approach, but it's just another
manifestation of modern life, the shrinking world, and the deluge of
culture. Like it or not, it's the way things are. Luckily,
individuals can still choose what level they participate at.
RainLover
>ever since DuChamps urinal the basic assumption of post modern art is
>that anything can be art-
>
My wife is of that feeling and we have heated discussions often about
it. She thinks a stop sign is "art", and while I am in agreement that
there was creativity behind it, the sign itself isn't art.
I'm going to have her read your post.... it's wonderfully written.
>But, in truth, this is not the case, for the fine art elite do not see
>the artistic merit of an injection molded office chair unlesss some
>"artist" has taken said chair and displayed it in some context that
>makes it "art:, i.e. a museum, gallery or other space clearly intended
>to be a FRAME for an artwork.
God.... I wish the fine art elite (FAE) would find *ME*... I'm over
being the 'starving artist' already! :-)
>So artists take stuff out of context, make it larger, smaller, a comfy
>looking sofa made of concrete, turn a dress form into bulletin board,
>or a urinal into an installation, even put a crucifix into a jar of
>urine, and in placing it in the 'venue' of art, they make it art. But
>the designer, who tried to create the original office chair to be
>aesthetically satisfying, is disregarded because his 'chair' was not in
>the context of 'art' and therefore is not 'commentary' in nature.
>
>This is why the urinal at the train station is worthless, but DuChamps
>urinal, the same brand- from the same mold, is priceless. And the fact
>that DuChamp already did this is why your urinal in the gallery is also
>worthless.
Very astute observations or point of view. I'm stealing it for
myself, thankyouverymuch. :-)
>The trap in all of this is that fine art has become a competition to
>see who can come up with the most outrageous "comment", since the only
>art that REALLY counts is that art that shows something else, something
>new, something different than anyone has seen before. Hence the piss
>crucifix and dung madonna. The comments are too often no longer
>socially relevant, they are novelty comments for the sake of novelty-
>the shock of the new become mundane, de riguer, expected and
>conditional.
When I head out to a local (or not so local) museum, I'm always
astonished that much of their space is devoted to novelty art... I
like that term; I'm going to steal it too, thankyouverymuch.
Sometimes I feel that if I'm not creating something
in-you-face-outragious and I'm still ALIVE, my art isn't relevent.
It's a frustration many artists I know feel.
>Where I see that they have gone wrong is that none of what they are
>doing matters. DuChamp already made the point, ANYTHING can be art-
>okay, I get it, let's move on beyond that. Don't try to shock me with
>something I really don't want to look at as art- I understand that even
>something I find offensive or disgustiung can be art, I understand that
>you can create outrage by taking cherished idioms or icons and defiling
>them. I comprehend that symbology is symbolic and that a belief system
>has no objective reality.... fine, that being said, what can you tell
>me about being human that will make me feel something?
But the masses (and sadly, many of the fine art elitists), don't want
to feel in these days of (cue theme from Jaws) Days Post 9/11.....
we're in a go-to-war-first, ask questions later mentality. The last
thing many seem to want is deep though about fellow humans and being
forced to FEEL something. So.... Who wants to be a millionaire?
Um.... [stepping down off my soapbox] sorry... I don't know where all
that came from.
>The best art is a communication, and the art that lasts in the public
>mind is the art that communicates something to most of humanity. A lot
>of Fine Art has become an inside joke between snobs and elitists, and,
>to a certain extent, a joke played upon the elitists by artists who
>make crap and laugh that it is taken seriously.
>
>BUT- there is still a subcurrent in fine art that believes that art
>should move people- maybe in ways that are not readily apparent. To me-
>the fun thing about designing public art spaces is being able to
>control people's experience of a location- of what they see and how it
>is revealed to them, to create a mood and bring them to a realization
>over an idea that I am confronting them with- not to get them to
>realize what I want, but, rather, to think about something from their
>own perspective and. maybe, create some new understanding.
I'm with you, Christopher.... I feel optimism for the creative nature
of Fine Art and the Artists who make it happen. I'm praying that all
this shock-and-awe school of art is a fad, just like the art itself.
>I believe art should take people by surprise- but not in the same
>manner as a banana peel... too much of fine art has become slapstick in
>its impact.
>Rather, art should surprise people in the way that a very well thought
>out gift surprises the recipient as they realize, over a long period of
>time, how much thought went into something you chose, or created,
>especially for them.
You're very well spoken. Thanks for the post.
James, Seattle, Washington, USA, Earth
Andrew D
the_...@yahoo.com wrote:
Are you the same sarp who was offering advice on English and grammar earlier?
--
Andy D.
Andrew D
<no-per...@z.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I don't doubt that this thread will - if people have the the energy -
> eventually address the ultimate question on the defintion of art.
> The basic assumption that an artist produces an art object with
> viewers/buyers in mind is not too big a leap for a start.
> When I read, as I do occasionally, some of the texts which advocate
> and explain "Modern Art", even this assumption is not allowed.
> Some texts claim that pure creativity cannot be fettered by such
> concerns.
> It's all part of the general movement in art, and in society too, to
> eliminate any trace of objective values, which then defeats any
> criticism.
> The whole idea is then overturned by the same artworld which
> unashamedly prostitutes itself to the highest bidder.
And some works are elevated as "great art" while others are ignored or
disparaged which is not possible, in theory, in an "everything is art"
environment but obviously possible in an environment where those making
the rules are self-promoting hypocrites.
--
Andy D.
Andrew D
scul...@tfb.com wrote:
[snip]
> This is why the urinal at the train station is worthless, but DuChamps
> urinal, the same brand- from the same mold, is priceless. And the fact
> that DuChamp already did this is why your urinal in the gallery is also
> worthless.
> The trap in all of this is that fine art has become a competition to
> see who can come up with the most outrageous "comment", since the only
> art that REALLY counts is that art that shows something else, something
> new, something different than anyone has seen before.
Indeed, it often appears that's where many art judges and curators are
looking to the detriment, in my opinion, of art. Art is becoming the
reserve of the elite (they call themselves educated but really they are
just members of an elitist group who "know the rules" despite claiming
there are none).
A local art prize here gained a reputation in recent years for awarding
only the controversial entries and ignoring the skilled works. Over the
years, the quality of entries has slipped. What was once a wonderful,
popular display of all kinds of art has become a third-rate competition
largely ignored by better-known artists and almost completely ignored by
the general public (who pay for the competition through their rates and
taxes and who end up "owning" the winning entries as a part of their local
government collection).
Of course some people would say the "unwashed masses" have no right having
an opinion on the art and should be grateful there are "educated" people
looking after their interests by ensuring they have an eclectic collection
of junk to store away where no one will bother to look at it.
> Where I see that they have gone wrong is that none of what they are
> doing matters. DuChamp already made the point, ANYTHING can be art-
> okay, I get it, let's move on beyond that. Don't try to shock me with
> something I really don't want to look at as art - I understand that even
> something I find offensive or disgustiung can be art, I understand that
> you can create outrage by taking cherished idioms or icons and defiling
> them.
If Osama Bin Laden comes out and says the WTC event was just an act of
artistic expression there'd be people calling for him to exhibit in New
York.
> The best art is a communication, and the art that lasts in the public
> mind is the art that communicates something to most of humanity. A lot
> of Fine Art has become an inside joke between snobs and elitists, and,
> to a certain extent, a joke played upon the elitists by artists who
> make crap and laugh that it is taken seriously.
I believe that's where the real challenge lies for the artist. On a number
of occasions I've been tempted to do something controversial (not
offensive, just a leg-pulling, visual gag) to enter into competition - but
I can't bring myself to do it. At the last minute I get pangs of guilt and
slog away at a painting that I think is worthy of public display.
--
Andy D.
Lauri Levanto
scul...@tfb.com wrote:
>...
> I believe art should take people by surprise- but not in the same
> manner as a banana peel... too much of fine art has become slapstick in
> its impact.
> Rather, art should surprise people in the way that a very well thought
> out gift surprises the recipient as they realize, over a long period of
> time, how much thought went into something you chose, or created,
> especially for them.
>
> christopher
>
The surprise is sure one element of art experience.
However, when I want to read a book, I borrow it from library.
If it proves good, worth of second reading, I buy a copy.
I try to time test my works. If they look good after a few weeks/months,
then I believe in them. I do like some one-liners, but in general
I appreciate music that tolerates listening again and again.
The same with visual art. If I spend money to get something
hanging on my living room wall, I want to enjoy it for years.
-lauri
scul...@tfb.com
what the art critics think it is.
Good art reveals itself with its relevance to everyday people's lives,
the "unwashed masses'.
Every citiy that installed a Calder had an initial public outcry on its
hands, but the sculptures themselves came to be beloved by the people
who share space with them.
The Picasso in Chicago is a cherished icon of the city- the Miro across
the street is despised and regularly vandalized. The Vietnam Veteran's
Memorial was hated by the people, as a concept, but embraced
wholeheartedly once they actually experienced it.
Great art speaks to people and the more people who respond to a work
positively, the more successful that artist has been at moving people,
at communicating an idea, at changing perspectives.
If only a few hipsters in the "know" get what you are up to- then you
might as well be telling jokes in Aramaic.
Pollack may be famous in art history class- but few people hang Pollack
posters in their homes.
Just because a work is historically significant for how it changed the
idea of what art can be does not mean it is good art. Not all
revolutions lead to a better world.
In fact, very few ever do.
christopher
Paul Mesken
<laur...@dnainternet.fi> wrote:
>The surprise is sure one element of art experience.
>However, when I want to read a book, I borrow it from library.
>If it proves good, worth of second reading, I buy a copy.
I have close to a thousand books but the only books I have re-read a
couple of times are "The Lord of the Rings", "The Silmarillion" (both
by J.R.R. Tolkien) and "Make your own damn Movie" (by Lloyd Kaufman).
People like me realize the survival of publishers :-)
>I try to time test my works. If they look good after a few weeks/months,
>then I believe in them.
Yes, I believe this to be a very important thing. Right after a work
has been finished, it looks perfect. But as soon as the next day,
errors and flaws are noticed.
I believe it takes time to disassociate the work with the (perfect)
idea in the mind. That idea should no longer supplement the piece and
work in its own right.
Shmart Robot People
which could start with big simple aspects, the 'art' could have these
elements; it is a concept, an action and it can transfer to a person
an attitude, idea, mood or evoke a new attitude, idea, mood in a
viewer. Someone does something; makes a noise, a motion, effects
something, and someone else thinks about the noise (song, music,
words), the motion (dance, acting), the effect (painting,
constructing, whatever). The transfer to sensors is something and
could be 'the art' but is not necessary to the art. Analyzing nuances
of and facets related to the 'art' is filtered through who is
thinking about it and is not necessary to the art. Defining something
as art is a thought process, a concept (could be an art, writing) and
is not necessary to the art. At it's simplest it is "doing something,
creating". After it is created, who will live with it or how it will
remain is not necessary to the art but can be "the record of the
action of creating".
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
"More of a forum for amateur art critics and for flame wars about "What
is
Art?" than anything substantive about art, rec.arts.fine consists
mainly of
people expressing their own opinions about the state of today's art
world.
It does contain a small number of art workshop announcements and tips
on
various art, painting, and sculpture techniques-if you're able to wade
through the sheer mass of highly politicized and (sometimes) personal
attacks. "
Might it be possible to actually mention some aspect of the
artwork--format, color, size,
medium, themes, art historical links, medium, aesthetic strategy--when
discussing whether it
is art or not?
Thur
"Shmart Robot People" <shm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4250DF55...@mindspring.com...
But if art is not part of a cyclic process which includes a body of
critical viewers, such as the buyer, and gallery viewer, and a
collection of art critics, both amateur and professional, then it
will be like a flower which does not bloom.
Do you not see the process as necessarily requiring feedback of
some sort?
The creator of art is not in a vacuum, but is part of the society and
culture which shapes the environment, which is a powerful influence
on even the most independant artist.
I know that this has been ignored, and even rejected by Modernist
thought, but it takes a great deal to disprove it.
--
Thur
Thur
<s_l_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112598674.4...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Well yes, please do, if you have anything to say.
What about "format, color, size, medium, themes, art historical links,
medium, aesthetic strategy" then?
--
Thur
Neil Maxwell
>Might it be possible to actually mention some aspect of the
>artwork--format, color, size,
>medium, themes, art historical links, medium, aesthetic strategy--when
>discussing whether it
>is art or not?
Please do.
scul...@tfb.com
Are you a real person? or some kind of A.I. thing?
If art existed independently of those who experience it- then it would
not be necessary to actually create it- the idea alone in my head would
suffice.
When I physically create art, it is an expression of that idea or
experience- and hence, a communication to others. Putting my vision
into a form that others can apprehend.
So- boil out all the hypebole about art as a process and you are left
with this- art is a form of communication between people.
and that's all it is.
...but then, in being human, that's everything.
christopher
John Cook
> Man this sounds like computer generated doubletalk to me....
> Are you a real person? or some kind of A.I. thing?
>
> If art existed independently of those who experience it- then it would
> not be necessary to actually create it- the idea alone in my head would
> suffice.
>
> When I physically create art, it is an expression of that idea or
> experience- and hence, a communication to others. Putting my vision
> into a form that others can apprehend.
>
> So- boil out all the hypebole about art as a process and you are left
> with this- art is a form of communication between people.
>
> and that's all it is.
> ...but then, in being human, that's everything.
>
> christopher
Art is a selective re-presentation of the artists metaphysical value
judgments in a concrete form.
derived from Ayn Rand's definition of art.
('metaphysical value judgments' means what you think is REALLY important
in this universe)
--
John Cook
The World is my oyster soup kitchen floor wax museum...
King Crimson
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
> Well yes, please do, if you have anything to say.
Since the object of my criticism is the jejune blather posted thus far,
demonstrating that you have said nothing relevant is sufficient.
Thur
<s_l_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112665971.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
--
Thur
Thur
"John Cook" <FunC...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4251e292$0$249$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
I've just had a scan over some of the topics on the Ayn Rand
website.
Quite astonishing, and very spooky.
I loved the comments on who the world's oil should belong to.
I hope that the world's affairs never fall into the hands of such
people.
I'll add the definition to all the others. :-)
--
Thur
The Jesticles
Just Curious...
The Jesticles
--
"It was one of those parties
where you cough twice before you speak
and then decide not to say it after all.
~ P. G. Wodehouse" HPH
Thur
"The Jesticles" <jest...@yahoo.net.au> wrote in message
news:4252b9c7$0$246$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
Try reading my last few posts, and you should find something.
--
Thur
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
You might also consider posting on topic. :)
John Cook
> "John Cook" <FunC...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>Art is a selective re-presentation of the artists metaphysical value
>>judgments in a concrete form.
>>
>>derived from Ayn Rand's definition of art.
>>
>>('metaphysical value judgments' means what you think is REALLY important
>>in this universe)
> I've just had a scan over some of the topics on the Ayn Rand
> website.
> Quite astonishing, and very spooky.
> I loved the comments on who the world's oil should belong to.
> I hope that the world's affairs never fall into the hands of such
> people.
>
Don't think I'll go there - even though I'm a bit intrigued by 'who the
world's oil should belong to'
Rand is even worse(better?) than Jesus at collecting idiot 'true
believer type' followers that don't Really know what she was talking 'bout
> I'll add the definition to all the others. :-)
It's one of the best I've come across
Shmart Robot People
the intent was to see the subject in it's most simplest form
every possibility is valid beyond the most simplest form 'the action of
creating'
possible explanations of misunderstanding;
didn't read
didn't understand
doesn't remember creating as a child
isn't secure in his self or his own world, needs reassurance
assumes ones own agenda is everyone's
scul...@tfb.com wrote:
> Man this sounds like computer generated doubletalk to me....
> Are you a real person? or some kind of A.I. thing?
common thought and expression
may be taken for adolescent one-upmanship
> If art existed independently of those who experience it- then it would
> not be necessary to actually create it- the idea alone in my head would
> suffice.
assuming the creator experiences it then it is impossible for it to exist
without someone experiencing it
dictate?: one who is isolated should not create
it is not art to sing if stranded on an island and by no means shall one
sculpt
> When I physically create art, it is an expression of that idea or
> experience- and hence, a communication to others. Putting my vision
> into a form that others can apprehend.
unless one is floating alone in deep space, this scenario is unavoidable
> So- boil out all the hypebole about art as a process and you are left
> with this- art is a form of communication between people.
art is a form ... of (put any word here)
art is a form ... of masturbation
art is a form ... of yadda yadda
looking at something in it's simplest form is the opposite of exaggeration
beyond the process of creating every possibility is valid including the
agenda of communication to others
> and that's all it is.
> ...but then, in being human, that's everything.
two hyperbolas
the pure artist creates for oneself
>
>
> christopher
scul...@tfb.com
Shmart Robot People wrote:
> the explanation was to answer the question 'is it art?'
> the intent was to see the subject in it's most simplest form
> every possibility is valid beyond the most simplest form 'the action
of
> creating'
>
> possible explanations of misunderstanding;
> didn't read
> didn't understand
> doesn't remember creating as a child
> isn't secure in his self or his own world, needs reassurance
> assumes ones own agenda is everyone's
Oh, I assure you I read.
Understood? well, yeah I understand depsite the odd writing style and
general lack of any real insight or point.
remember creating as a child? - Been sculpting since 4- Remember pretty
well.
Not secure in my own world? assume my agenda is everyone's?
Oh sure, that must be it. It couldn't possibly be because that what you
wrote was not cogent...
>
>
> scul...@tfb.com wrote:
>
> > Man this sounds like computer generated doubletalk to me....
> > Are you a real person? or some kind of A.I. thing?
>
> common thought and expression
> may be taken for adolescent one-upmanship
Really- other folks have said this to you? Far from one-upsmanship,
there was no insult intended. I only asked because the manner of your
writing takes words and phrases from the post it replies to and
rearranges them with words that are semantically related- like in a
thesaurus- into sentences that do not tend to make cohesive sense or
are not genuinely responsive.
I have seen very similar writing produced by software that attempts to
make a stab at the Turing prize by fooling people into thinking there
is an actual mind generating the conversation. Even to the point of the
poor punctuation and incomplete sentences... common techniques for
making a software language generator seem more human.
Of couse, if you were actually not a person, it would be a real
giveaway to have a username like 'shmart robot people'...
But then, I note that, in keeping with this type of writing, you did
not actually respond to the question... did not afirm that you are in
fact a real person...hmmmm.
>
> > If art existed independently of those who experience it- then it
would
> > not be necessary to actually create it- the idea alone in my head
would
> > suffice.
>
> assuming the creator experiences it then it is impossible for it to
exist
> without someone experiencing it
> dictate?: one who is isolated should not create
> it is not art to sing if stranded on an island and by no means shall
one
> sculpt
You misunderstand- as an idea- I can experience it without its
existing- I do not HAVE to make it. if I make it, its so someone else
can experience it- its a communication of my experience.
>
> > When I physically create art, it is an expression of that idea or
> > experience- and hence, a communication to others. Putting my vision
> > into a form that others can apprehend.
>
> unless one is floating alone in deep space, this scenario is
unavoidable
Again- imagining art happens to me alone- without being in alone in
space. The point that creating art unavoidably makes it apprehendable
to others is My point- hence that is it's one undeniable, irreducible
function.
>
> > So- boil out all the hypebole about art as a process and you are
left
> > with this- art is a form of communication between people.
>
> art is a form ... of (put any word here)
> art is a form ... of masturbation
> art is a form ... of yadda yadda
> looking at something in it's simplest form is the opposite of
exaggeration
Again- non responsive, no real point. You use the term "simplest form"
alot, but don't seem to achieve a simple, concrete response. How is a
several paragraph definition of art allowing any interpretation simpler
than a single six word sentence giving a simple statement of
equivalence?
To suggest that every possiblity is "valid" is an exaggeration or an
evasion.
To define art as communication is not exaggeration- it is reducition to
it simplest possible term.
>
> beyond the process of creating every possibility is valid including
the
> agenda of communication to others
"beyond the process..." ? Ah, well- your definition of art is that it
has no definition?
Art is a communication regardless of the agenda of the artist. An
artist can have any agenda whatsoever, but the one true thing that lies
beneath any intent is that the thing in and of itself is FOR presenting
that agenda to others. Art created without the AGENDA of communication
is still a communication. It does not matter what the intent of the
artist is.
If you want to convince me of your point, provide just one example of
an artwork that is not a communication.
Any other definition can be excepted-
>
> > and that's all it is.
> > ...but then, in being human, that's everything.
>
> two hyperbolas
Hyperbolae are exaggerations or elaborations- its not an elaboration,
its too short- and its not an exaggeration to suggest that everything
that makes any substantive difference between humans and animals it
tied to our unique level of communication with each other.
>
> the pure artist creates for oneself
You mean egoicly? or in a self actualizing mannner?
The question was not why do artist's create- that is entirely different
from the question of what art is in its simplest terms.
You keep saying "Beyond the process of creating" - well, Beyond the
process of creating is the gallery, museum, the sale, the mantlepiece
or the dustbin of history.
To find the definition of art you have to go BEFORE, not beyond, the
process of making it.
Not all artists create for themselves, tho most really seem to enjoy
it.
Regardless of my motives, by agenda or my beliefs, regardless of what I
am trying to say- or whether I believe I have nothing to say, the art
serves a function and that function is to be there for others to see,
even after I have walked away.
christopher
Shmart Robot People
Kinda
Gilles Deleuze (philosopher) once wrote - in an article that is 20
years old now - the following: (I'm translating from french) "There's a
lot of forces today that wants to deny every possible distinction
between commercial and art. The more we deny this distinction, the more
we think ourselves funny, comprehensive and aware. In fact we're only
translating a demand of capitalism, the fast rotation. [...] What
seemingly complicates everything, is that the same form can be used for
creative and for commercial."
This is where the problem is in our time, to be able to sort out
between an "authentic" contemporary art, that truly interrogates us,
and some works that have for unique interest to illustrate the vacuity
of our world.
Kinda
scul...@tfb.com
You make a good point about the rotation, the turnaround, the need to
keep doing new, possibly absurd things in the name of staying trendy
and cool- this is really a market pressure- no one needs to buy the
latest eyewear if the eyewear they have is still cool... so it becomes
necessary to make last week's cool passe if you wanna make a mint
selling eyewear.
The difference between commercial and fine art may be nothing more than
that the commercial designers are AWARE that they are pushing the new
"in" look for the purpose of stimulating sales interest, while the fine
artists have no clue that that is what they are doing, largely in
response to the marketing pressure of galleries, museums and
collectors.
Perhaps it is this ignorance of what they are doing that creates the
atmosphere of "eating your own young" that pervades the fine arts.
It is hard to comment meaningfully when the meaning of the comment is
secondary to the fact that comment itself is the commodity.
christopher
Thur
"Kinda" <Kinda....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112805062....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
bogged down, as people offer examples of different sorts of art.
E.g. Some art does not "interrogate us", nor does some offer a
social commentary as it's prime function.
Some art is Decorative.
The best art has several levels of possible and intentional interpretation.
Therefore I suggest that trying to define all art is more difficult than
trying
to assemble the many values that it can contain.
With regard to commerce: If art is made to be sold, then it is part of
commerce. Some artists may well ignore the demands of the marketplace
in the hope that the world will beat a path to their door.
I don't know of any successful artists who did not put their toes into the
world of commerce.
--
Thur
scul...@tfb.com
Replies lacking predication, no extension of referred to concepts...
I think you are a modified Virtual Shrink program.
logging off
christopher
John Cook
I think we should be more aware of how NEW the concept of 'fine art' is.
Leonardo was a decorator. He worked for the rich folk and the
churches - he was a commercial artist.
PS - I HATE picasso - he was one of the great corruptors of true art.
scul...@tfb.com
His work was abstract, but always relatable, and he was a very good
traditional painter who established himself pretty well before he
started stretching the limits of what art is.
It was the Gallery and Salon and Museum directors who corrupted art by
capitalizing on picasso's fame in trying to "sell" subsequent, often
worthless, art as being produced by the "next picasso".
picasso also sold very well, which also could be construed to make him
a 'commercial' artist.
Is your distinction between fine and commercial predicated on whether
the art was "commissioned" or produced without commission and then
marketed afterward? That is essentially the only difference between
your description of leonardo and picasso. Leonardo was hired to
create, wereas Picasso created and relied on his fame to spur sales of
whatever he felt like making.
My view would be that anyone trying to make a living creating art must
be considered a commercial artist. The only real distinctions being
price point and sales venue.
So if you think picasso corrupted art and leonardo was a hack, who do
you consider to be a 'true artist"?
christopher
John Cook
meant. - well mostly anyway - I think leonardo was the BEST -
particularly because I'm an inventor as well as an 'artist' - ABSOLUTELY
not a hack - he turned boring commissions from difficult, boring or just
plain nasty 'patrons' into works of genius
BTW do you know he was really Good at sculpture?
scul...@tfb.com wrote:
> I can't agree about picasso-
> His work was abstract, but always relatable, and he was a very good
> traditional painter who established himself pretty well before he
> started stretching the limits of what art is.
His incredible talent/skill _is_ why I 'hate' him. He was so powerful
in the evil he did because the talent he distorted was so great.
He was a very political person - he was a proud member of the communist
party - his works - especially after he started to be 'marketed' by them
was sold by a group of art dealers that were consciously manipulating
the market.
> It was the Gallery and Salon and Museum directors who corrupted art by
> capitalizing on picasso's fame in trying to "sell" subsequent, often
> worthless, art as being produced by the "next picasso".
see above
> picasso also sold very well, which also could be construed to make him
> a 'commercial' artist.
In a way you could see him as the First of the
commercial_but_disguised_as_Cutting-edge artists but wealth was a
secondary consequence - he didn't want money - he wanted fame and
political influence - the art dealers wanted money and political
influence - he had the talent - he had NO morals - they worked great
together!
> Is your distinction between fine and commercial predicated on whether
> the art was "commissioned" or produced without commission and then
> marketed afterward? That is essentially the only difference between
> your description of leonardo and picasso. Leonardo was hired to
> create, wereas Picasso created and relied on his fame to spur sales of
> whatever he felt like making.
I see leonardo as fitting his Art into a commission - picasso was more
like the sex pistols - selling on shock value in the begining then on
wanker status later after he had been 'packaged'
BTW the sex pistols had a LOT more integrity than picasso
> My view would be that anyone trying to make a living creating art must
> be considered a commercial artist. The only real distinctions being
> price point and sales venue.
The key here is - just WHAT is a Living? - luxury Vs just the materials
I need to get this fukkin' image Out There!
That's Leonardo Vs Michaelangelo (sp?)
In a way your 'sense of life' will always show through in anything you
do - so even a purely commercial commission Does get your art out there,
just don't sell your arse to a Bastard - it's Wrong for creators to
support 'them.'
> So if you think picasso corrupted art and leonardo was a hack, who do
> you consider to be a 'true artist"?
> christopher
I love the rebirth to respectability of figurative sculpture especially
the nude (what I do sometimes) but I have to say, I think most of the
important new directions in art are happening outside of the traditional
mediums…
Thur
"John Cook" <FunC...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> --
> John Cook
>
> The World is my oyster soup kitchen floor wax museum...
> King Crimson
(to several commentators)
If anyone is interested in this issue, Leonardo was instrumental in
introducing a new technique in painting with oils. Sfumato.
He probably learned from people in the Low Countries where he
visited. As in most creativity, there is a trail of stuttering starts
by others. He certainly saw to it that Italian painting was shown it's
possibilities.
To dismiss him as a decorator is a little over the top.
Picasso's political affiliation is irrelevant. Also like Modern Art itself,
the Context is all important. Belonging to a party which promised to
right so many wrongs was not such a bad thing. Many good Americans
tried it out too, as did honest and earnest Brtitish who fought in Spain's
Civil War against Franco.
I dislike 99% of his art, by the way, and the rest has little more
meaning to me than good wallpaper design.
Making a judgement upon his morals is fraught with difficulties.
As the Bible says somewhere - "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
His art as far as I can see in his art, he never advanced immorality,
or any clear political position, except a comment of the horrors of
modern warfare.
--
Thur
scul...@tfb.com
vision of a utopian world where everyone works hard to help everyone
else---
The problem with communism is that it is predicated on a belief about
human nature that is simply not true.
People are not primarily altruistic- they are self- interested first
and foremost.
Capitalism works better because it harnesses the power of people's self
interest to improve things overall.
Communism became an evil because it could never have worked, and so it
simply led to corruption and despotism in those countries where it was
tried.
However- you cannot judge being a communist out of context- In the
1920's and 30's communism was still a relatively NEW and relatively
UNTRIED idea. And it was born out of the excesses and extremes of the
Robber Baron period of capitalism- where a small handful of men set
themselves up as the aristocracy to the the surfdom of their labor
force.
Labor Union movements were violently broken up by State police! The
Government had ZERO regulation on corporations and their shenanigans,
and after the worldwide collapse of the stock market, it sure looked
like capitalism was leading us all down a blind alley.
Keep in mind that to be a communist, in Europe, in the first half of
the 1900s was basically like being a Democrat in the U.S. today. A call
for checks on corporate greed and abuse of the workforce- a call for a
a governent that regulates economic activity to prevent such debacles
as, say- the rape of California by ENRON over manipulated electrical
markets.
Enlightened people of that era were simply grasping for some OTHER
system than the one that was seemingly destroying the lives of
millions.
Today- modern capitalism is the result of lessons learned the hard way
about unregulated commerce. We in the States have the FDA, EEOC and a
host of Government reulators whose job it is to check the tendency of
capitalists to TAKE IT ALL......
(of course- the Bush administration seems hell bent on eliminating any
regulation of commerce-yikes )
Piccaso certainly was happy to ride on the hype surrounding him, but I
don't think he created it himself. It was not until fairly late in the
game, well after he had become a famous and high priced artist that he
began to really work his status and manipulate his image.
Over time he realized what worked for him and what did not and focused
on what worked.
But he was not the only one stretching art into new realms- he was part
of a Movement that included hundreds of artists, and he pretty much
kept pace with that whole movement up until he became ultra famous-
after that, he was a style in and of himself. But of that cubist,
disjointed and perpectiveless crowd, he was undoubtedly the best.
However- every damn one of us here wouldn't mind a taste of the success
that Picasso enjoyed.
Art began to change the minute Eastman started to mass produce
photographic film- and the better photography got the father art had to
go to find itself a new validity.
It was inevitable that it would move in the odd and whacky directions
it has gone. It was searching for relevance in a world where it wasn't
needed to capture imagery anymore.
As to Leonardo- while he was probably a genius, I don't think that much
of him as an artist. The perspective in several of his few surviving
works is often way off, and he was more interested in creating new
technologies than in making lasting work. His last supper, while nicely
painted, was painted in his own "new and improved" method and beagn to
fall apart well before he died.
He was so fragmented in his interests and passions that he did not
really accomplish all that much- the great body of his work is in the
form of sketches and schematics for things he never finished...
I guess he was so good at so many things that he lacked focus in any
one of them.
Don't get me wrong, he was hugely talented, but he was not very
productive. His works are partly valued so high because of their
rarity.
Whenever I meet an artist who has fantastic potential that they just
can't seem to fully realize, I always charcterize them as having
"Leonardo's disease".
christopher
John Cook
> Communism is not evil, nor immoral- its actually a wonderful idea- a
> vision of a utopian world where everyone works hard to help everyone
> else---
> The problem with communism is that it is predicated on a belief about
> human nature that is simply not true.
> People are not primarily altruistic- they are self- interested first
> and foremost.
I'm absolutely Not going to get into a communism debate - just haven't
the time/brainspace for it - but I can point you in the right direction
I hope.
Here goes… There are many 'visions of a utopian world' that involve
compassion and sharing (including Mine) But Communism™ Was a SPECIFIC
structure and dogma - made up by a specific man (marx) - under the
influence of a specific philosophy (the same philosophical thread that
created Wagner and Hitler) and as You said it was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
You are an artist - look at and compare nazi art with stalinist art -
they are almost identical - their monuments and public architecture -
all so similar…
What you are thinking of as 'communism' is just pretty pink icing on the
outside of a poison cake.
> Communism became an evil because it could never have worked, and so it
> simply led to corruption and despotism in those countries where it was
> tried.
Communism WAS an evil from the start because they KNEW it wouldn't
'work' - and virtually the entire art community over last century helped
them to hide it! ACTIVELY
> However- you cannot judge being a communist out of context- In the
> 1920's and 30's communism was still a relatively NEW and relatively
> UNTRIED idea.
Stalin had already STARVED, LOOTED and just plain butchered MILLIONS of
his own ppl by then and was currently killing millions Every year - and
the 'modern' artists did Everything they could to blank out the truth
and spread the opposite - life in the soviet union was Wonderfull! the said.
-------
>
> Enlightened people of that era were simply grasping for some OTHER
> system than the one that was seemingly destroying the lives of
> millions.
and the 'cool' 'modern' 'advanced' artists and intellectuals gave them a
Very Nasty lie to grasp on to…
> Today- modern capitalism is the result of lessons learned the hard way
'modern capitalism' excuse me while I clean my screen LOL - lucky I
wasn't drinking coffee…
> However- every damn one of us here wouldn't mind a taste of the success
> that Picasso enjoyed.
Not me - I've seen pictures of him at various times in his life - he
always looks the same - a nasty little person, full of hate. I've not
seen any of him looking Happy
> Art began to change the minute Eastman started to mass produce
'Art began to change…' I know what you mean but what you Said doesn't
make ANY sense outside of this 'Art' thing you live in. The 'Art' that
ppl buy cos other ppl tell them its 'Art'
Trying to say this clearly… I mean what You mean by 'Art' is two
separate things - one is content, the other is the game
The game is created and run by wacker intelectuals that like the sound
of their own voices - and 'art' dealers
The content is what You experience from the work (without knowing Who
did it or what it's 'worth' etc)
Don't mix them up and don't join the two thing in your head
btw the 'game' is why I just don't go there with my sculpture - the
closest I came to selling my stuff was an idea I had to start making
lots of copies in secar (white al based concrete) of a particulary
beautiful half size figure I'd made and selling them in garden shops.
the stuff they were selling was dreadfull - bad reproductions of bad
reproductions of bad victorian shit. The funny thig for me was years
later I mentioned this to a group of (successful) sculptors - they
wanted me to wash my mouth out LOL - I saw it as spreading beauty so the
world would be a better place - they thought I would be Devaluing Art
(it was a very good work)
> As to Leonardo- while he was probably a genius, I don't think that much
> of him as an artist. The perspective in several of his few surviving
> works is often way off, and he was more interested in creating new
> technologies than in making lasting work. His last supper, while nicely
> painted, was painted in his own "new and improved" method and beagn to
> fall apart well before he died.
LOL - and apparently heaps of his work was silly mechanical toys and
stage setting etc - he was also a brilliant horseman and dancer - What a
Dude!
> He was so fragmented in his interests and passions that he did not
> really accomplish all that much- the great body of his work is in the
> form of sketches and schematics for things he never finished...
funny little story here - remember that drawing of his of the 'turtle'?
ppl say that it's an early design for a Tank - men inside turn handles
to drive it along while another shoots through a slot in the top. When
I was looking at it I realised that, as drawn, the gearing/cogs were
arranged wrong for it to move along - it wouldn't have worked - then I
realised that actually what he intended was not a mobile 'Tank' but a
rotating pillBox sort of thing…
> I guess he was so good at so many things that he lacked focus in any
> one of them.
>
> Don't get me wrong, he was hugely talented, but he was not very
> productive. His works are partly valued so high because of their
> rarity.
>
> Whenever I meet an artist who has fantastic potential that they just
> can't seem to fully realize, I always charcterize them as having
> "Leonardo's disease".
Thank you for that - I think I have the worst case of "Leonardo's
disease" ever known to man. LOL
But seriously - you see him the same as me and said it better than I
could have. AND in doing so diagnosed me to a T - thanx again
>
> christopher
Mani Deli
>Communism became an evil because it could never have worked, and so it
>simply led to corruption and despotism in those countries where it was
>tried.
Communism became an evil because it was undemocratic and run by thugs
who could not be replaced.
>
>However- you cannot judge being a communist out of context- In the
>1920's and 30's communism was still a relatively NEW and relatively
>UNTRIED idea. And it was born out of the excesses and extremes of the
>Robber Baron period of capitalism- where a small handful of men set
>themselves up as the aristocracy to the the surfdom of their labor
>force.
Revolution is more often than not an abrupt change in the form of
mis-government. Things got far worse under communism.
>Today- modern capitalism is the result of lessons learned the hard way
>about unregulated commerce. We in the States have the FDA, EEOC and a
>host of Government reulators whose job it is to check the tendency of
>capitalists to TAKE IT ALL......
>(of course- the Bush administration seems hell bent on eliminating any
>regulation of commerce-yikes )
The U.S. is on the road to fascism.
>As to Leonardo- while he was probably a genius, I don't think that much
>of him as an artist. The perspective in several of his few surviving
>works is often way off,
Name one and describe what's off.
>Whenever I meet an artist who has fantastic potential that they just
>can't seem to fully realize, I always charcterize them as having
>"Leonardo's disease".
>
I characterize most 20th century art as having the Picasso disease.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
Peter H.M. Brooks
> scul...@tfb.com wrote:
>
>
> Here goes… There are many 'visions of a utopian world' that involve
> compassion and sharing (including Mine) But Communism™ Was a SPECIFIC
> structure and dogma - made up by a specific man (marx) - under the
> influence of a specific philosophy (the same philosophical thread that
> created Wagner and Hitler) and as You said it was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
>
important historical figure but a deeply flawed thinker.
Wagner, on the other hand, was a great artist. His opera was influenced
by Teutonic myth and his music is sublime. Just because Hitler happened
to like him is no reason to abuse him!
--
When people ask me what I've got against pictures, I can only reply,
'What have you got against the well'- Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
scul...@tfb.com
e b a t e...
> I'm absolutely Not going to get into a communism debate - just
haven't
> the time/brainspace for it - but I can point you in the right
direction
> I hope.
>
involve
> compassion and sharing (including Mine) But Communism™ Was a
SPECIFIC
> structure and dogma - made up by a specific man (marx) - under the
> influence of a specific philosophy (the same philosophical thread
that
> created Wagner and Hitler) and as You said it was WRONG, WRONG,
WRONG!
>
> You are an artist - look at and compare nazi art with stalinist art -
> they are almost identical - their monuments and public architecture -
> all so similar...
The art produced by those states had nothing to do with communism- it
had to do with the tenor of the times, and is the same kind of art
produced in every dictatorial state established on a cult of
personality. I.E. Saddam's iraq, Mao's China, Stalin's USSR, Hitler's
Germany- One a plain despot, one communist, one socialist ( different
than true communism ) one fascist... same aesthetic- state driven
megalomania.
The truth is that there has never been a genuine communist state- Just
communist revolutions which were co-opted by powerhungry despots.
Although going by various names, they are all Totalitarian- not
communist.
If you want to see REAL communist inspired art look at practically
everything paid for by the WPA during the same time period... Its
theme driven, its propagandist, but a lot of its pretty damn good art.
>
> What you are thinking of as 'communism' is just pretty pink icing on
the
> outside of a poison cake.
No- I am thinking of communism as being the concepts forwarded by Marx-
a true state serving the proletariat. Its a nice thought to imagine a
world where each serves according to his ability and each takes
according to his need... it just not a feasible basis for organizing a
progressive government because people don't DO that.
You are demonizing something that was intended to to resolve a great
inequity in society, albeit ineffectually. Marx was not a despot, he
was sick of workhouses, child labor, debt prison, company stores and
towns and the violent suppression of worker's rights.
The fact that every communist revolution was warped into
totalitarianism is an indictment of mankind, not the cause for which
many people died.
think of France- after the "democratic" french revolution came the
horror of the "Terror"- the summary beheading of thousands that went on
and on, eventually even consuming the leaders of the revolution
themselves- resulting in a state founded on the cult of Napoleon's
personality...
Communist revolutions do not have a lock on ending up despotic.
This is why George the third, when told that Washington would not seek
a third term as president, would willing retire from power, replied
that, "if he actually does it, he will be the greatest man who ever
lived".
Read Marx.
His ideas were based upon the hardships and mistreatment perpetrated
upon the average worker by the capitalist elite.
You have to immerse yourself in the time these ideas sprang from to
understand them. As the industrial revolution spread, farming dwindled
and displaced people ended up in the indsutrial centers because that
was the only other option. Capitalist company owners worked their
people seven day a week, 10 to 14 hours a day, and in many cases,
controled what they could buy and where, and ran them into debt that
would keep them working without raise for decades in a status little
different than indentured servitude.
Unions were against the law in most countries, child labor was not
only common, but absolutely essential for many families to be able to
make enough to feed themselves and there were no laws pressuring
employers to provide safe working conditions or disability. If the
cheap, rust and cracked saw blade in your bosse's lumbermill fractured
at speed and you were maimed, tough luck- you were unemployable and
your family starved and the company didn't even have to pay for the
hospital bill.
A tiny fraction of American families accrued vast wealth, passed on
untaxed to their heirs promoting the growth of a dynastic class who
owned nearly everything.
This was the Bliss of Capitalism at the turn of the last century.
In fact, it took a revolution in Russia, and the huge, threatening
growth of the communist led labor movement in the US to SCARE European
and US governments into regulating industry and giving the working
stiff a better break. This shift in government policy toward
regulatiung the excesses of capitalism was critical to creating the
notions of freedom that Americans now enjoy.
Modern captialism works BECAUSE of the early threat of communist
ideas, not in spite of them.
>
> > Communism became an evil because it could never have worked, and so
it
> > simply led to corruption and despotism in those countries where it
was
> > tried.
>
> Communism WAS an evil from the start because they KNEW it wouldn't
> 'work' - and virtually the entire art community over last century
helped
> them to hide it! ACTIVELY
They did not "know" it would not work- at the time Capitalism did not
seem to be working either... the tragedy of communism is its naivete-
it did not work because revolutions attract to leadership the very type
of ruthless, narcissistic individuals that simply can not let go of
power. The same kind of guys that, a thousand years ago, would raise an
army, capture the Pope and force a dukedom out the king of France.
Gangsters.
But they derived their power from the fact that the working man WANTED
to believe it would work; ANYTHING was better than what they had then.
Stalin "knew" he was not a communist- and maybe a few of his top
henchmen, but no one else knew, they believed.
Folks started out believing it- then defending its failures as being
the fault of the lingering effects of the prior system, then hanging on
to the idea that the previous generation had to completely die away
before the real change could occur....
Stalin, and every other despot, relied on the blind devotion of his
people to secure their cooperation, even when it should have been
obvious it was not working.
And believe me, no-one is blinder than a true believer.
Just ask a staunch Bush supporter...
And once their power system was in place- they continued to rule thru a
mixture of indoctrination of the young, and intimidation of the
disillusioned.
This is NOT communism. Communism hasn't actually happened yet.
Probably can't because Marx never addressses the concept of how such a
state would be governed without unchecked growth of a power elite.
>
> > However- you cannot judge being a communist out of context- In the
> > 1920's and 30's communism was still a relatively NEW and
relatively
> > UNTRIED idea.
>
> Stalin had already STARVED, LOOTED and just plain butchered MILLIONS
of
> his own ppl by then and was currently killing millions Every year -
and
> the 'modern' artists did Everything they could to blank out the truth
> and spread the opposite - life in the soviet union was Wonderfull!
the said.
Again- Stalin was not a communist- he was a despot, not the same thing
at all, and he did not espouse the communist ideal- his propaganda was
over a Socialist State- the difference is that in a communist system,
the state serves the proletariat, in a socialist system, the
proletariat serve the state.
Regardless of what Stalin was up to- no one knew what he was doing, no
one in Moscow even knew about the famine, and no one in the States knew
either.
> >
> > Enlightened people of that era were simply grasping for some OTHER
> > system than the one that was seemingly destroying the lives of
> > millions.
>
> and the 'cool' 'modern' 'advanced' artists and intellectuals gave
them a
> Very Nasty lie to grasp on to...
Oh, please, artists are generally idealists- they saw the suffering of
the masses and here was this shiny new idea that promised deliverance.
People in large groups will not EMBRACE 'evil' if they know it is evil.
You promise them something they desperately want and believe will
'save' them, then, once they hand one man enough power-THAT MAN may
turn the system evil.
The artists then were the same as artists now- can you really believe
that they were culpable?
Maybe they just thought it would make things better...
>
> > Today- modern capitalism is the result of lessons learned the hard
way
>
> 'modern capitalism' excuse me while I clean my screen LOL - lucky I
> wasn't drinking coffee...
All systems of governance evolve- Capitalism in 1900 was heading in a
very bad direction. I think the spread of communist ideology saved it.
...for a while.
Capitalism works pretty well- as long as we are opening new markets and
have cheap labor to source.
>
> > However- every damn one of us here wouldn't mind a taste of the
success
> > that Picasso enjoyed.
>
> Not me - I've seen pictures of him at various times in his life - he
> always looks the same - a nasty little person, full of hate. I've
not
> seen any of him looking Happy
He was as happy as an major asshole can be-
but I didn't say I want to BE him- just that I wouldn't mind have that
kind of success...that kind of impact.
>
> > Art began to change the minute Eastman started to mass produce
>
> 'Art began to change...' I know what you mean but what you Said
doesn't
> make ANY sense outside of this 'Art' thing you live in. The 'Art'
that
> ppl buy cos other ppl tell them its 'Art'
>
> Trying to say this clearly... I mean what You mean by 'Art' is two
> separate things - one is content, the other is the game
>
> The game is created and run by wacker intelectuals that like the
sound
> of their own voices - and 'art' dealers
> The content is what You experience from the work (without knowing Who
> did it or what it's 'worth' etc)
>
> Don't mix them up and don't join the two thing in your head
I do not- to me art is a means of communicating- and totally separate
from the art market as a concept.
The fact that Picasso was marketed doesn't invalidate what his art
communicates.
And if you want to be taken seriously by the art elite today- you gotta
play up the public face and market like a pro.
Selling is selling, no matter what the commodity.
A car salesman is always full of shit, but the car WILL get you around.
>
> btw the 'game' is why I just don't go there with my sculpture - the
> closest I came to selling my stuff was an idea I had to start making
> lots of copies in secar (white al based concrete) of a particulary
> beautiful half size figure I'd made and selling them in garden shops.
> the stuff they were selling was dreadfull - bad reproductions of bad
> reproductions of bad victorian shit. The funny thig for me was years
> later I mentioned this to a group of (successful) sculptors - they
> wanted me to wash my mouth out LOL - I saw it as spreading beauty so
the
> world would be a better place - they thought I would be Devaluing Art
> (it was a very good work)
Art is all around you. Practically everything human beings do is
aesthetically driven or influenced.
The elitist art snobs want to believe that their stuff is on a
different plane- but I think not.
I think its just them wanting to beleive they are special and better
than others.
success is what you believe it to be.
I have never made a big splash in the fine art world- but I have always
supported myself making art.
I have learned take great joy in creating the best
(whatever-the-client-wants) that I can. I would rather spend my life
creating than have to work a regular job to keep my art pure.
Other artists strongly disagree, and that's fine for them, if that is
their definition of success.
Its like the communisim thing- people are trying to get thru this life
as best they can- you have to have compassion for the rationales they
come up with to keep them going.
christopher
John Cook
> John Cook wrote:
>
>> scul...@tfb.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> Here goes… There are many 'visions of a utopian world' that involve
>> compassion and sharing (including Mine) But Communism™ Was a SPECIFIC
>> structure and dogma - made up by a specific man (marx) - under the
>> influence of a specific philosophy (the same philosophical thread that
>> created Wagner and Hitler) and as You said it was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
>>
> Wait a minute... Hitler was indeed a famous socialist and Marx an
> important historical figure but a deeply flawed thinker.
>
> Wagner, on the other hand, was a great artist. His opera was influenced
> by Teutonic myth and his music is sublime. Just because Hitler happened
> to like him is no reason to abuse him!
I didn't abuse him - Fuk, Ride of the valceries (sp) Alone payed for his
space on the planet - I just said where his images of that great blood
'n soil, battle 'n war heroic tutonic master race of gods comes from -
the same source. Used in different ways. Are you guys here intelligent
enough for me to say that hitler was a 'Great' orator/motivator/'leader'
without slaming me as a nazi? A persons talent is little connected with
their ideas - even a GREAT artist can have bad ideas and express them
very well.
>
> When people ask me what I've got against pictures, I can only reply,
> 'What have you got against the well'- Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien
really good sig but u should fix the typo
John Cook
>>Whenever I meet an artist who has fantastic potential that they just
>>can't seem to fully realize, I always charcterize them as having
>>"Leonardo's disease".
>>
>
> I characterize most 20th century art as having the Picasso disease.
>
> No skill no art!
>
> Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
>
> "The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
> combined with the stupidity of our people."
> - Bill Maher
True, true, true, can I borrow your sig? lol
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>> John Cook wrote:
>>
>>> scul...@tfb.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Here goes… There are many 'visions of a utopian world' that involve
>>> compassion and sharing (including Mine) But Communism™ Was a SPECIFIC
>>> structure and dogma - made up by a specific man (marx) - under the
>>> influence of a specific philosophy (the same philosophical thread
>>> that created Wagner and Hitler) and as You said it was WRONG, WRONG,
>>> WRONG!
>>>
>> Wait a minute... Hitler was indeed a famous socialist and Marx an
>> important historical figure but a deeply flawed thinker.
>>
>> Wagner, on the other hand, was a great artist. His opera was
>> influenced by Teutonic myth and his music is sublime. Just because
>> Hitler happened to like him is no reason to abuse him!
>
>
> I didn't abuse him - Fuk, Ride of the valceries (sp) Alone payed for his
> space on the planet - I just said where his images of that great blood
> 'n soil, battle 'n war heroic tutonic master race of gods comes from -
> the same source. Used in different ways. Are you guys here intelligent
> enough for me to say that hitler was a 'Great' orator/motivator/'leader'
> without slaming me as a nazi? A persons talent is little connected with
> their ideas - even a GREAT artist can have bad ideas and express them
> very well.
>
in the film Max, was an impressive artist - if you consider his canvas
to be military uniforms. Those trenchcoats, jackboots and hats made an
impressive image in front of the Eiffel Tower and the Nuremberg Rallies
were triumphs of spectacle. Even the Nazi helmets were elegant design.
>
>>
>> When people ask me what I've got against pictures, I can only reply,
>> 'What have you got against the well'- Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien
>
>
> really good sig but u should fix the typo
> --
>
to complain about.
--
All persons are deemed to have a _right_ to equality of treatment,
except when some recognised social expediency requires the reverse. And
hence all social inequalities which have ceased to be considered
expedient, assume the character not of simple inexpediency, but of
injustice, and appear so tyrannical, that people are apt to wonder how
they ever could have been tolerated; forgetful that they themselves
perhaps tolerate other inequalities under an equally mistaken notion of
expediency, the correction of which would make that which they approve
seem quite as monstrous as what they have at last learnt to condemn. The
entire history of social improvement has been a series of transitions,
by which one custom or institution after another, from being a supposed
primary necessity of social existence, has passed into the rank of an
universally stigmatized injustice and tyranny. So it has been with the
distinctions of slaves and freemen, nobles and serfs, patricians and
plebeians; and so it will be, and in part already is, with the
aristocracies of colour, race, and sex. -- J.S.Mill Chapter V.
Utilitarianism
scul...@tfb.com
what he said...
Demonizing those cultural ideas that are not your own is the first step
toward tyranny.
its more evolved to try and be honest about the inequities and
assumptions of every system, including your own, as well as recognizing
that every belief system ever adopted was adopted for what seemed like
good reasons at the time.
Hitler used a "percieved" national emergency to pass laws that stripped
German citizens of their civil liberties and created concentration
camps for what seemed like solid reasons-
Similarly- GW Bush used a "percieved" national emergency to pass the
euphemistically named "patriot act" to strip American's of rights that
a hundred years of judcial descisions secured. And Americans, just like
Hitler's Germans, ate it up like pablum in the name of 'security." An
illusionary concept at best.
Oh- and the detention facility he created in Guantanamo so that
"detainees" could be held in eternal limbo without due process or
representation- where his administration could test their theories
about evading the Geneva conventions on mistreatment without judicial
review... yeah- that's America's very first truely political prison. (
The Japanese-American internment camps werre not really political
prisons- the people being held were being held for their ethnicity, not
their politics- they were concentration camps)
Yet most Americans think their country represents what is good and just
in this world.
The truth is we are no better than the Germans who ended up getting
suckered into a despotic regime, and loved it.
The true price of freedom is eternal vigilence; not aimed at our
"enemies", but at ourselves.
christopher
John Cook
It's not fair - you use Way more fingers than me when typing…
scul...@tfb.com wrote:
> Sorry... c a n ' t . . . r e s i s t . . . . . . . m u s t . . . .d
> e b a t e...
>
>>I'm absolutely Not going to get into a communism debate - just
I don't keep my new year resolutions either lol
>>You are an artist - look at and compare nazi art with stalinist art -
>>they are almost identical - their monuments and public architecture -
>>all so similar...
>
> The art produced by those states had nothing to do with communism...
it had Everything to do with the fundamental idea that communism
exemplifies (makes a formal goal) but the others rely upon - the
sacrifice of the individual to the 'greator good'
>
> If you want to see REAL communist inspired art look at practically
> everything paid for by the WPA during the same time period... Its
> theme driven, its propagandist, but a lot of its pretty damn good art.
I liked some photographs that that guy??? did of depression era poor
families - really good work. But this is not the point.
>>What you are thinking of as 'communism' is just pretty pink icing on
>>the outside of a poison cake.
>
> No- I am thinking of communism as being the concepts forwarded by Marx-
> a true state serving the proletariat. Its a nice thought to imagine a
> world where each serves according to his ability and each takes
> according to his need... it just not a feasible basis for organizing a
> progressive government because people don't DO that.
>
> You are demonizing something that was intended to to ..
Sure - "intended to" - just like all cults, religions, fads whatever …
So if the cult leader tells his followers how to live and then
attempting to live that way kills them (or others) don't you think "but
I _intended_ well" is a bit lame as an excuse.
Even if it was a diet plan…
Do you forgive bush because the moronic dickhead BELIEVES he is doing Good?
> Read Marx.
NO
> His ideas were based upon the hardships and mistreatment perpetrated
> upon the average worker by the capitalist elite.
Warning! Warning! Warning! (waves arms in air) Error! Error! Error!
His ideas were based on his philosophy which was stupid
His _Feelings_ were based "upon the hardships and mistreatment
perpetrated..."
> You have to immerse yourself in the time these ideas sprang from to
Sure mate - you do spout the spout very well - you must have taken this
crap seriously at some time in your life - all the way throught your
reply/post you just keep spouting things that are EXACTLY the official
post_wall_falling_down line.
But you are not a spin-doctor you actually Believe this stuff. You
think you have figured it out for yourself.
Oh - re the stuff I snipped to make room here - all that child
labor/exploitation/whatever - evils of 'capitalism' YES YES YES It's all
True!
And the population increased 300% in one hundred years…
Aren't I supposed to say at this point "Go Figure"
>
> This shift in government policy toward
> regulatiung the excesses of capitalism was critical to creating the
> notions of freedom that Americans now enjoy.
LOL LOL LOL LOL
"Freedom" - what can I say - are you Totally blind to how close you are
to having NONE
> Modern captialism works ...
it doesn't
> BECAUSE of the early threat of communist
> ideas, not in spite of them.
It is a combination of the two - it's called facism - where the state
controls industry (regulation) without owning it - just like facist
germany or italy
>>Communism WAS an evil from the start because they KNEW it wouldn't
>>'work' - and virtually the entire art community over last century
>> helped them to hide it! ACTIVELY
Have to tell about a speech given by a very influencial art critic of
those days, his name was Hubert Read or something very similar - he was
a 'modernist'. The speech was to the somewhere or other young communist
league. He explained why there was so much difference between soviet
art and the 'modern' art of the communists in the west (like picasso) -
it seems that according to Read modern art was right and correct because
its intention/achievment was to break down beliefs in reason or whatever
that supported capitalism - but after the revolution artists would creat
true soviet style 'heroic' art to help support the nobel experiment.
> But they derived their power from the fact that the working man WANTED
> to believe it would work; ANYTHING was better than what they had then.
I don't believe in 'the workers revolution' - they had a great deal of
trouble getting a 'worker' for the meetings of the bloomsbury group and
the ones they got were pretty embarrassing…
Communism was a con perperated by intellectuals and artists of the time.
Right from the start the unions were as coersive as the 'bosses'.
As soon as they were allowed to form unions they insisted on COMPULSORY
unionism… In fact I suspect that the battle to be ALLOWED to have a
union was in fact the battle to be able to FORCE the workers to join.
The workers just got a new set of arsehole bosses.
> Stalin "knew" he was not a communist- and maybe a few of his top
> henchmen, but no one else knew, they believed.
utterly irrevelent
> Folks started out believing it- then defending its failures as being
> the fault of the lingering effects of the prior system, then hanging on
> to the idea that the previous generation had to completely die away
> before the real change could occur....
Yes - so why are you arguing it? They (artists/intellectuals) _Clung_ to
obvious falsehoods and lies that were killing ppl - what FOR. Too
embarrassing to admit the size of their mistake? The scale of their
complicity??
> Stalin, and every other despot, relied on the blind devotion of his
joking? "blind devotion"
It was more like blinding terror
> This is NOT communism. Communism hasn't actually happened yet.
There IS no 'communist' system - it's just a 'pie in the sky' goal!
How 'bout I announce a system called 'happyism' - no method of achieving
it - just a goal.
> Probably can't because Marx never addressses the concept of how such a
> state would be governed without unchecked growth of a power elite.
his Worst error (especially for me) is that he was blind to the value of
the true creative in human existance. Sorry, but Fuk the idea that the
mindless worker/masses are the source of all wealth. It's just plain
stupid. The creator 'type' has always been the true source of a
comunities wealth.
> Regardless of what Stalin was up to- no one knew what he was doing, no
> one in Moscow even knew about the famine, and no one in the States knew
> either.
The communist american dude who reported for the New York Times did.
He told a lot of lies in his reports.
> People in large groups will not EMBRACE 'evil' if they know it is evil.
no kiddin' mate
> The artists then were the same as artists now- can you really believe
> that they were culpable?
> Maybe they just thought it would make things better...
Yup! and they were willing to currupt art to do it.
>>>success that Picasso enjoyed.
>>
>>Not me - I've seen pictures of him at various times in his life - he
>>always looks the same - a nasty little person, full of hate. I've
>>not seen any of him looking Happy
> He was as happy as an major asshole can be-
> but I didn't say I want to BE him- just that I wouldn't mind have that
> kind of success...that kind of impact.
Don't believe you - would you really sell your soul That cheap?
> I do not- to me art is a means of communicating- and totally separate
> from the art market as a concept.
I actually nearly edited that bit so it didn't sound like I was talking
to you personaly but to your defence of 'Art'
> The fact that Picasso was marketed doesn't invalidate what his art
> communicates.
Of course not - neither would me selling fine art as garden sculpture…
The difference is that my work would sell without "packaging" and my
work is honest.
> And if you want to be taken seriously by the art elite today- you gotta
I don't
> Selling is selling, no matter what the commodity.
> A car salesman is always full of shit, but the car WILL get you around.
by 'selling' you mean lying?
> Art is all around you. Practically everything human beings do is
> aesthetically driven or influenced.
> The elitist art snobs want to believe that their stuff is on a
> different plane- but I think not.
> I think its just them wanting to beleive they are special and better
> than others.
GO Bro...
> success is what you believe it to be.
> I have never made a big splash in the fine art world- but I have always
> supported myself making art.
> I have learned to take great joy in creating the best
> (whatever-the-client-wants) that I can. I would rather spend my life
> creating than have to work a regular job to keep my art pure.
>
> Other artists strongly disagree, and that's fine for them, if that is
> their definition of success.
>
> Its like the communisim thing- people are trying to get thru this life
> as best they can- you have to have compassion for the rationales they
> come up with to keep them going.
You Are hereby forgiven the sins of your youth - blessings my son
LOL
> christopher
>
Go christopher!
PS 'Having' to write this post was a Wonderful way to avoid some boring
visitors lol thanx
Paul Mesken
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>Hitler, as made clear
>in the film Max, was an impressive artist - if you consider his canvas
>to be military uniforms. Those trenchcoats, jackboots and hats made an
>impressive image in front of the Eiffel Tower and the Nuremberg Rallies
>were triumphs of spectacle. Even the Nazi helmets were elegant design.
And let's not forget the swastika. Even though Hitler didn't invent
the swastika itself, he did put it in a white circle, surrounded by
red (the infamous nazi flag). It's one of the most recognizable logos
in the world :-)
Peter H.M. Brooks
as a common sign of good luck.
You're right, though, it was also impressive iconography.
--
'When I use a word,' HUmpty Dumpty said ina rather scornful tojne, 'it
means just what I choose it so mean - neither more nor less' - Alice in
Wonderland, Lewis Carrol
Mani Deli
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>Wait a minute... Hitler was indeed a famous socialist and Marx an
>important historical figure but a deeply flawed thinker.
Hitler killed socialists in spite of the name of his party.
>
>Wagner, on the other hand, was a great artist. His opera was influenced
>by Teutonic myth and his music is sublime. Just because Hitler happened
>to like him is no reason to abuse him!
True, Picasso, Dali and Wagner were creeps in political respects but
when we judge their artwork we judge the realm of art not opinion.
The fact that Hitler disliked modern art doesn't make it good.
Mani Deli
>The art produced by those states had nothing to do with communism- - - etc
Well it often did. But like all artwork some was good and some bad.
>If you want to see REAL communist inspired art look at practically
>everything paid for by the WPA during the same time period...
It wasn't communist inspired.
> Its theme driven, its propagandist, but a lot of its pretty damn good art.
>
And most all is kept out of the modern sections of museums because it
would compete with most of the favored modern crap.
>Its like the communisim thing- people are trying to get thru this life
>as best they can- you have to have compassion for the rationales they
>come up with to keep them going.
>
You have to try to deal with them rationally, compassion is useless.
John Cook
scul...@tfb.com
suffers.
There were some beautifully sculpted sculptures of Lenin and Stalin
littering the Soviet landscape- ....thousands of them...
The greatest crime of the despotic regimes toward art is not 'ignoring'
the arts- on the contrary, the arts get lots of money under such
regimes...
their greatest crime against art was the subourning of the artist's
voice in favor of the State's propaganda; the dissolution of dissent.
This is why their art is often condemned.
In a despotic regime every artist become the voice of the despot.
you simply have to have compassion for the fact that they usually do
not have a choice in the matter...
christopher
Gary Waller
proposition. Let's coincide the rating of art with the Bristol Stool
Form Scale.
http://www.n2nmagazine.co.uk/articleDetails.asp?ArticleID=227
John Cook
A Perfect opportunity for constructive crossposting…
Zapanaz
wrote:
>Gary Waller wrote:
>> I don't usually respond to crosspostings - but I have an interesting
>> proposition. Let's coincide the rating of art with the Bristol Stool
>> Form Scale.
>>
>> http://www.n2nmagazine.co.uk/articleDetails.asp?ArticleID=227
>
>A Perfect opportunity for constructive crossposting…
You know, "Bob" Dobbs in the late 80's used to announce football games
in a necktie made entirely of his own mucus. THAT is art. Accept no
substitutes.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Question : Rev, Bob's image appeared on some bean silos nearby.
Should I be alarmed or is Bob
Question : spreading his word in odd ways?
SubGStang1 : BEAN SILOS?? Man, those aren't BEAN SILOS! Those are
TOXIC NERVE GAS MISSILE LAUNCHERS disguised
SubGStang1 : as bean silos. The Dobbsheads were probably put there
by the military to ward off evil spirits.
scul...@tfb.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2005 23:23:38 -0700, scul...@tfb.com wrote:
>
> >The art produced by those states had nothing to do with communism- -
- etc
>
> Well it often did. But like all artwork some was good and some bad.
Totalitarian regimes are distinct from actual communism- regardless of
what the McCarthy commision believed.
Communist art portrays the proletariat- not the head of The State-
There is no difference between sculptures of Stalin and those of
Ceasar- In true communism there would BE no identifiable head of
state, and certainly not one that would be the focus of all state
sponsored imagery.
>
> >If you want to see REAL communist inspired art look at practically
> >everything paid for by the WPA during the same time period...
>
> It wasn't communist inspired.
Incorrect- the WPA hired almost exclusively artists who were, at the
time, actively communist- they saw the WPA as a great step toward a
government that celerbated the worker and valued the worker above
capitalist interests- their art celebrated the working man and woman.
That is communist imagery, not capitalist.
>
> > Its theme driven, its propagandist, but a lot of its pretty damn
good art.
> >
> And most all is kept out of the modern sections of museums because it
> would compete with most of the favored modern crap.
Yeah- a lot of modern art IS crap- but then, back in the days of the
Salons of Paris, 90% of THAT art was crap, as well.
>
> >Its like the communisim thing- people are trying to get thru this
life
> >as best they can- you have to have compassion for the rationales
they
> >come up with to keep them going.
> >
> You have to try to deal with them rationally, compassion is useless.
You can not deal with people who are deluded rationally- If communists
were rational, then they would have quickly realized the flaw in their
ideas of how people behave in a group. It wasn't a "theory" of
communism, it was an ideology, as so un apporachable by rational
argument-
Communism belongs to the same class of belief sysytems as Creationism,
Roswell believers, and Kennedy Conspirerists... Folks for whom no
amoiunt of countering evidence can convince. ( come to think of it- I
would like to suggest a new term in english referring to any belief for
which the lack of supportable evidence is seen as PROOF of coverup or
conspiracy --"ROSWELLIAN")
this does not mean that communists are not human, are not suffering and
struggling to get thru this life as best they can-- so, they are still
worthy of consideration and their needs and fears are still valid human
experience--- but these are areas better understood thru compassion
than through mere reason.
( besides- aren't you an artist? doesn't compassion play a huge part in
how you SEE the world around you? "
To characterize them as "evil" not only de-humanizes them ( justifing
acts of violence against them ) - the label in and of itself is not
rational and disregards our own culpability in arenas not all that
dissimilar.
There is NO group of people, anywhere, from anytime, who do not have
blood on their hands.
>
> No skill no art!
Can't agree here either- the entire genre of "folk art" is practcally
defined by lack of skill-
Humans have developed many forms of language, other than speech, to
communicate content that speech is inadequate to convey. Music, Art,
Dance, Math.
Art is that subset that deals with communicating thru imagery, form and
color.
A person may not speak english very well- but however badly they speak
it, they are still trying to communicate something.
So it is with art- even a lousy artist is communicating something-
he's just do so without eloquence.
christopher
scul...@tfb.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2005 11:34:01 -0700, scul...@tfb.com wrote:
>
> >Communism became an evil because it could never have worked, and so
it
> >simply led to corruption and despotism in those countries where it
was
> >tried.
>
> Communism became an evil because it was undemocratic and run by thugs
> who could not be replaced.
Communism is NOT undemocratic- there is nothing in the tenets of
communism that precludes or disallows elections, representatives and
congress- On the contrary, Communism requires that the "state" be
nothing more than a group of fellow working stiffs.
You can not justifiably label what Russia or China or Cuba BECAME as
actual communism-
in these countries, the communist revolution was just window dressing
on a Junta- The 'people" believed that it was cimmunism- the leaders of
the revolution just used whatever sword would bring them to power.
>
> >
> >However- you cannot judge being a communist out of context- In the
> >1920's and 30's communism was still a relatively NEW and relatively
> >UNTRIED idea. And it was born out of the excesses and extremes of
the
> >Robber Baron period of capitalism- where a small handful of men set
> >themselves up as the aristocracy to the the surfdom of their labor
> >force.
>
> Revolution is more often than not an abrupt change in the form of
> mis-government. Things got far worse under communism.
>
> >Today- modern capitalism is the result of lessons learned the hard
way
> >about unregulated commerce. We in the States have the FDA, EEOC and
a
> >host of Government reulators whose job it is to check the tendency
of
> >capitalists to TAKE IT ALL......
> >(of course- the Bush administration seems hell bent on eliminating
any
> >regulation of commerce-yikes )
>
> The U.S. is on the road to fascism.
Yes, it most definitely is- only- not a fascism based upon ethicity or
culture, but more focused on wealth and influence-
Perhaps its more of a 'fascistocracy"
>
>
> >As to Leonardo- while he was probably a genius, I don't think that
much
> >of him as an artist. The perspective in several of his few surviving
> >works is often way off,
>
> Name one and describe what's off.
The annunciation- the angel's right arm could not possibly be in that
position and still be over the book, given the relation of the
bookstand to the angel established in the ground plane.
Try it- make a little maquette of the figure and the bookstand and see
if you can make it work.
>
>
> >Whenever I meet an artist who has fantastic potential that they just
> >can't seem to fully realize, I always charcterize them as having
> >"Leonardo's disease".
> >
> I characterize most 20th century art as having the Picasso disease.
Again- picasso was actually pretty damn good- I WISH that most artists
working today had the kind of depth, relevance, and skillfull execution
as Picasso- I would say its more os a Pollack Disease- something
requiring no skill, no vision, no comment other than itself...
christopher
John Cook
> Mani Deli wrote:
-----
>>>If you want to see REAL communist inspired art look at practically
>>>everything paid for by the WPA during the same time period...
>>
>>It wasn't communist inspired.
> Incorrect- the WPA hired almost exclusively artists who were, at the
> time, actively communist-
Funny isn't it - that fact can be discussed/admitted now, at least here,
but back then it would have been 'red under the beds' propaganda.
-----
>>And most all is kept out of the modern sections of museums because it
>>would compete with most of the favored modern crap.
> Yeah- a lot of modern art IS crap- but then, back in the days of the
> Salons of Paris, 90% of THAT art was crap, as well.
The book that got me to think there was SOME value in 'ART' (and
eventually got me into sculpture) was "the Nude" by Kenneth Clark.
A quote from that book refering to salon art of the late 18 hundreds as…
"a conspicuous waste of good marble"
> You can not deal with people who are deluded rationally- If communists
> were rational, then they would have quickly realized the flaw in their
> ideas of how people behave in a group. It wasn't a "theory" of
> communism, it was an ideology, as so un apporachable by rational
> argument-
The actual mistake (by the honest belivers) was to think that the way we
can work in small, personal, groups could be applied to a whole country
or even the whole world.
> Communism belongs to the same class of belief sysytems as Creationism,
> Roswell believers, and Kennedy Conspirerists... Folks for whom no
> amoiunt of countering evidence can convince. ( come to think of it- I
> would like to suggest a new term in english referring to any belief for
> which the lack of supportable evidence is seen as PROOF of coverup or
> conspiracy --"ROSWELLIAN")
Sorry Christopher but TOTAL disagreement here.
The the MOST ridiculous view of conspiracy theories is that they are ALL
silly. There ARE 'conspiracies' going on - THOUSANDS of them - always
have been. Just compare your knowledge of the true story of what was
going on at any one time and place in history with what the average Joe
of the time/place _thought_ was going on. The various powers_that_be do
NOT tell the truth. And the best weapon they have against any
'whistleblowers' is mockery. - don't help them Christopher.
>>No skill no art!
>
>
> Can't agree here either- the entire genre of "folk art" is practcally
> defined by lack of skill-
>
> Humans have developed many forms of language, other than speech, to
> communicate content that speech is inadequate to convey. Music, Art,
> Dance, Math.
> Art is that subset that deals with communicating thru imagery, form and
> color.
> A person may not speak english very well- but however badly they speak
> it, they are still trying to communicate something.
>
> So it is with art- even a lousy artist is communicating something-
> he's just do so without eloquence.
Spot On Christopher - I like the way your mind works
John Cook
> scul...@tfb.com wrote:
>> Communism belongs to the same class of belief sysytems as Creationism,
>> Roswell believers, and Kennedy Conspirerists... Folks for whom no
>> amoiunt of countering evidence can convince. ( come to think of it- I
>> would like to suggest a new term in english referring to any belief for
>> which the lack of supportable evidence is seen as PROOF of coverup or
>> conspiracy --"ROSWELLIAN")
>
>
> Sorry Christopher but TOTAL disagreement here.
>
> The the MOST ridiculous view of conspiracy theories is that they are ALL
> silly. There ARE 'conspiracies' going on - THOUSANDS of them - always
> have been. Just compare your knowledge of the true story of what was
> going on at any one time and place in history with what the average Joe
> of the time/place _thought_ was going on. The various powers_that_be do
> NOT tell the truth. And the best weapon they have against any
> 'whistleblowers' is mockery. - don't help them Christopher.
Hey Dude, did some net work for you…
Look at this, as a sculptor. I was convinced (doing a figure that has
six tingers and toes?! that is SO believable - Wow!). HOW much effort
do you think went into this IF it is fake and WHY? Again WHY?
BTW the source was NOT paid - the film stock Was kodak 1946 issue, etc…
This is either a MAJOR effort to Fuk with our brains or it is genuine -
You decide/explain…
http://www.nj.org/video/web/ufo02.html
John Cook
Sorry to Keep on this Christopher, but I have just watched this stuff
AGAIN - frame by frame in some sections - do you Really think someone
went to THIS much effort? - Go and Google "Crop Circles" (images)… are
they really 'just' an elaborate fraud?
What Purpose?
If it is all a fraud maybe it's the best 'conceptual' art of the …? umm
'turn of the century?'
BTW Just a coincidence but the song playing now (here) is where my sig
comes from, one of the verses is "and if Warhol is a Genius - what am I
- a speck of dust? - on the penis of an Alien????" LOL - Thought you
might like that.
Rev Chain Smerker
"John Cook" <FunC...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:425befd2$0$267$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
People should leave the poor alien bastards alone, Its bad enough they were
asked to come to this planet by there superiors and were forced to make
contact with american rednecks.
They have suffered enough already.
Thur
"John Cook" <FunC...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> John Cook wrote:
>> scul...@tfb.com wrote:
>
>>> Communism belongs to the same class of belief sysytems as Creationism,
>>> Roswell believers, and Kennedy Conspirerists... Folks for whom no
>>> amoiunt of countering evidence can convince. ( come to think of it- I
>>> would like to suggest a new term in english referring to any belief for
>>> which the lack of supportable evidence is seen as PROOF of coverup or
>>> conspiracy --"ROSWELLIAN")
>>
>>
>> Sorry Christopher but TOTAL disagreement here.
>>
>> The the MOST ridiculous view of conspiracy theories is that they are ALL
>> silly. There ARE 'conspiracies' going on - THOUSANDS of them - always
>> have been. Just compare your knowledge of the true story of what was
>> going on at any one time and place in history with what the average Joe
>> of the time/place _thought_ was going on. The various powers_that_be do
>> NOT tell the truth. And the best weapon they have against any
>> 'whistleblowers' is mockery. - don't help them Christopher.
>
>
> Look at this, as a sculptor. I was convinced (doing a figure that has six
> tingers and toes?! that is SO believable - Wow!). HOW much effort do you
> think went into this IF it is fake and WHY? Again WHY?
>
>
> This is either a MAJOR effort to Fuk with our brains or it is genuine -
>
>
> http://www.nj.org/video/web/ufo02.html
>
> --
> John Cook
>
> The World is my oyster soup kitchen floor wax museum...
> King Crimson
> Look at this, as a sculptor. I was convinced (doing a figure that has six
> tingers and toes?! that is SO believable - Wow!). HOW much effort do you
> think went into this IF it is fake and WHY? Again WHY?
It is not for others to provide legitimacy for fakers.
They must try to fake it on their own :-)
--
Thur
scul...@tfb.com
> >>
> >>It wasn't communist inspired.
> > Incorrect- the WPA hired almost exclusively artists who were, at
the
> > time, actively communist-
>
> Funny isn't it - that fact can be discussed/admitted now, at least
here,
> but back then it would have been 'red under the beds' propaganda.
Still can't be admitted in many circles- Americans in general have a
knee jerk reaction to communism even still.
> > You can not deal with people who are deluded rationally- If
communists
> > were rational, then they would have quickly realized the flaw in
their
> > ideas of how people behave in a group. It wasn't a "theory" of
> > communism, it was an ideology, as so un apporachable by rational
> > argument-
>
> The actual mistake (by the honest belivers) was to think that the way
we
> can work in small, personal, groups could be applied to a whole
country
> or even the whole world.
You are fooling yourself if you think small groups work any differently
than large ones. Every little jerkwater community and 5 employee or
greater business in the world is a Peyton Place of infighting,
jealosies, competition and backstabbing.
Every individual is self interetsed first and foremost except for a few
shining exceptions- But just because 1 guy in 1 hundred will risk his
life to save a stranger does not mean that people are selfless- it
means that one in a hundred are.
I am not saying altruism doesn't exist- but that it mostly appears when
folks have more than they need. People can cooperate just as far as the
result is in their mutual best interest. But once the stress is on,
when the resource get thin, the claws come out.
labor unions in the US are a perfect example. When no amount of extra
individual effort is rewarded any differently than the slowest worker-
the workforce drifts to the same level of effort as the worst guy...
why knock yourself out?
This is true of human beings. Any other belief is based upon faith and
not experience.
>
> > Communism belongs to the same class of belief sysytems as
Creationism,
> > Roswell believers, and Kennedy Conspirerists... Folks for whom no
> > amoiunt of countering evidence can convince. ( come to think of
it- I
> > would like to suggest a new term in english referring to any belief
for
> > which the lack of supportable evidence is seen as PROOF of coverup
or
> > conspiracy --"ROSWELLIAN")
>
> Sorry Christopher but TOTAL disagreement here.
>
> The the MOST ridiculous view of conspiracy theories is that they are
ALL
> silly.
Don't get me wrong- I am not saying conspiracies don't occur- the Bush
administration is a great example of a very successful conspiracy to
hijack the republican party in the interests of a handful of very rich
folks.
I am saying that the concept of the vast, successful and totally
"secret" conspiracy is ridiculous, and Like communism, based upon an
unsupportable belief in the competence of people interacting in a
group.
Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy. The vast weight of evidence proves it.
In 40 years not a single piece of verifiable evidence for any other
scenario has surfaced- every experiment to prove a second shooter or
conspiracy has failed.
Yet the adherents to this religion maintain that there BEING NO
EVIDENCE is just proof of the success of the conspiracy. By that logic,
God is an ashtray- there being no evidence to the contrary is proof.
Was there a conspriracy to shoot Kennedy? yeah, oswald probably
imagined that if he could go back to the cuban embassy in mexico city
with that to his credit that maybe castro would let him into Cuba and
make him a socialist hero.
But that was as far as it went in killing him.
Was there a coverup? yeah- Johnson wanted Oswald's link to the cuban
embassy kept quiet so there would not be a national uproar demanding a
cuban invasion that Russia might launch to stop. (we had only JUST
squeaked out a nuclear exchange the previous year) But that is as much
as all documented evidence points to. Johnson went to his grave
believing that agents of Cuban intelligence put Oswald up to it. Its
possible... But that is hardly the military backed multipronged mob
mega hit that has grown in popular mythology over the shooting.
Or Roswell- It is ridiculous to think that the US military could
discover alien spacecraft and not have to respond to that threat- and
that response would cost money. A lot of money that simply can't be
shown to have been spent.
Is there a military involvement in a UFO conspiracy? Yeah, to try and
keep genuine classified military experiments and projects secret, the
military was more than happy to allow folks to chase the wild goose of
flying saucers. Having the UFO 'idea' planted firmly in the public's
head made them even less reliable witnesses of military experiments as
they interpreted what they saw thru the lens of ETs and as a result
Rational russian analysts would dismiss the UFO claims as delusional
and not derive useful information from first hand accounts.
but that is as far as that went.
What is amazing about successful conspiracies is how visble they are.
We have TAPE and DOCUMENTS showing Bush knew there was no link between
Iraq and Al Queda, that the uranium "yellowcake" was a fabricated
report... we can establish that All the money funding Al Queda came
from just a handful of highly placed Saudis- and that Bush's
administration has steadfastly refused to allow any investigation of
Saudi involvement... EVERYBODY KNOWS that Haliburton was given a no bid
contract and that Cheney used to be on the board...
...And yet folks still swallow the party line about how we went into
Iraq to free them, or for WMDs etc..
...And yet no investigation of Halliburton's deal...
There is ample evidence of real conspiracy- it leaves a trail.
It is also verifiable that conspiracies involving more than a few
people can not be kept secret for long- although what leaks out can
often be 'spun' after the fact to seem less machiavelian.
The truth about human beings is that the average person can't even
exert relaible control over their SPOUSE, much less a large group of
folks spread throughout a country.
There is simply too much self interest going on to get that many people
to completely agree to anything.
Especially when tabloids offer such lucrative book deals for anything
incendiary.
And the best weapon of the conspirator isn't mockey- its the apathy of
the public.
Two folks can make a conspiracy work- three is already getting shakey-
4, someone will eventually blab, turn state's evidence, or sign a book
deal.
I see the world of high finance and government as being little more
than the dynamic interplay between a bunch of powerful men, each
desperately TRYING to concoct a conspiracy, and being constanlty
confounded, tripped up, and reneged upon by the very guys he is trying
to conspire with as they each try and wrangle for what they think will
get them more power and more influence.
But you can always see it going on if you look.
You can't move an inch without leaving a mark of passing.
christopher
John Cook
ocasionally…
I wrote:
>> Hey Dude, did some net work for you…
>>
>> Look at this, as a sculptor. I was convinced (doing a figure that has
>> six fingers and toes?! that is SO believable - Wow!). HOW much
>> effort do you think went into this IF it is fake and WHY? Again WHY?
>>
>> BTW the source was NOT paid - the film stock Was kodak 1946 issue,
>> etc…
>>
>> This is either a MAJOR effort to Fuk with our brains or it is genuine
>> - You decide/explain…
>>
>> http://www.nj.org/video/web/ufo02.html
>
>
> Sorry to Keep on this Christopher, but I have just watched this stuff
> AGAIN - frame by frame in some sections - do you Really think someone
> went to THIS much effort? - Go and Google "Crop Circles" (images)… are
> they really 'just' an elaborate fraud?
>
> What Purpose?
>
> If it is all a fraud maybe it's the best 'conceptual' art of the …?
> umm 'turn of the century?'
Must say I was disappointed by that very loud 'No Comment'
Can't you get the video? - or it it 'unmentionable'?
scul...@tfb.com wrote:
> What is hilarious is that the original pranksters who started it all
> actually came out and demonstrated to BBC how they did them- made a
> few crop circles right on camera.
> Immediately afterward there was a huge surge in crop circles appearing
> all over the place, now that everyone knew the trick.
Saw that stuff - it was all very crude and obviously fake.
Just HOW gullible ARE you? - you clearly believed everything on that
show, Why - cos the bbc says so - the TV never lies. Has the BBC ever
distorted some truth that you happened to know? Or are they infallable.?
Do you get my point - I mean that we must take in ALL the evidence,
opinions etc before making a decision - to do otherwise is called prejudice.
> And yet- the believers claim that just because SOME of them are fake
> doesn't "prove" that they all are...
Christopher that is the sillyist thing you have said in a Long time (I
hope) Try it in ANY other context - go on, try it - can you give me an
example or two where that is a reasonable thing to say? What else should
they say - Oh right Rolex doesn't exist because there are fakes out
there. Jeeeeze - YOU are above that sort of mental slop.
> The thing that Roswell and crop circles and conspiracy theories all
> share is their close relation to religious belief.
> Its all predicated on a strong desire to find the CAUSE of things- to
> find comfort in the concept that things happen for a reason, that
> someone is in control, that events are not random...
> because random events can't be predicted, or relied upon, or
> compensated for- A random universe is a dangerous universe.
> So- being able to convince yourself that someone is in control of
> things makes you feel more secure- EVEN if you think they are evil, or
> underhanded in their motives.
You are spot on there about that religous personality type (I call them
'True Believers') and they really annoy me. They can also be very
dangerous. But all they really do is fog the issue here. Which is why
'they' encourage them.
Also that last bit explains to me (a bit) what's behind this strange
attitude people have re Bill Gates and Microsoft - they know he is a bad
thing on the planet and that his operating system is crap But they DON'T
Stop supporting him. And endlessly putting up with it. There has to
be an element of not wanting to admit you have been wrong.
I've always run macintosh - never hated my computer, never had problems
with viruses, never had to pay to upgrade the system, never had backward
compatibility problems. Just now, in the two weeks or so since I put a
clear email address in my header, I've accumulated about 50 spam
messages - about 35 preport to be from MS and most of these have viruses
in them - at least yahoo deletes a virus from most of them - it may be
missing the rest. They have no effect on OSX.
So basicly 95% of the computer users in the USA suffer because they
CHOOSE to do business with a bastard selling crap ruthlessly - because
it is THE INDUSTRY STANDARD - Because they all do business...
> People desperately cling to the idea that strings are being pullled and
> there is a reason behind it all.
> How that need manifests itself has to do with your particular bent of
> mind.
> The merciful god or the vengeful god?
the non-true-believers has no need of either
> The wise aliens or the abducting aliens?
Consensus among the ufo 'nuts' that aren't is - Both
> The conspiracy of corporations or the conspiracy of governments?
ummmm all of the above…
> Its all wanting to feel the security of a hand at the wheel, any hand
> ,oh god please tell me SOMEONE's driving this thing!!!!
While we all argue and complain about the decor…
> christopher
>
scul...@tfb.com wrote:
>>The actual mistake (by the honest belivers) was to think that the
>>way we
>>can work in small, personal, groups could be applied to a whole
>>country or even the whole world.
> You are fooling yourself if you think small groups work any differently
I said Can work, NOT Do work - I am fully aware that current societies
don't work (though I choose to live in a place that is exceptionally
good in this regard)
> I am not saying altruism doesn't exist- but that it mostly appears when
> folks have more than they need.
Try REALLY needing bus fare home - ask a rich man or a poor one? -
Hitch-hiking in the rain - what sort of car stops?
you know the answer to this Christopher.
> People can cooperate just as far as the result is in their mutual best interest.
Exactly - in biology they call it Reciproical Altruism - but it's not
'self-sacrifice' at ALL.
> But once the stress is on, when the resource get thin, the claws come out.
Like soldiers in a desperate battle field situation? No, I don't think
you can generalise that.
This anti-cooperation attitude/reaction/strategy has been PUMPED into
us. It's not natural.
Allow me to tell a story about 'altruism' and our 'modern' system.
A couple of months ago I was walking along the path on top of the rubble
rock wall of the marina. The last few days a strong northerly had been
blowing but it was calm again. There was large, new, very expensive
yacht gently doing it's final disintegration against the rocks.
It had dragged it's anchor in the wind and SLOWLY got closer and closer
- then it died. Lots of ppl saw it happen. They thought it was a
tragedy (boaties don't blame the boat for it's owners stupidity) but
nobody intervened for the single reason that if you tried (in any way)
and failed you WOULD be held liable by the Insurance company and they DO
NOT Stuff around.
Ordinary people are generally better than the system(s) they live under.
> labor unions in the US are a perfect example. When no amount of extra
> individual effort is rewarded any differently than the slowest worker-
> the workforce drifts to the same level of effort as the worst guy...
> why knock yourself out?
Same thing happens everywhere - like minimum building standards rapidly
become maximum building standards. So they have to be very Detailed
'standards' and they have to be 'checked' and 'enforced' and all this
has to be 'paid' for and so you have to be 'registered' etc.
Substitute Whatever for "building" and That field of human endevor WILL
become inefficient, expensive and corrupt and under the control of power
grubbers in a generation.
> This is true of human beings. Any other belief is based upon faith and
> not experience.
Not true for me, I do have personal experience of living in real
'community' at various times (I must note that Every time the situation
arose unplanned and unlead)
My chief interest is in figuring out an appropriate way for us humans to
live with each other and our planet. Obviously there is no future the
way it's going.
>>The the MOST ridiculous view of conspiracy theories is that they are
>>ALL silly.
> Don't get me wrong- I am not saying conspiracies don't occur- the Bush
> administration is a great example of a very successful conspiracy to
> hijack the republican party in the interests of a handful of very rich
> folks.
> I am saying that the concept of the vast, successful and totally
> "secret" conspiracy is ridiculous,
Like the vast, successful and totally secret group of abstract
artists/pranksters that have been putting fantastic amounts of effort
into making (Extraordinarily Beautiful) patterns in vegetation All over
the world for the last, humm not being a conspiracy nut I wouldn't know
but must be at least one GENERATION of SECRET hoaxers - hummm wonder
when they will let us in on the joke..
Come ON Christopher - who is the conspiracy nut here?
> and Like communism, based upon an
> unsupportable belief in the competence of people interacting in a
> group.
I agree with what you say but the thing is that such control/cooperation
isn't necessary when the media combine public apathy and mockery of
'kooks' to paper over/ignore any leaks.
> What is amazing about successful conspiracies is how visble they are.
> We have TAPE and DOCUMENTS showing Bush knew there was no link between
> Iraq and Al Queda, that the uranium "yellowcake" was a fabricated
> report... we can establish that All the money funding Al Queda came
> from just a handful of highly placed Saudis- and that Bush's
> administration has steadfastly refused to allow any investigation of
> Saudi involvement... EVERYBODY KNOWS that Haliburton was given a no bid
> contract and that Cheney used to be on the board...
> ....And yet folks still swallow the party line about how we went into
> Iraq to free them, or for WMDs etc..
> ....And yet no investigation of Halliburton's deal...
I see you Have noticed
> There is ample evidence of real conspiracy- it leaves a trail.
> It is also verifiable that conspiracies involving more than a few
> people can not be kept secret for long- although what leaks out can
> often be 'spun' after the fact to seem less machiavelian.
Recently read a New Scientist artical about the company that organised
the clean-up/disposal of both the Oklahoma City and 911 bombings - it's
called "Controlled Demolitions" - It is a very small company - ALL the
key employees are a Family. Thanks for explaining that.
> The truth about human beings is that the average person can't even
> exert relaible control over their SPOUSE, much less a large group of
> folks spread throughout a country.
> There is simply too much self interest going on to get that many people
> to completely agree to anything.
> Especially when tabloids offer such lucrative book deals for anything
> incendiary.
Not ANYthing incendiary - they are Quite directed at what ppl Want to
hear - ppl do NOT want their rugs pulled out from under them. They Love
hearing nasty things about ppl They perceive as better than themselves -
but they really don't want to get scared…
> And the best weapon of the conspirator isn't mockey- its the apathy of
> the public.
One of the few things they can agree on - keep the public apathetic and
distracted. I saw blair on tv news the other day saying "weapons of
Mass Distraction - woops, Destruction…" That was on SBS news, 30 min
later the ABC news showed (apparently) the same video with the blooper
edited (very skillfully) out. I thought WOW - and checked it in their
respective web-sites. The funny thing was that they swapped it over -
The ABC mentioned it in their text but SBS made No mention… Huh???
> Two folks can make a conspiracy work- three is already getting shakey-
> 4, someone will eventually blab, turn state's evidence, or sign a book
> deal.
Well, - you really should explain that to the military - I believe the
US gov takes that secrecy oath Rather Seriously…
> I see the world of high finance and government as being little more
> than the dynamic interplay between a bunch of powerful men, each
> desperately TRYING to concoct a conspiracy, and being constanlty
> confounded, tripped up, and reneged upon by the very guys he is trying
> to conspire with as they each try and wrangle for what they think will
> get them more power and more influence.
Me Too. It's kind of funny actually - if you don't cry
> But you can always see it going on if you look.
> You can't move an inch without leaving a mark of passing.
>
> christopher
--
scul...@tfb.com
all
> > actually came out and demonstrated to BBC how they did them- made a
> > few crop circles right on camera.
> > Immediately afterward there was a huge surge in crop circles
appearing
> > all over the place, now that everyone knew the trick.
>
> Saw that stuff - it was all very crude and obviously fake.
I have to disagree- the guys who camne out to fess up demonstrated by
creating an entire crop circle, identical to one of the earlier
circles, and measurably exactly consistent with all crop circle
features. They then went on, after being pressed about some of the
designs that seem vastly more complex to demonstrate that they could
create every design using nothing more sophisticated than their
flattening rig and a length of rope, with at least one guy to act as
the center of any given arc in the design. Simple geometric splits of
position and intersecting arcs can produce every single crop circle
ever made.
>
> Just HOW gullible ARE you? - you clearly believed everything on that
> show, Why - cos the bbc says so - the TV never lies. Has the BBC
ever
> distorted some truth that you happened to know? Or are they
infallable.?
>
> Do you get my point - I mean that we must take in ALL the evidence,
> opinions etc before making a decision - to do otherwise is called
prejudice.
Gullible? Hmmm- Okay, here's a group of guys who admit to making crop
circles- prove they can make them on camera, allow doubters to measure
and examine their results to verify that they are producing exactly the
same marks, bends and other features. And this revelation is
illuminated by a Loooong history of people perpetrating hoaxes on the
public, from piltdown man to bigfoot.
AFTER their demonstration, there was a sharp surge in the incidence of
crop circles as folks tried these techniques they published. This surge
of crop circle activity gradually petered out as the novelty wore off-
as might be expected.
Whereas The Space Alien believers have no evidence whatsoever of aliens
making them- no photos, no artifacts, not a single strand of alien hair
or snippet of alien DNA.
They also have NO explanation of what mechanism an alien race might
have used to create the circles- maybe they dropped down with an old
track hurdle and a rope, like the boys from britain did?
Please.... the very acme of gullibility is to even imagine that an
intelligent race of folks would invest billions of manhours and vast
amounts of time to travel the trillions of miles across interstellar
space just to leave some silly designs in the grass.
If they are trying to 'communicate' as has been suggested, well, just
how STUPID are these ultra sophisticated folks from the stars? I could
communicate more effectively with a pickle and a stretch of concrete
than these masters of galatic technology...
>
> > And yet- the believers claim that just because SOME of them are
fake
> > doesn't "prove" that they all are...
>
> Christopher that is the sillyist thing you have said in a Long time
(I
> hope) Try it in ANY other context - go on, try it - can you give me
an
> example or two where that is a reasonable thing to say? What else
should
> they say - Oh right Rolex doesn't exist because there are fakes out
> there. Jeeeeze - YOU are above that sort of mental slop.
Silly? Mental slop? Okay- I can defend that.
Your analogy is not semantically equivalent to what I said. Here's a
rolex analogy that is:
You tell me that you bought a real Rolex for ten dollars. I suggest
that any rolex costing 10 dollars is almost certainly a fake rolex. In
support of this hypothesis, I go out and buy 20 ten dollar rolexes
and, prying them open, reveal that every one of them is, indeed, a
fake. You respond by stating that just because THOSE 20 ten dollar
rolexes were fake is not proof that ALL ten dollar rolexes are fake.
While it can be generally stated that proof of AN instance is not proof
of EVERY instance, this argument is not applicable in science because
it basically states that No amount of evidence can prove any
hypothesis.
You are suggesting that the only proof that would be valid would be to
buy EVERY SINGLE ten dollar rolex in existence and open every one of
them.
Of course, even doing this would also not provide proof as the next
line of defense would be for you to suggest that I had no proof that I
had actually found every ten dollar rolex in existence-
In essence, it is not possible to prove that every possible instance
has been tested, so to suggest that that is the only thing that would
provide proof is ridiculous.
In argument, this technique is called 'excepting'- that is, whatever
evidence is offered in proof is "excepted" as not constituing proof,
even to the point of taking a position that proof itself is not
possible. This line of argument is often the one taken by the party who
is not offering ANY evidence whatsoever in support of their position.
Since they HAVE no proof, they must argue that proof is not meaningful.
This is the same technique of argument used by creationists and
intelligent design mavens- and the use of this technique is why they
will never be considered scientists.
So, lets recast your analogy in its proper context:
"Geez, Professor, every time I inject a lab rat with 10 cc's of
arsenic, it dies. I hypothesize that arsenic is poisonous to lab rats!"
"Don't be silly, Research Assistant, just because those lab rats died
when you injected them with arsenic is not proof that EVERY lab rat
would die if injected with arsenic."
WHo's being silly? The professor's response does not go to the point of
the RA's statement. Science isn't about testing every instance. It is
about discovering a correlation in phenomena, forming an hypothesis of
why you might be seeing that correlation, conducting an experiment to
test if your hyposthesis holds up, and, if it does, publishing a
theory.
Why its called a theory and not a fact is because it is not possible to
test every single instance. Instead, it is subjected to peer review and
other researchers are encouraged to try and find evidence countering
your theory. The more tests that confirm your theory, the more
entrenched your theory becomes as scientific "fact". The minute anyone
can find verifiable evidence shooting holes in your theory, your theory
becomes wrong.
The entire point of my statement was that, in response to valid
evidence of an earthly origin of crop circles, the believers countered
with an argument that, basically, evidence doesn't count,- that there
still may be ONE ten dollar rolex out there that was made by space
aliens, and, therefore, ANY ONE of them MIGHT be THE ONE.
What they are not doing is offering any evidence in support of their
argument.
>
> Also that last bit explains to me (a bit) what's behind this strange
> attitude people have re Bill Gates and Microsoft - they know he is a
bad
> thing on the planet and that his operating system is crap But they
DON'T
> Stop supporting him. And endlessly putting up with it. There has
to
> be an element of not wanting to admit you have been wrong.
True-
Belief is an investment- you invest time, emotion, and (in Gate's case)
money into your belief- you invest yourself in it as well- your
reputation...your self image. No one wants to see years of investment
go down the drain with nothing to show for it.
>
> > Its all wanting to feel the security of a hand at the wheel, any
hand
> > ,oh god please tell me SOMEONE's driving this thing!!!!
>
> While we all argue and complain about the decor...
>
What? you don't like teal for the drapes?
>
> > You are fooling yourself if you think small groups work any
differently
>
> I said Can work, NOT Do work - I am fully aware that current
societies
> don't work (though I choose to live in a place that is exceptionally
> good in this regard)
>
CAN is a belief system, not a solution. There is No evidence whatsoever
that Human beings can interact in any manner significanlty different
than the manner in which they DO interact.
Look, I think people are great- I think by and large they are good and
cooperative- but that is not significant. We are a social species, like
a pack of dogs or pride of Lions- we simply can not survive on our own-
and so we have evolved to cooperate in those ways that enhance our
mutual individual survival.
But when the strong young male lion takes down his aging predecessor as
king of the pride, the very first thing he does is to kill all the
kittens. Because HIS DNA is the only one that matters...
Humanity is capable of wonderful things, but it is also prone to some
pretty horrible things, too- and the mistake is to plan your society
for the one, but not the other.
The real genius of the founding fathers of the U.S.A. was not their
belief in the nobility of man- it was that, despite this belief, they
set up a government that separates power, hobbles leadership, and
generally tries to make coopting power nearly impossible. They took
these measures because they knew that, as exalted as mankind can be, we
all still fall far short of the angels.
> > But once the stress is on, when the resource get thin, the claws
come out.
>
> Like soldiers in a desperate battle field situation? No, I don't
think
> you can generalise that.
>
> This anti-cooperation attitude/reaction/strategy has been PUMPED into
> us. It's not natural.
What battlefield? Try the boardroom or the beauty salon if you want to
see just how catty, underhanded and cruel human beings can be when
vying for advantages from the social to the financial.
"its a jungle out there" is an idiom of speech for a reason. Of course
it is natural- depsite our evolved social cooperation, each of us is
driven to get as much as he can for himself and his own. Bill ain't
leaving his money to YOU- its going to his children- and vice versa.
>
> Allow me to tell a story about 'altruism' and our 'modern' system.
>
> A couple of months ago I was walking along the path on top of the
rubble
> rock wall of the marina. The last few days a strong northerly had
been
> blowing but it was calm again. There was large, new, very expensive
> yacht gently doing it's final disintegration against the rocks.
>
> It had dragged it's anchor in the wind and SLOWLY got closer and
closer
> - then it died. Lots of ppl saw it happen. They thought it was a
> tragedy (boaties don't blame the boat for it's owners stupidity) but
> nobody intervened for the single reason that if you tried (in any
way)
> and failed you WOULD be held liable by the Insurance company and they
DO
> NOT Stuff around.
>
> Ordinary people are generally better than the system(s) they live
under.
There is so much wrong with what you just said that I am not sure just
where to begin... First, just the phrase about strolling the marina
puts you into the top 15% of human wealth- and separates you from any
actual experience of REAL want in this life...
Secondly- no one waded out there because they were afraid of WHO suing
them?
OTHER PEOPLE, that's who. Laws don't sue people- lawyers do.
The SYSTEM is what it is as a RESULT of what people do.
Now you are arguing my points for me.
> > This is true of human beings. Any other belief is based upon faith
and
> > not experience.
>
> Not true for me, I do have personal experience of living in real
> 'community' at various times (I must note that Every time the
situation
> arose unplanned and unlead)
Even your real community has a police force.
>
> Like the vast, successful and totally secret group of abstract
> artists/pranksters that have been putting fantastic amounts of effort
> into making (Extraordinarily Beautiful) patterns in vegetation All
over
> the world for the last, humm not being a conspiracy nut I wouldn't
know
> but must be at least one GENERATION of SECRET hoaxers - hummm wonder
> when they will let us in on the joke..
>
> Come ON Christopher - who is the conspiracy nut here?
The circles are not secret- folks all over have owned up to them- you
can even HIRE a crop circle these days...
No one ever fessed up to piltdown man- but it was absolutely faked...
so were Hitler's diaries...
I have said that conspiracy does occur, its just not possible to hide
all evidence of it, and the larger the conspiracy, the more evident the
evidence will become.
Want to find a real conspiracy? look in plain view, that's where they
are.
That's what's so very tragic- everyone is looking under the bed for the
boogieman while the elected officials are stealing the sheets.
christopher
The Jesticles
criss-crossed crop circles with no broken stalks? Did they all grow
different next season?
>
> Whereas The Space Alien believers have no evidence whatsoever of aliens
> making them- no photos, no artifacts, not a single strand of alien hair
> or snippet of alien DNA.
It seems to me that that is a pertinent question, since you are doing a
bit of mind-blanking here. There ARE photos, videos etc. out there,
you've seen some for sure. Do you discount them because they are not
officially approved?
> They also have NO explanation of what mechanism an alien race might
> have used to create the circles- maybe they dropped down with an old
> track hurdle and a rope, like the boys from britain did?
you covered both ends of that one, didn't you?
An 'explanation', if they are extra-terrestrial, of the technology
involved would be a farce, worthy of Nexus at best.
...So sorry, no points for that paragraph.
>
> Please.... the very acme of gullibility is to even imagine that an
> intelligent race of folks would invest billions of manhours and vast
> amounts of time to travel the trillions of miles across interstellar
> space just to leave some silly designs in the grass.
I reckon I would if I could...
>
> If they are trying to 'communicate' as has been suggested, well, just
> how STUPID are these ultra sophisticated folks from the stars? I could
> communicate more effectively with a pickle and a stretch of concrete
> than these masters of galatic technology...
Poetic, but silly...
>
>
>>>And yet- the believers claim that just because SOME of them are
>
> fake
>
>>>doesn't "prove" that they all are...
>>
>>Christopher that is the sillyist thing you have said in a Long time
>
> (I
>
>>hope) Try it in ANY other context - go on, try it - can you give me
>
> an
>
>>example or two where that is a reasonable thing to say? What else
>
> should
>
>>they say - Oh right Rolex doesn't exist because there are fakes out
>>there. Jeeeeze - YOU are above that sort of mental slop.
>
>
>
>
> Silly? Mental slop? Okay- I can defend that.
>
> Your analogy is not semantically equivalent to what I said. Here's a
> rolex analogy that is:
> You tell me that you bought a real Rolex for ten dollars. I suggest
What specific rolex were you talking about?
The video?
> that any rolex costing 10 dollars is almost certainly a fake rolex. In
By saying 'almost certainly' you are allowing the possibility.
> support of this hypothesis, I go out and buy 20 ten dollar rolexes
Which twenty?, where?
> and, prying them open, reveal that every one of them is, indeed, a
> fake. You respond by stating that just because THOSE 20 ten dollar
> rolexes were fake is not proof that ALL ten dollar rolexes are fake.
but 'almost certainly' this is a true statement!
>
>
> While it can be generally stated that proof of AN instance is not proof
> of EVERY instance, this argument is not applicable in science because
> it basically states that No amount of evidence can prove any
> hypothesis.
so science agrees?
>
> You are suggesting that the only proof that would be valid would be to
> buy EVERY SINGLE ten dollar rolex in existence and open every one of
> them.
do you mean investigate every account and photo/video concerning
extra-terrestrials? or just crop circles? or what? How does this relate?
> Of course, even doing this would also not provide proof as the next
> line of defense would be for you to suggest that I had no proof that I
> had actually found every ten dollar rolex in existence-
This is a little extreme, so far you have introduced an irrelevant
variable in an analogy ('$10' Rolex); untruthfully claimed to have
displayed and debunked a satisfactory survey sample of said 'Rolexes';
and said that the idea of one example not proving a concept is
unscientific. All after SPECIFICALLY STATING that you are not even %100
sure that 'one example' does not exist!
>
> In essence, it is not possible to prove that every possible instance
> has been tested, so to suggest that that is the only thing that would
> provide proof is ridiculous.
you are the only one who suggested it... proof and decisions are pretty
different.
>
> In argument, this technique is called 'excepting'- that is, whatever
> evidence is offered in proof is "excepted" as not constituing proof,
> even to the point of taking a position that proof itself is not
> possible. This line of argument is often the one taken by the party who
> is not offering ANY evidence whatsoever in support of their position.
> Since they HAVE no proof, they must argue that proof is not meaningful.
> This is the same technique of argument used by creationists and
> intelligent design mavens- and the use of this technique is why they
> will never be considered scientists.
>
>
> So, lets recast your analogy in its proper context:
> "Geez, Professor, every time I inject a lab rat with 10 cc's of
> arsenic, it dies. I hypothesize that arsenic is poisonous to lab rats!"
> "Don't be silly, Research Assistant, just because those lab rats died
> when you injected them with arsenic is not proof that EVERY lab rat
> would die if injected with arsenic."
SEE! That guy got to be a scientist!!
I Like him!
scul...@tfb.com
> Are you sure that was a surge of perfect, slightly asymmetric,
> criss-crossed crop circles with no broken stalks? Did they all grow
> different next season?
The quality of workmanship of crop circles varies widely. It is a myth
that some are eriely perfect. Believers go out and measure and tend
find what they have already decided they should find, however-
independent analysis has debunked every claim of the believers- from
the radiation ( always perfectly in line with norms for the area tested
) to the strange regrowth claims- In fact, how the plants grow back is
largely determined by what type of plant it is, what time of year the
circle was made, and how long the flattened plants were left in place,
how many tourists and ufologists tramped over the ground, all of this
affecting the conditions of the underlying soil.
Once you start REALLY looking at the genuine science, the mysteries all
evaporate and you are left with grass bent over in counter rotating
concentric circles...
> >
> > Whereas The Space Alien believers have no evidence whatsoever of
aliens
> > making them- no photos, no artifacts, not a single strand of alien
hair
> > or snippet of alien DNA.
> Did you watch that video or not?
> It seems to me that that is a pertinent question, since you are doing
a
> bit of mind-blanking here. There ARE photos, videos etc. out there,
> you've seen some for sure. Do you discount them because they are not
> officially approved?
I watched the entire report- and several followup interviews with the
pranksters- ( not sure if I saw them all ) and a rebuttal video put
togther by the believers,( which was mostly unsubstantiated malarky )
Look- I watch this stuff because I would LOVE to see an alien. I think
it would be fantastic to make contact with an alien race. But I am
crippled with enough basic undertsanding of science to see through the
screen of nonsense and bamboozling of evidence to swallow the sales
pitch of ufologists who get paid to appear on those cable
psuedo-science spectaculars.
As to "photos" and "Videos" that are "out there" boy aren't they? Out
there, I mean...
As I mentioned, all the images of UFOs to date are either: A, clearly
faked, or B, of such poor quality and questionable context as to be
worthless.
Lights that seem to move in formation shot with a handheld camera is
the most common, moving at 'unearthly' speeds, changing direction...
But no professionbal cameraman is fooled- they know common camera shake
when they see it. And why can't ufo witnesses operate a FOCUS ring?
One of my favorites was a film of an object moving at what the
ufologist claimed was unearthly speed- not too fast, but too slow to be
any kind of airplane- and it certainly LOOKED strange- but it was SO
grainy and incomplete an image that it was impossible to make out even
the Shape of the thing-- Well, when a group of professional film
analysts got ahold of the tape and did a Pixel Summing analysis on it (
that's where each frame of video is superimposed upon each other,
adjusted so the target image remains fixed and centered and summing all
the pixels in the target image to create an clear image by Accumulating
as many pixels as possible.) well, surprise surprise it was then very
obvious that what was in the video was a very particular model of
Cessna with a bright aluminum finish, flying at 140 miles per hour.
This is the problem with ufo images- They are ALWAYS of poor quality.
Given the number of unpredictable events that have been captured with
perfect clarity, it becomes statistically impossible that a UFO has not
been captured with similar clarity.
What does explain why all ufo pictures are fuzzy and indeterminate is
that WHEN they take clear pictures of ufos, the resulting image is
clearly NOT extraterrestrial in origin.
So, all ufo pictures and video are unclear because that is the only way
you can imagine them to be something alien.
...
> >
> > If they are trying to 'communicate' as has been suggested, well,
just
> > how STUPID are these ultra sophisticated folks from the stars? I
could
> > communicate more effectively with a pickle and a stretch of
concrete
> > than these masters of galatic technology...
> Poetic, but silly...
Try it, you can draw pictures on concrtete with a pickle. And I could
draw a picture understandable to someone who doesn't speak my
language... so... why can't the space friends make sense?
> >
> >
> >>>And yet- the believers claim that just because SOME of them are
> >
> > fake
> >
> >>>doesn't "prove" that they all are...
> >>
> >>Christopher that is the sillyist thing you have said in a Long time
> >
> > (I
> >
> >>hope) Try it in ANY other context - go on, try it - can you give
me
> >
> > an
> >
> >>example or two where that is a reasonable thing to say? What else
> >
> > should
> >
> >>they say - Oh right Rolex doesn't exist because there are fakes out
> >>there. Jeeeeze - YOU are above that sort of mental slop.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Silly? Mental slop? Okay- I can defend that.
> >
> > Your analogy is not semantically equivalent to what I said. Here's
a
> > rolex analogy that is:
> > You tell me that you bought a real Rolex for ten dollars. I suggest
> What specific rolex were you talking about?
> The video?
The previous post suggested that what I was saying amounted to saying
that Rolex doesn't exist because I found a fake rolex- Rolex is an
expensive type of watch you find for sale all over asia at about 10
bucks.
> > that any rolex costing 10 dollars is almost certainly a fake rolex.
In
> By saying 'almost certainly' you are allowing the possibility.
Of course- but again- that is not to the point. The point is not what
is possible, but what is feasible; which idea is MORE likely to be
true. The statement is a separate argument. The claim was made that a
10 dollar rolex COULD be genuine. I proved all the ones I bought were
not. Now you have to prove that one you can buy IS genuine. Instead,
you change the argument from fake rolexes to an evasion of proof.
> > support of this hypothesis, I go out and buy 20 ten dollar rolexes
> Which twenty?, where?
Again- they are for sale not two blocks from where I am writing this-
(in China)
> > and, prying them open, reveal that every one of them is, indeed, a
> > fake. You respond by stating that just because THOSE 20 ten dollar
> > rolexes were fake is not proof that ALL ten dollar rolexes are
fake.
> but 'almost certainly' this is a true statement!
Again- which proposition is more likely to be true... I provide
evidence that 10 dollar rolexs are fake- you provide nothing but a
claim that this is not proof. Actually, it is- I have proven that ALL
of the rolexes that I picked at random were fakes. Your claim is not
proof of anything.
To be on equal footing scientifically, you must go out and find a 10
dollar rolex that is NOT fake. If you won't do that, or can't, then
your position is "unsupportable".
> >
> > While it can be generally stated that proof of AN instance is not
proof
> > of EVERY instance, this argument is not applicable in science
because
> > it basically states that No amount of evidence can prove any
> > hypothesis.
> so science agrees?
No, science does not- science sees this argument as stupid. At the
quantum level, even reality as we know it is a statistical event. If
the universe accepts statistical sampling as proof of reality's
construct, then so should you.
> >
> > You are suggesting that the only proof that would be valid would be
to
> > buy EVERY SINGLE ten dollar rolex in existence and open every one
of
> > them.
> do you mean investigate every account and photo/video concerning
> extra-terrestrials? or just crop circles? or what? How does this
relate?
ITS AN ANALOGY of the argument presented. You savvy Analogy?
> > Of course, even doing this would also not provide proof as the next
> > line of defense would be for you to suggest that I had no proof
that I
> > had actually found every ten dollar rolex in existence-
> This is a little extreme, so far you have introduced an irrelevant
> variable in an analogy ('$10' Rolex); untruthfully claimed to have
> displayed and debunked a satisfactory survey sample of said
'Rolexes';
> and said that the idea of one example not proving a concept is
> unscientific. All after SPECIFICALLY STATING that you are not even
%100
> sure that 'one example' does not exist!
Dude- take a science course, you are way off in the rough. I did not
invoke the rolex analogy- the post I was responding to invoked it,
incorrectly. I restated the analogy in a manner that summed up the
debate over what constitutes PROOF of an hypothosis.
Invoking the analogy is not "untruthful" its what is called a 'thought
experiment' and if Einstein could use them to discover relativity, I
think the science community is pretty okay with the concept.
I did not say that an example NOT proving a concept is unscientific.
Read what I wrote slowly. I said that the argument that evidence of a
single instance is not proof of every instance is unscientific. Testing
'every instance' is not possible, nor necessary to proving an
hypothosis. If every test I do perform consistently confirms my
hyposthesis, then my theory has been 'proved' within the acceptable
standards of science.
To say that "just because some crop circles were not made by space
aliens does not prove that NONE of them were made by space aliens" is
meaningless.
Saying it does not prove that space aliens could have made one either.
The statement is not in SUPPORT of the extraterrestrial origin
hypothosis. Its a refutation of evidence in support as even mattering.
> >
> > In essence, it is not possible to prove that every possible
instance
> > has been tested, so to suggest that that is the only thing that
would
> > provide proof is ridiculous.
> you are the only one who suggested it... proof and decisions are
pretty
> different.
No- I didn't- the post I was responding to pulled out the argument that
just beacuse some are fake is not proof that all are fake. Implicit in
this statement is that the only way to prove it would be to show that
every one was fake.
In fact- it has been proved that they CAN be faked, that people CAN
make them- Only one example is needed to prove that. It has not been
proved that space aliens can even make a crop circle at all.
The preponderance of EVIDENCE, therefore, supports the conclusion that
crop circles are man made.
In science- proof means evidence in support.
Me too, he proves just how stupid the argument is that proof of one
instance isn't proof of all.
christopher
John Cook
>>Do you get my point - I mean that we must take in ALL the evidence,
>>opinions etc before making a decision - to do otherwise is called
>> prejudice.
These two quotes from the bbc wedsite explain it rather well I think -
Christophers theory is RIGHT there Is an international conspiracy…
So that's at least one 'true' conspiracy theory.
Origin of Crop Circles
Crop circles are not a new phenomenon. There are 17th Century woodcuts
that record the observation of what appears to be crop circles. One such
woodcut, entitled The Devil Mower, appeared in a Hertfordshire newspaper
dated 22 August, 1678. The article described the apparition overnight of
a strange design in a field of oats, so neatly pressed that 'no mortal
man was able to do the like' which was attributed to the 'devil or some
infernal spirit'. By convoluted logic this apparition confirmed the
existence of God since, it was argued, if devils have a hell then there
must be a heaven, and a God.
Simple circles have appeared on farmland for generations. However, these
enigmatic formations were often not reported since they were considered
by country folk to be the result of natural causes, such as rutting
deer, hedgehogs or crows feeding on ripened seed heads and trampling the
crop in a ring. Circular damage has also been attributed to strange
diseases, magic, fairies, and the intervention of demons. Consequently,
silence was guaranteed either for fear of ridicule and ostracism from
the community, or fear of losing a buyer for the crop. This situation
probably holds true today, with many people afraid to come forward for
similar reasons.
However, it is true that many farmers on whose land crop circles appear,
rather than hush up and deny their existence, actually charge the public
to access the site, thereby compensating for any damaged crops and
possibly making a profit into the bargain.
--------------------------
By Julian Richardson
After spending many hours at my drawing board throughout the winter of
1991, it became apparent that given the correct equipment and an average
understanding of mathematics, humans would be perfectly capable of
producing large and complex crop-circle formations.
Towards the end of the 1992 season, our circlemaking team decided to
test our refined techniques by attempting to produce what was, at the
time, probably the most complicated design ever. It was whilst creating
that formation that the following event occurred: As the sky grew darker
we slowly walked along the narrow footpath that ran alongside our
intended canvas for the night. I knew we had to start early if we had
any chance of completing the formation before daybreak.
Once in the field, our initial job was to set up the datum line - A
taut length of string (on this occasion pulled diagonally across a
number of tram lines) that acts as a spinal cord from which the
formation can grow. Finally we were off, and like the low munching of
sheep our stompers began to turn the design into reality. After about an
hour, we three circlemakers converged on the same point and began
quietly discussing our progress. Suddenly my attention was drawn to a
light that had appeared from nowhere. It was a few hundred yards away
and directly in front of us. As soon as I'd registered its presence I
alerted my colleagues. Amazed, we stood there gazing at this
football-sized orange light as it hung motionless, about forty feet
above the surrounding countryside. After an estimated five seconds the
light began to slowly descend. Within another five seconds it had
descended about ten feet and had faded into invisibility. With little
time to spare, we excitedly returned to our work, always hopeful of a
repeat performance.
Subsequent daylight checks revealed no evidence of the light's
existence. That year also saw a large increase in the number of
luminosities reported around circle sites. Did we witness a naturally
occurring phenomenon - or were we really being scanned by the genuine
circlemakers?
> Please.... the very acme of gullibility is to even imagine that an
> intelligent race of folks would invest billions of manhours and vast
> amounts of time to travel the trillions of miles across interstellar
> space just to leave some silly designs in the grass.
That is highly anthropocentric. Too many assumptions.
> If they are trying to 'communicate' as has been suggested, well, just
> how STUPID are these ultra sophisticated folks from the stars? I could
> communicate more effectively with a pickle and a stretch of concrete
> than these masters of galatic technology...
>
>
>>>And yet- the believers claim that just because SOME of them are
>>>fake doesn't "prove" that they all are...
>>Christopher that is the sillyist thing you have said in a Long time
>>(I hope) Try it in ANY other context - go on, try it - can you give me
>>an example or two where that is a reasonable thing to say?
>>What else should
>>they say - Oh right Rolex doesn't exist because there are fakes out
>>there. Jeeeeze - YOU are above that sort of mental slop.
>
> Silly? Mental slop? Okay- I can defend that.
But not give an example? - because it WAS silly and you should admit it
> Your analogy is not semantically equivalent to what I said. Here's a
> rolex analogy that is:
> You tell me that you bought a real Rolex for ten dollars. I suggest
> that any rolex costing 10 dollars is almost certainly a fake rolex. In
> support of this hypothesis, I go out and buy 20 ten dollar rolexes
> and, prying them open, reveal that every one of them is, indeed, a
> fake. You respond by stating that just because THOSE 20 ten dollar
> rolexes were fake is not proof that ALL ten dollar rolexes are fake.
In purely technical terms your rewriting of the analogy is STILL false.
But it's a false analogy anyway, How the hell did you get the 'money'
concept in there?
A better one would be:
A person claims to have seen a 'Rolex' that was wonderful and perfect.
You say they don't exist. Then someone shows how they can make a fake
rolex (on the BBC) so you say…
>>>And yet- the believers claim that just because SOME of them are
>>>fake doesn't "prove" that they all are...
> While it can be generally stated that proof of AN instance is not proof
> of EVERY instance, this argument is not applicable in science because
> it basically states that No amount of evidence can prove any
> hypothesis.
Total CRAP - you shouldn't pretend greater knowledge than you have - it
makes you sound pompous
> You are suggesting that the only proof that would be valid would be to
> buy EVERY SINGLE ten dollar rolex in existence and open every one of
> them.
That "ten dollar' bit is Very close to deliberate distortion.
And NO that isn't what i'm saying - I'm just asserting that something is
Possible - You are the one claiming universal final knowledge.
> So, lets recast your analogy in its proper context:
> "Geez, Professor, every time I inject a lab rat with 10 cc's of
> arsenic, it dies. I hypothesize that arsenic is poisonous to lab rats!"
> "Don't be silly, Research Assistant, just because those lab rats died
> when you injected them with arsenic is not proof that EVERY lab rat
> would die if injected with arsenic."
Wow you can Really go off in your mind - this 're-casting' has NO
similarities to this debate. What the HELL are you rabbiting ON about.
What was the experiment? The one done ten times? What experiment has
been done re the origin of crop circles? That came up repeatedly with
the same result that was then ignored??? What?
> WHo's being silly?
Who's being intellectually dishonest?
>>be an element of not wanting to admit you have been wrong.
>
>
> True-
> Belief is an investment- you invest time, emotion, and (in Gate's case)
> money into your belief- you invest yourself in it as well- your
> reputation...your self image. No one wants to see years of investment
> go down the drain with nothing to show for it.
Which is why you cling like a drowning man to "There ARE NO mysteries,
nothing is actively hidden - EVERY thing is JUST how they say it is" mirage?
You may be a great technical sculptor but with that attitude you won't
creat anything NEW.
scul...@tfb.com
> These two quotes from the bbc wedsite explain it rather well I think
-
Old stories of crop circles are all suspect- no verifiable imagery from
the era exists, and, given the fact that these people believed in
witches- any 'unearthly' theories they may have had as to origin are
prone to be nonsense.
This "report" does mention that locals thought nothing of them, thought
the "circles" were made by rutting animals. They probably thought that
because they SAW it happening. Cows and bison both create enmormous
circular wallows in tall grass, and dogs do so on a small scale.
Because we have no verifiable imagery of the "crop circles' from
previous eras- chances are they were just circles, not the arcane
designs we know of today- had they been, they would have been described
in more detail.
And the fact that modern farmers can derive money from tourists over
crop circles weakens the case for their alien origin even further.
Their financial interest makes both them and their accounts suspect.
Scanned by genuine circlemakers? Please. ball lightening, st elmos
fire and foxfire are all well established and fairly well understood
phenomena.
The question would be, "did the mystery light make a crop circle as you
watched"? No? Now THAT would be something.
It amazes me that folks can see something they are unfamiliar with and
immediately jump to the most outlandish conclusion possible about what
they saw. As if wildly improbabale events happened routinely enough to
justify expectation.
>
>
> > Please.... the very acme of gullibility is to even imagine that an
> > intelligent race of folks would invest billions of manhours and
vast
> > amounts of time to travel the trillions of miles across
interstellar
> > space just to leave some silly designs in the grass.
>
> That is highly anthropocentric. Too many assumptions.
SO WHAT- they are not MY assumptions- if you believe aliens make crop
circles then these are the assumptions YOU are making.
The aliens did not WISH themselves across the stars- its a technology.
Developing the technologies to traverse the stars would be enormously
expensive.( by expense I am not referring to money- I am referring to
effort expended- the space shuttle doesn't cost a billion dollars,
there is no store you can buy one at- the billion dollars is what you
have to pay human beings to construct one- and that billion doesn't
include developmental work, just assembly) Whatever a purported alien
society might be like- work is work, and limited to the available
supply of workers and hours and, so, has an economic value.
The human or non-human effort involved would make the manhattan project
seem like a grade school science fair project.
The energy required would be vast- ask any space scientist- even if
esoteric methods like "hyperspace" are involved, these would require
energies exceeding anything we have ever seen- or else we would have
found hyperspace at the lower energies we can produce.
You accuse me of making too many assumptions- what about the assumption
that the crop circles are made by aliens? You accept pie in the sky
feather brained dissociative foolishness but not verifiable evidence
and scientific understanding as to what would be involved?
>
> > If they are trying to 'communicate' as has been suggested, well,
just
> > how STUPID are these ultra sophisticated folks from the stars? I
could
> > communicate more effectively with a pickle and a stretch of
concrete
> > than these masters of galatic technology...
> >
> >
> >>>And yet- the believers claim that just because SOME of them are
> >>>fake doesn't "prove" that they all are...
>
> >>Christopher that is the sillyist thing you have said in a Long time
> >>(I hope) Try it in ANY other context - go on, try it - can you
give me
> >>an example or two where that is a reasonable thing to say?
> >>What else should
> >>they say - Oh right Rolex doesn't exist because there are fakes out
> >>there. Jeeeeze - YOU are above that sort of mental slop.
> >
> > Silly? Mental slop? Okay- I can defend that.
>
> But not give an example? - because it WAS silly and you should admit
it
You can't read? I did give an example- several actually. And the fact
that you don't comprehend why the "proof of one is not proof of all"
argument has no place in science is precisely why you believe in
malarky. Shouldn't you be on alt.leprecans or alt.nessie or something?
Evidence in proof is evidence in proof. I don't have to prove every
instance. The fact that I can not feasibly prove every instance is not
germaine because that does not alter nor diminish the fact that I have
proven SOME instances.
If you can offer NO EVIDENCE in refutation, you have no evidence of
anything at all. You lose. In science, in debate.
>
> > Your analogy is not semantically equivalent to what I said. Here's
a
> > rolex analogy that is:
> > You tell me that you bought a real Rolex for ten dollars. I suggest
> > that any rolex costing 10 dollars is almost certainly a fake rolex.
In
> > support of this hypothesis, I go out and buy 20 ten dollar rolexes
> > and, prying them open, reveal that every one of them is, indeed, a
> > fake. You respond by stating that just because THOSE 20 ten dollar
> > rolexes were fake is not proof that ALL ten dollar rolexes are
fake.
>
> In purely technical terms your rewriting of the analogy is STILL
false.
>
> But it's a false analogy anyway, How the hell did you get the 'money'
> concept in there?
Its not a false analogy. You use the word 'technical' as if you
understood the semantics of analogy, which you don't. You have not
provided a valid analogy thus far and have failed to provide a
sufficiently 'technical' analysis of my analogy to support your claim
that it is false.
Here, let me show you how its done.
The money was the indicator of something not kosher. The idea of a 10
dollar rolex is suspicious on its face. The idea that ALIENS, whom no
one has ever seen do so, made a crop circle, when, clearly, people CAN
make them and are readily at hand to do so is also suspicious on its
face. This is why my version of the rolex analogy is semantically
closer to the original debate on crop circle origins.
read on- the technical part gets better.
>
> A better one would be:
> A person claims to have seen a 'Rolex' that was wonderful and
perfect.
> You say they don't exist. Then someone shows how they can make a
fake
> rolex (on the BBC) so you say...
Nope- Sorry, but you should read up on logic and debate. That is not
the analogy invoked- the analogy invoked was that "the existence of
fake rolexes called into question the existence of real rolexes." I
merely re-cast the analogy to be more clear and to better reflect the
substance of the debate on crop circles.
Your version makes two unwarranted assumptions. That the rolex is
perfect, and that the one made on BBC was a "fake". This belies your
bias in the argument, and because your bias in incorporated into the
analogy in a manner that defines which is fake and which is real, it is
therefore not a valid analogy of the debate on crop circles' origin.
The BBC show did not show how to make a "fake" crop circle- it claimed
that these were THE guys and this was how the REAL crop circles were
made- that is entirely different, and so your analogy fails to reflect
the circumstances of the debate. It is false.
My analogy had no bias of definition. It is entirely possible that
someone might sell you a genuine rolex for 10 dollars, leaving the
nature of the rolex's origin, albeit suspicious, open to question-
Determining the difference between the fake and a real rolex in my
analogy requires proof in the form of experimentation or evidence of
origin- on their face the fake and genuine rolexes are
indistinguishable.
My analogy is valid, yours is not.
That is how you analyze one technically.
In the debate on crop circles the claim of perfection has been
de-bunked- there is no visible difference between a known man made crop
circle and one whose origin is uncertain - HENCE the debate. If the
crop circles were verifiably "perfect" in some unearthly fashion, then
there would be no debate.
Belief in the 'perfection' of the crop circles is like the beleif that
the virgin mary appears in the scorch mark on a chees sandwich-
believers see what they believe- everyone else sees a scorch mark.
>
> >>>And yet- the believers claim that just because SOME of them are
> >>>fake doesn't "prove" that they all are...
>
> > While it can be generally stated that proof of AN instance is not
proof
> > of EVERY instance, this argument is not applicable in science
because
> > it basically states that No amount of evidence can prove any
> > hypothesis.
>
> Total CRAP - you shouldn't pretend greater knowledge than you have -
it
> makes you sound pompous
"total crap" is not an argument. I am not pretending anything. I took
science classes and I understood and remember what I was taught.
PRETENDING is CLAIMING belief in something without any evidence of its
existence. Insanity is actually believing it.
Your imaginary ET friend is calling on the space phone.
>
> > You are suggesting that the only proof that would be valid would be
to
> > buy EVERY SINGLE ten dollar rolex in existence and open every one
of
> > them.
>
> That "ten dollar' bit is Very close to deliberate distortion.
JEEZ- get off the ten dollar bit willya? You clearly have no clue how
to assemble an analogy, nor interpret one, so just pretend I'm a
'ufologist' and trust me when I tell you what to believe. Like you
normally would do.
>
> And NO that isn't what i'm saying - I'm just asserting that something
is
> Possible - You are the one claiming universal final knowledge.
I am not claiming universal final knowledge (whatever that is) I am
saying BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENT WITH ONE IOTA OF EVIDENCE. I am not saying
you have to prove EVERY crop circle is made by a space alien- Just ONE
will do.
I can prove SEVERAL were made by people.
My mind is still open- to EVIDENCE. I would love for it to be true. But
BELIEF without evidence is faith, is a religion.
The minute I see any evidence that holds up I will be on the bus to
Roswell.
People who read the cliff's notes on philosophy love to pull out the
old "its possible" canard. "anything is possible".
Well- I hate to tell you it ain't so, but it ain't so. There are quite
a lot of things that are not possible.
"its possible that the Sun won't rise tomorrow..." No, its not. The
sun will rise tomorrow. If it ever gets anything like likely not to
rise we will know it long beforehand.
Is it possible space aliens are out there? Yes.
It it likely they are leaving designs in the grass? No, not very.
Why not very? Well, because they would have to have a motive, a reason
for it and all possible suggested reasons for it are insupportable.
Is there any other, more plausible scenario? Yes, actually.
>
> > So, lets recast your analogy in its proper context:
> > "Geez, Professor, every time I inject a lab rat with 10 cc's of
> > arsenic, it dies. I hypothesize that arsenic is poisonous to lab
rats!"
> > "Don't be silly, Research Assistant, just because those lab rats
died
> > when you injected them with arsenic is not proof that EVERY lab rat
> > would die if injected with arsenic."
>
> Wow you can Really go off in your mind - this 're-casting' has NO
> similarities to this debate. What the HELL are you rabbiting ON
about.
> What was the experiment? The one done ten times? What experiment
has
> been done re the origin of crop circles? That came up repeatedly
with
> the same result that was then ignored??? What?
This version of the analogy is semantically identical to the original
argument that proof of one instance is not proof of all instances. (
again, bone up on logic and debate, my friend- you're not very good at
it)
I was called silly for suggesting that space alien believers pulling
out this argument (that proof of one is not proof of all) are saying
that evidence does not matter. By placing the exact same argument in a
laboratory environment I reveal that , in fact, the argument does
suggest the evidence does not matter. I point out how silly it is to
suggest that the argument is valid regarding evidence in proof; That
all of science is founded on evidence of an instance supporting general
hypotheses. The more evidence collected in support- the more credible
the hypothesis.
>
> > WHo's being silly?
>
> Who's being intellectually dishonest?
I would have to say you are. You claim to know something about analogy
but clearly do not know how to analyze one. You get fixated on the
specific imagery involved and on incidental terms and entirely miss the
argument being presented.
You can not perceive how the 'proof of one not proof of all' argument
presents in various situations, even tho the argument is stated in
exactly the same semantic terms.
Your posts on this topic are proof that folks who tend to believe in
the ET theory of crop circles are plagued by wooly thinking.
>
> >>be an element of not wanting to admit you have been wrong.
> >
> >
> > True-
> > Belief is an investment- you invest time, emotion, and (in Gate's
case)
> > money into your belief- you invest yourself in it as well- your
> > reputation...your self image. No one wants to see years of
investment
> > go down the drain with nothing to show for it.
>
> Which is why you cling like a drowning man to "There ARE NO
mysteries,
> nothing is actively hidden - EVERY thing is JUST how they say it is"
mirage?
How WHO "says" it is. Have you scientifically investigated crop
circles? Everything you parrot has been fed to you by others. You KNOW
nothing about it, you believe the books and "something's out there"
genre videos you watch.
Me ,too- what I know about it was handed to me, only my sources HAVE
evidence of their claims.
How do you know "THEY" aren't the ones feeding you 'mystery'
explanations to keep you from asking about what happened to the taxes
"they" collected from you?
"actively hidden" yeah- governments, individuals ,corporations,
definitely try and hide things. But it requires an unsupportable
belief in human competence to suggest that they can completely hide
evidence of activity over large scales of time or people; That LBJ was
able to craft a conspiracy to effectively hide all evidence about the
truth about the Kennedy assassination for 40 years but was incompetent
to hide his own extramarital affairs from his wife.
The pure ridiculousness of your stance is in its own circular logic.
You claim actual evidence as meaningless in proof and then claim that a
LACK of evidence is some form of proof.
I know exactly what Mysteries are... they are what scientists conduct
experiments on to try and gain genuine understanding.
Oh yes, I am "drowning" in the sea of what is verifiably true.
My friend the life you enjoy was made possible by generations of
intelligent human beings dissipating the fog of muddled thinking and
subjective nonsense by applying the light of reason and scientific
experiment.
I really don't care a dang what you BELIEVE, what can you PROVE will
work, they asked.
That's why you have electric lights, and powertools and television to
watch, and a computer on which to surf the net.
I will trust in the method that has revolutionized human life rather
than the YARN spinning that kept us in the dark for millenia.
>
> You may be a great technical sculptor but with that attitude you
won't
> creat anything NEW.
ouch- lashing out at my self image as an artist?
So- creativity is linked to belief in space aliens making crop circles?
Of course, why didn't I see it before, I must have been blind! You must
be right since you obviously were the first person to conceive the
entirely new idea that space aliens made crop circles, right?
You weren't?
Oh, its just something you were told and swallowed without doubt?
Hmmm.
Look- the backhanded compliment aside- here's how it relates to art in
my mind.
Becoming a better artist is about learning to SEE what is actually
there in front of you rather than seeing what you "know" is there.
The most common and noticable error made by amatuer sculptors is to
separate the fingers of a hand all the way to the first knuckle. They
do this because they "know" the finger starts there. But they are
failing to SEE that the flesh doesn't divide until nearly halfway to
the second knuckle. And they make this mistake despite the fact that
the whole time they are working THEIR OWN HAND is right in front of
their face.
A good artist trys to SEE the line that is there, not the line he
knows. Doing this means not making assumptions or descisions about what
you are looking at.
Striving to comprehend reality without coloring it with what you WANT
to be true.
This is the only way you can ever exert real control over what you
create- to know you are expressing exactly what you mean to and not
making some error you don't even realize.
So I look thru my eyes and strive to see what is really there.
It does not mean I don't have an imagination. How I create is to
imagine something that is not there. But I do understand clearly the
difference between what is real, and what I have created in my mind.
Do you?
I love science fiction.
But I realize that it is fiction.
At least until the spaceship actually lands and ET says hello.
christopher
PS please do not imagine any acrimonious feeling on my part- this was a
fun diversion in boring china, and its okay with me if you don't think
my work very original-
Mr Clarke
> scul...@tfb.com wrote:
> Crop circles are not a new phenomenon...
I totally agree and from personal experience could assume that we exist
alongside
others (not neccessarily aliens) that have a far greater understanding of
how the
universe works and can be manipulated.
The same goes for other paranormal phenomenon.
Who are they then?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
John Cook
detailed post. I felt that he just misses the point I keep trying to
make (that these things are POSSIBLE) - I have a lot of stuff going on
right now - don't really have the time.
But I thought you and he and others may be interested in this I happened
to come across the other day.
It's an exerpt from "Gullivers Travels"
--------------------------------------------------------------
GULLIVER'S TRAVELS by JONATHAN SWIFT, 1726
based on the 1735 Faulkner edition
source: http://www.jaffebros.com/lee/gulliver/index.html
==========================================
TRAVELS INTO SEVERAL REMOTE NATIONS OF THE WORLD
BY LEMUEL GULLIVER, FIRST A SURGEON,
THEN A CAPTAIN OF SEVERAL SHIPS.
LONDON: PRINTED FOR BENJ. MOTTE,
AT THE MIDDLE TEMPLE-GATE IN FLEET-STREET.
M,DCC,XXVI.
A LETTER from Capt. Gulliver, to his Cousin Sympson
-----------------------------------------
> This Load-stone is under the Care of certain Astronomers, who from Time
> to Time give it such Positions as the Monarch directs. They spend the
> greatest Part of their Lives in observing the celestial Bodies, which they do
> by the Assistance of Glasses, far excelling ours in Goodness. For, although
> their largest Telescopes do not exceed three Feet, they magnify much more
> than those of a Hundred with us, and shew the Stars with greater Clearness.
> This Advantage hath enabled them to extend their Discoveries much farther
> than our Astronomers in Europe. They have made a Catalogue of ten
> Thousand fixed Stars, whereas the largest of ours do not contain above one
> third Part of that Number. They have likewise discovered two lesser Stars,
> or Satellites, which revolve about Mars; whereof the innermost is distant
> from the Center of the primary Planet exactly three of his Diameters, and
> the outermost five; the former revolves in the space of ten Hours, and the
> latter in Twenty-one and an Half; so that the Squares of their periodical
> Times, are very near in the same Proportion with the Cubes of their
> Distance from the Center of Mars; which evidently shews them to be
> governed by the same Law of Gravitation, that influences the other
> heavenly Bodies.
-----------------------------------------
Remember that that was from _1726_
Now Read the 'official' story:
http://www.astrodigital.org/mars/emscale.html
Humans have known about the existence of our Moon since the time that
we first looked towards the heavens. It was unique among the objects in
our night sky until the arrival of the telescope in the early 1600's. It
was with the telescope that Galileo first discovered moons orbiting the
planet Jupiter. The four moons he discovered in 1610 were Io, Europa,
Ganymede and Callisto. The moons of Mars survived undetected for almost
300 years following the invention of the telescope.
It wasn't until 1877 that we discovered that Mars had two moons of its
own. The discovery of these moons was made by American astronomer Asaph
Hall at the US Naval Observatory. He had at his disposal one of the best
telescopes of the day and was observing Mars during a favorable
opposition, a time when Mars is much closer to the Earth than is usually
the case. The two moons were named for two sons of Ares, the God of War:
Phobos (Greek for fear) and Deimos (Greek for terror).
There are two reasons why it took so long for us to discover the moons
that orbit Mars. The first reason is that these moon are very small. Our
Moon has a diameter of 3,474 kilometers. Phobos is so small that gravity
isn't large enough to mold the moon into a sphere. Rather, it is shaped
more like a potato about 26 kilometers long by about 22 kilometers
across. Deimos, the smaller of the two, is only about 15 kilometers long
by 12 kilometers across.
The second reason they were so hard to discover is because they orbit
so close to Mars. While our Moon orbits at a healthy distance of 384,000
kilometers from the Earth, Phobos is only 9,378 kilometers distant from
Mars and Deimos is a little farther out at 23,459 kilometers. This
proximity means that when an astronomer looks through a telescope at
Mars, the light being reflected by Mars overpowers the light being
reflected by Phobos and Deimos.
scul...@tfb.com
'atlanteans' I pray...
Who are they? prove that's not a coat hanging in the shadows you are
imagining is someone 'there'.
No paranormal phenomena have been shown to exist. ( You will now trot
out the old standby non-argument that just because we don't CURRENTLY
have the technology to detect them doesn't mean they don't exist) (
which is the the 'Proof of some not proof of all' argument in a
different pair of panties)
However the proof against the paranormal is not in the science- its in
the failures of the paranormal to occur.
Statistical analysis of purported paranormal events reveal no pattern
suggesting their validity. Pychics do not predict the future or reveal
unknown details about the past any better than gamblers in vegas who
can't count cards. No one has been shown to read minds, and ghosts have
not been shown to exist or affect material things. 'Anecdotal evidence
' is little more than modern day mythologizing.
People fantasize stories to explain experiences they can't explain thru
familiar means.
I am not saying folks don't have real experiences- I am not saying they
don't reflect something about us that is, perhaps transcendant. But to
ascribe to forces outside ourselves; to elaborate a gilded frame of
explanatory belief structure onto an effable experience is to step away
from the experiebce itself and into fantasyland.
Just what you fantasize depends a lot on how little you know about how
the world works and the times you live in and circles you associate
with.
In the past people had unusual experiences of powerlessness and feeling
controled and ascribed it to demons, succubi and inccubi- this
reflected the heaven and hell religious tenor of the times and seemed
like a believable scenario.
In the more scientific mindset of today people have the exact same
experience and can't bring themselves to entertain the notion of devils
and spirits, and so they invent a 'scientific' fantasy of Space succubi
and inccubi.
Folks EXTERNALIZE these experiences to make them REAL.
What they aren't doing is examining the experience from the point of
view of an entirely internal event. Anything from revelation to
hallucination- since that would make what they experience seem less
real, call into question their mental health, and not get them air time
on the television.
Harry Houdini- who was a believer and desperately WANTED to contact his
mother on the "other side" spent a good many years trying to make
contact, but he was hampered by the fact that he was an expert at
illusion- and so could easily see thru all the parlor tricks the
paranormal "industry" used to sucker poor saps who want to believe. He
ended up being a skeptic.
One of the very first application of photography was to use darkroom
tricks to fake images of ghosts to make money from those who were
desperate to believe. Actually- ALL modern notions of ghosts and how
they appear are the result of the limitations of early photographic
tricks- we were culturally indoctrinated with what photographic evidenc
eof ghosts would look like- and we are still "finding" such evidence
today.
As to the ALIENS OR "others' you refer to, try this razor to cut thru
the nonsense.
Whatever or whoever- where did they come from? Well, they evolved,
just like us. Being evolved they must have certain charcteristics- they
must undertsand conflict, war and competition, regardless of whether
they have risen above such mundane thoughts by now.
Where did their vastly superior undertsanding of the universe and how
to control it come from? It came from scientific experimentation. (the
same thing that we do and that- thus far- proves they are not here)
They must exchange information. They have to communicate to achieve
what they have achieved- anbd given what they have achieved, they must
communicate pretty effectively.
So- if crop circles are communication, how come they can't make
themselves clear?
Information science can identify the presence of information in a
pattern or signal regardless of whether the information can be
deciphered. So where's the information in what they are doing?
And don't dust off the old "we're not 'ready' to understand" argument-
If we aren't ready, how come they need to test us? aren't they smart
enough yet to be able to tell if we're ready by our behaivor? by
reality TV? without the Inkblots in the wheatfields?
Look- I am CERTAIN there are other intelligent creatures out there in
the cosmos. But I understand that there is a LOT more to getting from
there to here than a two paragraph description of a hyperdrive in a
science fiction story.
It is ridiculous to think they would come all this way to Puzzle us
with ambiguous imagery. If they didn't want us to know they were there
they would leave NO evidence. If they want us to know they would speak
up.
Now, thre's nothing worng with an active imagination as long as you
know its your imagination.
The first warning sign of fantastic thinking is to believe in things
that, in a world of 6 billion people looking every which way, only
happen when no one is looking.
christopher
PS
sorry everyone- being in china I have nothing else to do, and no one
else to talk to- I am going stir crazy over here.
scul...@tfb.com
Time on my hands in foreign hotel
Will shut up now.
christopher
John Cook
lol that's funny - I thought you were doing some work in 'china' (clay)
> Will shut up now.
No No No - Don't - please
I really like talking with you because you are capable of 'debating'
instead of just arguing and because I see you as a really good spokesman
for a type of philosopy that I think needs to change.
Ironic that you are in China - I see your opinion of human nature as a
result of your earlier belief in marxism - and the
disapointment/disilluonment that inevitably followed.
I've seen the same sort of kindly pessimism before in older exMarxists
Oh and I ABSOLUTELY didn't intend to put down your work - haven't see
any for a start.
Tell us a bit about China where you are... (something good, something
bad and something just plain weird!) ;)
John Cook
Me neither…
But
You DO Believe in Not Believing.
So fervently…
How do you do this?
John Cook
I just read that post
It wasn't pleasant
I was really offended
I don't deserve that sort of thing.
You KEEP on ignoring what I say
You KEEP on rabbiting on
You _DON'T_ answer innocent (and illuminating) questions
And act like they haven't been asked
Your replies IGNORE what I say - You just go on and on (and, often on
again) with with own psychic defences
AND you try to make me look like a fool
AND you Know that isn't true
FUK u (dick head)
Grrrrr
!
If i put the effort in (and I'm almost cross enough right now) to go
through that post, and respond - line by FUKKIN distorting fuked up
line… - let us say with TOO much philosophical Honesty - you would have
to Totally blank out that you were a FRAUD.
Fuk off
Pleeeeeeeeeseee Don't reply (or if your ego needs it - just remove goathead
How fukin dare you? I thought I could trust you to make some sense.
You have betrayed all rational ppl by masquerading as one while being
soooo religious (have I mentioned FUK U).
John Cook
How about NOTICING what I said?
Bout Johnathen Swift
ANSWER or SHUT THE FUK UP
Why/How did he get the moons of mars THAT close…
one hundred and fifty years too early?
Please answer with something credible or SHUT UP
Signed
One Very Pissed Off
John Cook
ps How Dare You
Mr Clarke
Could THEY be US?
Are WE more capabable of the paranormal than we think - ourselves?
I simply haven`t had the time either recently (past few years actually)
to
make any artifacts worth showing off so have become a note-scribbler.
I have compiled a collection of notes for inventions to alter the future.
As with Gullivers` Telescope preminitions, some people are actually
recognised and labelled the term "seers".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
John Cook
> Could THEY be US?
Both I think
> Are WE more capabable of the paranormal than we think - ourselves?
Don't think it is 'paranormal' in the 'magic' sense
> I simply haven`t had the time either recently (past few years actually)
> to make any artifacts worth showing off so have become a note-scribbler.
> I have compiled a collection of notes for inventions to alter the future.
Have a look at a thread just started in Goathead called "Magic
Technology" I've decided at least the scribbled notes can be out there.
> As with Gullivers` Telescope preminitions, some people are actually
> recognised and labelled the term "seers".
It's interesting in the intro to that book he (as the mock author)
declares that the book is intended to Inform.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ashley Clarke
> -------------------------------------------------------
scul...@tfb.com
(clay)
Yeah, well, there's work , and then there's long evenings in chinese
hotels with nothing to watch on tv, and, if you're not the whoring and
drinking type, nothing much else to do but fiddle with a crippled proxy
of the internet.
>
> > Will shut up now.
>
> No No No - Don't - please
>
> I really like talking with you because you are capable of 'debating'
> instead of just arguing and because I see you as a really good
spokesman
> for a type of philosopy that I think needs to change.
>
> Ironic that you are in China - I see your opinion of human nature as
a
> result of your earlier belief in marxism - and the
> disapointment/disilluonment that inevitably followed.
See, now you're just baiting me.... I have never believed in Marxism-
never believed in Communism-
y'know, it is possible to be unemotioanl and analytical about various
ideas that people invent- various religions, various ideologies,
various economic systems... without the emotional assumptions that one
or another is evil.
I understand the social implications of Darwin's theories on the modern
world and that it led directly to the 3 big competeing ideologies of
the late 19th and early 20th centuries... Fascism, Capitalism, and
Communism. I also understand the the PEOPLE who embraced these various
ideologies were seeking something they thought was true, that would
work, would BE the FUTURE of mankind... that their disastisfaction with
previous systems was based on real suffering and abuses.
The fact that in most cases the requisite revolutions resulted in a
power elite who simply set up business as usual - despot forcing his
will thru intimidation and control of information- this was the fault
of mankind in general and our facination with the image of the "king"
the" Father " or "god"- the cult of personality that makes the
impersonal machinery of state seem more comprehensible and humane.
I see the history of the U.S. as being a wild careening down a narrow
wire, just barely keeping from falling to one side or the other of an
effective democracy.
Not perfect- but the closest to a functional democracy that humanity
has yet achieved ( not to say we won't come up with something better
someday)
the facinating thing the Chinese are going thru is "discovering" that
communism is not fundementally at odds with capitalism. Capitalism
simply allows the proletariat access to the wealth that was previously
denied them. The Chinese government is coming to grips with the fact
that Capitalism is really the only system that has enabled technology
to advance and improve the standard of living of regular folks- and
with the fact that if they want to be a player on the world stage, they
will simply not be able to completely control what information the
people have access to.
So they are trying very gradually to loosen their grip, but they are
hampered by their paralyzing fear of 'the people' en masse.
As for me- I have always been a republican capitalist ( and, by
republican, I do not mean the party- but the system of elected
representatives speaking for their constituents.)
I have always been of this mindset because it is "evolutionary" in the
same sense that effective traffic laws are. While no one pays much
attention to speed limits- everyone pretty reliably stays on their side
of the road- this is because exceeding the speed limit has little or no
ramifications, but driving on the wrong side can get you promptly
killed.
SO, you can rely on folks to follow any rule that is in their
enlightened self interest. That is what capitalism has that the other
systems do not. Its simply crucial that the Government ensure that
their are adequate consequences in place for anyone trying to take too
much advantage of capitalism's weaknesses... ( which is why the Bush
Administration's push to total deregulation of business is
irresponsible and suspect )
Actually, I just had a conversation with a chinese woman the other day
where I explained that, while capitalism has its evils, just like
communism, the thing about capitalism is that its evils actually are
harnessed to do some good.
That the greed of an American businessman, who wants to make a larger
margin on some trinket so he can buy a bigger mansion actually drives
him to find lower cost labor overseas, which re-distributes American
wealth into the hands of the working class chinese, and improves their
standard of living with an amount of money that would not have much
effect on American's standard of living.
I am also capable of seeing that capitalism has its faults- and that
one of them is that it relies entirely on openning new markets and
tapping new pools of ever cheaper labor. As soon as every market has
been developed and the last pool of cheap labor exhausted, capitalism
will cease to function.
What then?
Something about china? China is the most optimistic place I have ever
been- its like America in the 50's only without the looming threat of
the cold war and nuclear holocaust...
For the Chinese, things have never been better, and from their point of
view, its just getting better every day.
The chinese people are surprisingly open and have a wonderful sense of
humor- but this is often crippled by the sense of "face" that pervades
all levels of society. They have a pathological horror of
embarrassment- and will go to any extreme to evade owning up to
anything that might be seen as a failure or inability.
This really is a "face" issue- that is- they will lie to your face
about, say, the quality of laquer they are using, only to have you
discover that its bad laquer after you open the container back in the
States- but its okay for you to find out this way because they didn't
have to say it to your 'face'.
And important people often are posturing in ways to give them "great
face" that , in fact, have precisely the opposite effect. I saw one
factory owner, who took some of his office staff on a business trip to
the US, show off in front of them by giving a waitress at a coffee shop
a $100 tip for a cup of coffee. This was an amount equal to a month's
salary for some of them- He thought it made him look important- but it
merely made his employee's feel worthless, and they thought much less
of him for it...
Oddly enough, they have great respect and affection for anyone who
seems unaffected by Face. For example, I often encourage them to laugh
at my expense and generally make a fool of myself in an attempt to get
our sculpotrs to lighten up and enjoy the work more. For this they gave
me the chinese name of Lao Wan Tong- which mean Old Naughty Boy. Its a
very positive name and refers to a popular character that is an old man
who behaves like a mishcevious little boy. Lao Wan Tong has no regard
whatsoever for his own Face.
When strangers hear that this is my chinese name, they laugh and smile
and warm to me immediately, let their guards down and treat me as if
they can trust me implicitly.
So, they ADMIRE someone who does not care what others think of them,
someone who can laugh at himself, but they can't bring themselves to
emulate this behavior.
Being in china is a strange trip- On the third floor of nearly every
decent hotel is a whorehouse disguised as a karaoke bar. One evening I
was sitting in the western hotel having a beer with a co-worker when
the Mama-san of the whorehouse came out tof the bar with two girls, saw
us and tried a last ditch effort at making some money on a slow night.
She spoke a little english and kept calling me a "sexy monkey". ( I
have a beard and hairy arms and dark complexion)
No- I had had chinese girls tell me I looked like a monkey before.
And I had had chinese girls tell me that I was sexy before...
But it never occured to me that they thought I was sexy BECAUSE I
looked like a monkey.
That tells you something about chinese girls, right there...
>
> I've seen the same sort of kindly pessimism before in older
exMarxists
OLDER ex marxists?
Well, I am merely 48. And never was a marxist. always thought of Marx
as a hopelessly idealistic idiot with a very poor understanbding of
human nature and even poorer understanding of history.
scul...@tfb.com
>
> How do you do this?
I don't believe in not believing at all. ( whatever that means)
I believe a great many things. I have had ineffable experiences that I
can only explain in a spiritual framework, but I don't generally
discuss them as I understand them to be INTERNAL experiences, and so,
unrelatable in any meaningful way to others.
As to the external world...
I believe that my senses can fool me. That's what history shows.
For a thousand years artists and horsemen argured about whether, at a
full gallop, all of the horse's legs were ever off the ground at once.
Human perception was simply not discriminating enough for us to watch a
horse running and all percieve the event the same.
It took photography and a scientific experiment to establish the truth
of the matter, once and for all.
So- what about all those folks who, for so many years, so passionately
argued that a horse would fall down if it didn't have at least one foot
on the ground at all times? Were they fools? or just ignorant?
They looked and thought they SAW something that turned out to not be
true.
No matter what they believed- the whole time- horses were always
running the same- with 3 beats, not four- with all legs off the ground
no matter what anyone thought or believed about it.
When human perception of an event is equivocal, we need to conduct
experiments to discern the truth.
Human history is the story of the rise and fall of numerous
civilizations- each time rising to the same basic level, then
declining.
Only in this last incarnation have we managed to rise further- to
advance technologically beyond Rome, Egypt, Babylon.
..and we did this thru science. Thru not allowing ourselves to be
fooled by what we believe to be true; by, rather, conducting
experiments to establish what is really occuring- or at least, to
formulate theories that better explain and better PREDICT what does in
fact occur.
Logic and scientific method are mental tricks to clear away the fog
created by a brain that SEES patterns everywhere- Pattern recognition
is what our brain's evolved to do, and they are so good at it that they
can make "sense" of patterns that, in fact, are random.
We have all "seen" a face in the stucco texture on the ceiling- but it
is not really there by any intent-
But if it strikes some of us a being like a particular face... do we
see it as a miraculous manifestation of the madonna? Or are we simply
struck by the coincidence?
Or is our brain just constantly searching for any play of light and
shadow that seems familiar and then identifying it, often erroneously?
Haven't you ever been CERTAIN that you saw someone in a dimly lit room,
only to turn on the light and realize it was just some odd confluence
of other forms poorly illuminated?
For some things I believe in my direct experience. But I am educated
enough to understand the limitations of my own sensory apparatus, and
of my brain's predeliction for making connections that do not, in fact,
exist. I also understand that the lights I sometimes see in my eye are,
in fact, artifacts of the operation of my eye- and not actual lights
squirming around in front of me.
Science has demonstrably revolutionized our world and our lives because
it doesn't care about what you think or believe- only about what you
have proof of.
When it comes to investigating purportedly External events ( those not
the artifact of the mind or the soul ) I have to opt for the
explanation that has the weight of supporting evidence.
A lack of evidence is not proof of anything.
But I remain entirely open to being PROVEN wrong. If anyone, ever,
comes up with credible proof of alien visitation, i will willingly and
eagerly re-examine every prior event in the light of the new knowledge.
While I can entertain what I or other folks IMAGINE might happen, I
have to believe what can be shown to be possible.
Any other course leads to shaking rattles at spirits.
christopher
scul...@tfb.com
I don't know how Swift did it. Maybe he guessed.
I don't know how the Chinese philosophers of the 1st century managed to
decsribe reality in exactly the same way as modern physics...
maybe they were smart, or inspired. Or guessed.
But admitting to not knowing is not anywhere near the same as imagining
how without any evidence in support.
As to Swift, I didn't find it necessary to reply to a work of fiction.
Your definition of credible is not in alignment with mine- you allow
and celebrate explanations without any evidence and disregard evidence
as meaningful.
So- there was no real point in replying.
I tried to beg off earlier as it became clear that I was upsetting
you...
I am sorry to be pissing you off and sorry to have offended you.
...Really not my intention, though I don't deny that was the result.
christopher
John Cook wrote:
> Still feeling outraged
>
>
> How about NOTICING what I said?
>
>
> Bout Johnathen Swift
>
>
> ANSWER or SHUT THE FUK UP
>
> Why/How did he get the moons of mars THAT close...
r.dawkes
you have seen it. This is only when you understand what art is about.
"John Cook" <FunC...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42549823$0$260$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
> Thur wrote:
> > "Kinda" <Kinda....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1112805062....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Christopher I appreciate your commentary..
> >>
> >>Gilles Deleuze (philosopher) once wrote - in an article that is 20
> >>years old now - the following: (I'm translating from french) "There's a
> >>lot of forces today that wants to deny every possible distinction
> >>between commercial and art. The more we deny this distinction, the more
> >>we think ourselves funny, comprehensive and aware. In fact we're only
> >>translating a demand of capitalism, the fast rotation. [...] What
> >>seemingly complicates everything, is that the same form can be used for
> >>creative and for commercial."
> >>
> >>This is where the problem is in our time, to be able to sort out
> >>between an "authentic" contemporary art, that truly interrogates us,
> >>and some works that have for unique interest to illustrate the vacuity
> >>of our world.
> >>
> >>Kinda
> >>
> >
> > Trouble is that the more you try to detail what art is, the more you
become
> > bogged down, as people offer examples of different sorts of art.
> > E.g. Some art does not "interrogate us", nor does some offer a
> > social commentary as it's prime function.
> > Some art is Decorative.
> > The best art has several levels of possible and intentional
interpretation.
> > Therefore I suggest that trying to define all art is more difficult than
> > trying
> > to assemble the many values that it can contain.
> > With regard to commerce: If art is made to be sold, then it is part of
> > commerce. Some artists may well ignore the demands of the marketplace
> > in the hope that the world will beat a path to their door.
> > I don't know of any successful artists who did not put their toes into
the
> > world of commerce.
>
> I think we should be more aware of how NEW the concept of 'fine art' is.
> Leonardo was a decorator. He worked for the rich folk and the
> churches - he was a commercial artist.
>
> PS - I HATE picasso - he was one of the great corruptors of true art.
Haku Mele
dmo...@yahoo.com (Rob) wrote:
> http://www.kharper.net/onewayticket.html
Looks like a possible candidate for Art Talk's "Art Hoaxes" column:
http://mrdelurk.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_mrdelurk_archive.html
Mani Deli
Congress is now pushing a law that would end the free and open
Internet as we know it. Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are
lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First
Amendment and the key to Internet freedom. Net Neutrality prevents
AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on
which site pays AT&T more. So Amazon doesn't have to outbid Barnes &
Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer.
Many members of Congress take campaign contributions from these
companies, and they don't think the public are paying attention to
this issue. Let's show them we care - please sign this petition today.
Congress must keep the Internet free and open by voting for meaningful
and enforceable Network Neutrality--the Internet's First Amendment.
For more information, or to link to MoveOn's outreach on this issue,
check out: http://civic.moveon.org/alerts/savetheinternet.h
Also check out
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/net-neutrality-why-are_b_20311.html