OT: Books
Guig
I picked up a copy of Richard Dawkins - "A Devils Chaplain". It's basically
a compendium of his essays, interesting stuff. I did think it might be a bit
over my head but I'm hanging in there, well, apart from the chapter on
post-modernism.
A wee example (and I'm paraphrasing) - "there's no such thing as
'alternative' medicine, only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't.
It's not like we have an alternative nervious system that you can use
'alternative' medicine on"
Good stuff so far.
--
Guig
GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know.
CBFA #1
Oh for the wings of any bird, other than a battery hen.
Jerseypete
"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message
news:105493046...@iris.uk.clara.net...
> For those remotely interested:
>
> I picked up a copy of Richard Dawkins - "A Devils Chaplain". It's
basically
> a compendium of his essays, interesting stuff. I did think it might be a
bit
> over my head but I'm hanging in there, well, apart from the chapter on
> post-modernism.
>
> A wee example (and I'm paraphrasing) - "there's no such thing as
> 'alternative' medicine, only medicine that works and medicine that
doesn't.
> It's not like we have an alternative nervious system that you can use
> 'alternative' medicine on"
>
brave.
PW
stuart graham
>For those remotely interested:
>
>I picked up a copy of Richard Dawkins - "A Devils Chaplain". It's basically
>a compendium of his essays, interesting stuff. I did think it might be a bit
>over my head but I'm hanging in there, well, apart from the chapter on
>post-modernism.
Post-modernism is easy. Essentially it means you dont take anything
seriously any longer. Of course i am simplifying slightly.....
--
stuart graham
''The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man"
George Bernard Shaw
ZB
"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message
news:105493046...@iris.uk.clara.net...
>
> I picked up a copy of Richard Dawkins - "A Devils Chaplain". It's
basically
> a compendium of his essays, interesting stuff. I did think it might be a
bit
> over my head but I'm hanging in there, well, apart from the chapter on
> post-modernism.
>
> A wee example (and I'm paraphrasing) - "there's no such thing as
> 'alternative' medicine, only medicine that works and medicine that
doesn't.
> It's not like we have an alternative nervious system that you can use
> 'alternative' medicine on"
>
> Good stuff so far.
OK, what else is on your list? Last time I checked out your book list, I
read about 15 books in 2 months. And no, we are not talking comics before
some smart arse interjects.
Guig
> OK, what else is on your list? Last time I checked out your book
> list, I read about 15 books in 2 months. And no, we are not talking
> comics before some smart arse interjects.
Still got a couple to go from my last list, the Scott Ritter, Richard Butler
and Arthur Herman ones, although I might take the Herman one on holiday with
me.
I took a breather from the social/political books for a while and read some
good fiction. I dug out Julian Mays 8 book Milieu set and ploughed through
them again
I did read Jimmy Lerners book "You got nothing coming" which was excellent
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0767909186/qid=1054971460/sr=
8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-2295925-0654301?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). And a book
about some guys working in the software industry called IIRC "Dog Daze"
(might have the title wrong), it was a quick read, only 200 pages or so but
a nice break from the usual.
Guig
PS, I plan to pick up a book or two by the Dalai Lama either before or after
I go on my hols. All part of my plan to brin the universe into balance :)
ZB
"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message
> ZB wrote:
>
> PS, I plan to pick up a book or two by the Dalai Lama either before or
after
> I go on my hols. All part of my plan to brin the universe into balance :)
Ya religious fanatic ya! ;-)
Guig
Aye, ahm a right fekkin fundamentalist me!!! Well, mentalist anyway.....
Bobby
as a religious person.
I've just finished "Straw Dogs" which I can recommend (bleak but
interesting):
and I'm currently reading "Pattern Recognition" which is so-so:
I've started "reading" audio books - CDs copied to MP3 so that I can listen
to them while travelling or down the gym. I'm currently listening to "Who
says elephants can't dance" by an Louise Gerstner:
Bobby
"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message
news:105493046...@iris.uk.clara.net...
Danny
"stuart graham" <stu...@REMOVEntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:uq62evsf84quc53fm...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:17:49 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote:
>
> >For those remotely interested:
> >
> >I picked up a copy of Richard Dawkins - "A Devils Chaplain". It's
basically
> >a compendium of his essays, interesting stuff. I did think it might be a
bit
> >over my head but I'm hanging in there, well, apart from the chapter on
> >post-modernism.
>
> Post-modernism is easy. Essentially it means you dont take anything
> seriously any longer. Of course i am simplifying slightly.....
Very contemporary point of view...
I agree completely - modern art/contemporary shite is just that. It's a load
of superficial nonsense.
stuart graham
That isnt what i said.
Tony Flynn
"Bobby" <bo...@europe.com> wrote in message
news:bbs8km$klk$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Dawkins is a great writer. It's good to see an atheist with the same
passion
> as a religious person.
> > I picked up a copy of Richard Dawkins - "A Devils Chaplain". It's
> basically
> > a compendium of his essays, interesting stuff.
Dawkins is a God, an absolute God... the messiah...
Maybe I'm not reading him right.
Danny
"stuart graham" <stu...@REMOVEntlworld.com> wrote in message
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:05:30 +0100, "Danny"
> <danny__grant///@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"stuart graham" <stu...@REMOVEntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:uq62evsf84quc53fm...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:17:49 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote:
> >>
> >> >For those remotely interested:
> >> >
> >> >I picked up a copy of Richard Dawkins - "A Devils Chaplain". It's
> >basically
> >> >a compendium of his essays, interesting stuff. I did think it might be
a
> >bit
> >> >over my head but I'm hanging in there, well, apart from the chapter on
> >> >post-modernism.
> >>
> >> Post-modernism is easy. Essentially it means you dont take anything
> >> seriously any longer. Of course i am simplifying slightly.....
> >
> >Very contemporary point of view...
> >I agree completely - modern art/contemporary shite is just that. It's a
load
> >of superficial nonsense.
> >
>
> That isnt what i said.
Oh you know me.
What with my 'flexible' definitions of what people say.
And besides I agree with your basic point, I just wanted to add my own twist
to it.
stuart graham
<danny__grant///@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Very contemporary point of view...
>> >I agree completely - modern art/contemporary shite is just that. It's a
>load
>> >of superficial nonsense.
>> >
>>
>> That isnt what i said.
>
>Oh you know me.
>What with my 'flexible' definitions of what people say.
>And besides I agree with your basic point, I just wanted to add my own twist
>to it.
>
Your twist though betrayed a basic misunderstanding though. To 'not
take anything seriously' as i flippantly described it is not the same
as superficiality.
Andy Sharp
"Danny"wrote...
> >> >Very contemporary point of view...
> >> >I agree completely - modern art/contemporary shite is just that. It's
a
> >load
> >> >of superficial nonsense.
> >> That isnt what i said.
> >Oh you know me.
> >What with my 'flexible' definitions of what people say.
> >And besides I agree with your basic point, I just wanted to add my own
twist
> >to it.
> Your twist though betrayed a basic misunderstanding though. To 'not
> take anything seriously' as i flippantly described it is not the same
> as superficiality.
Ya coupla' fannies!
Danny
"stuart graham" <stu...@REMOVEntlworld.com> wrote in message
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:46:36 +0100, "Danny"
> <danny__grant///@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Very contemporary point of view...
> >> >I agree completely - modern art/contemporary shite is just that. It's
a
> >load
> >> >of superficial nonsense.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That isnt what i said.
> >
> >Oh you know me.
> >What with my 'flexible' definitions of what people say.
> >And besides I agree with your basic point, I just wanted to add my own
twist
> >to it.
> >
>
> Your twist though betrayed a basic misunderstanding though. To 'not
> take anything seriously' as i flippantly described it is not the same
> as superficiality.
For my money contemporary ideology means both superficiality and the lack of
'seriousness'.
You can indeed separate the 2 concepts, but it arguably ends up with the
same conclusion - contemporary thinking seems shallow.
If you don't take it seriously there's a big hint there of superficiality in
the perceived content. After all who would take something seriously which
has no apparent depth or purpose?
Now you better fucking come up with a good answer.
stuart graham
By not take things seriously i meant that art no longer has a social
or ideological programme. The notion of the zeitgeist has been
devalued and thus art is self-referrential and isloated from the wider
culture. Thats not to say that it is superficial, serious themes are
still dealt with however there is a degree of 'knowingness' in almost
everything that makes it at the same time more sophisticated and less
serious.
Danny
"stuart graham" <stu...@REMOVEntlworld.com> wrote in message
Oh I wouldn't say that. I just think it's changed so much as to be viewed
cynically by traditionalists.
Its credibility hasn't changed, just its audience and purpose.
> The notion of the zeitgeist has been
> devalued
That's going a bit far too, don't you think? Devalued? Again, 'evolution'
has changed culture, but it surely hasn't devalued it.
> and thus art is self-referrential
That's true. I'd add self-serving too.
> and isloated from the wider
> culture.
Well the wider culture now *is* that self-referrential theme. I think what
you're trying to say is not entirely fair. Maybe the themes have broken away
from 'general consumption' and are more inherent to the creator, but the
fact that this is the method of modern art does bind the works, even if it
seems to be in a perverse way.
> Thats not to say that it is superficial, serious themes are
> still dealt with
When viewing a photograph of a traffic cone presented as art I must say I
struggle to see these serious themes.
> however there is a degree of 'knowingness' in almost
> everything that makes it at the same time more sophisticated and less
> serious.
You mean arrogance. That is to say artists think they know everything and
present it as such.
Danny
"Andy Sharp" <sharp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc0dgd$dd3ql$1...@ID-62728.news.dfncis.de...
stuart graham
<danny__grant///@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> By not take things seriously i meant that art no longer has a social
>> or ideological programme.
>
>Oh I wouldn't say that. I just think it's changed so much as to be viewed
>cynically by traditionalists.
>Its credibility hasn't changed, just its audience and purpose.
The 'purpose' of art has not changed since modernism had currency and
nor has its audience except in the sense that art is increasingly
about art more than anything else.
>
>> The notion of the zeitgeist has been
>> devalued
>
>That's going a bit far too, don't you think? Devalued? Again, 'evolution'
>has changed culture, but it surely hasn't devalued it.
It has been davalued. In an age where the media disseminates ideas
quicker than they can be conceieved and technique allows almost
anything to become possible the notion of a unifying style or thesis
is no longer possible.
>> Thats not to say that it is superficial, serious themes are
>> still dealt with
>
>When viewing a photograph of a traffic cone presented as art I must say I
>struggle to see these serious themes.
That you cannot see them does not mean that the themes are not
preasent however impenetrability has become almost the objective of
art.
>
>> however there is a degree of 'knowingness' in almost
>> everything that makes it at the same time more sophisticated and less
>> serious.
>
>You mean arrogance. That is to say artists think they know everything and
>present it as such.
>
No, simply that nothing is straighforward and nothing is presented
without a degree of cynicism or sarcasm.
Danny
"stuart graham" <stu...@REMOVEntlworld.com> wrote in message
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:32:00 +0100, "Danny"
> <danny__grant///@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> By not take things seriously i meant that art no longer has a social
> >> or ideological programme.
> >
> >Oh I wouldn't say that. I just think it's changed so much as to be viewed
> >cynically by traditionalists.
> >Its credibility hasn't changed, just its audience and purpose.
>
> The 'purpose' of art has not changed since modernism had currency and
> nor has its audience except in the sense that art is increasingly
> about art more than anything else.
You telling me you feel art was once about the content of the presentation,
rather than the style?
That the style was a mere by-product of the artist in question?
>
> >
> >> The notion of the zeitgeist has been
> >> devalued
> >
> >That's going a bit far too, don't you think? Devalued? Again, 'evolution'
> >has changed culture, but it surely hasn't devalued it.
>
> It has been davalued. In an age where the media disseminates ideas
> quicker than they can be conceieved and technique allows almost
> anything to become possible the notion of a unifying style or thesis
> is no longer possible.
That's true up to a point, but why does it really matter? Yes as a principle
the Zeitgeist may have changed/devalued/however you want to view it, but why
should it make a difference to contemporary ideas?
I'm interested in understanding why you think it's so important.
>
>
> >> Thats not to say that it is superficial, serious themes are
> >> still dealt with
> >
> >When viewing a photograph of a traffic cone presented as art I must say I
> >struggle to see these serious themes.
>
> That you cannot see them does not mean that the themes are not
> preasent however impenetrability has become almost the objective of
> art.
Although certainly not intentionally.
The idea that people back in the 16th century could have been as skeptical
about the works of Michelangelo as we are about those of Picasso and his ilk
isn't surely that alien.
>
> >
> >> however there is a degree of 'knowingness' in almost
> >> everything that makes it at the same time more sophisticated and less
> >> serious.
> >
> >You mean arrogance. That is to say artists think they know everything and
> >present it as such.
> >
>
> No, simply that nothing is straighforward and nothing is presented
> without a degree of cynicism or sarcasm.
And you believe this cynicism and sarcasm is what removes the seriousness,
and adds the superficiality?
Ross
"Danny" <danny__grant///@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc32tk$emokc$1...@ID-149535.news.dfncis.de...
>
> rcasm.
>
> And you believe this cynicism and sarcasm is what removes the seriousness,
> and adds the superficiality?
Remind me never to spend time in your company in a boozer !
Ross
afc
Peter Campbell
A load of circumlocution.
stuart graham
<danny__grant///@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"stuart graham" <stu...@REMOVEntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:qjv9ev08dn2isgr9q...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:32:00 +0100, "Danny"
>> <danny__grant///@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> By not take things seriously i meant that art no longer has a social
>> >> or ideological programme.
>> >
>> >Oh I wouldn't say that. I just think it's changed so much as to be viewed
>> >cynically by traditionalists.
>> >Its credibility hasn't changed, just its audience and purpose.
>>
>> The 'purpose' of art has not changed since modernism had currency and
>> nor has its audience except in the sense that art is increasingly
>> about art more than anything else.
>
>You telling me you feel art was once about the content of the presentation,
>rather than the style?
Yes. In part. Very often the style was part of the content.
>That the style was a mere by-product of the artist in question?
Yes. Take cubism or surrealism for example. Both were movements where
the artists started off with similar basic premises and manifestos
(and quite political ones at that) but produced very different styles.
Of course style was a weapon in expressing those manifestos....
>
>>
>> >
>> >> The notion of the zeitgeist has been
>> >> devalued
>> >
>> >That's going a bit far too, don't you think? Devalued? Again, 'evolution'
>> >has changed culture, but it surely hasn't devalued it.
>>
>> It has been davalued. In an age where the media disseminates ideas
>> quicker than they can be conceieved and technique allows almost
>> anything to become possible the notion of a unifying style or thesis
>> is no longer possible.
>
>That's true up to a point, but why does it really matter? Yes as a principle
>the Zeitgeist may have changed/devalued/however you want to view it, but why
>should it make a difference to contemporary ideas?
>I'm interested in understanding why you think it's so important.
Well, if there is no spirit of the age how can you define anything as
being truly contemporary? You end up with every point in history being
equidistant and every style or set of ideas being up for grabs but
divorced from context.
>
>>
>>
>> >> Thats not to say that it is superficial, serious themes are
>> >> still dealt with
>> >
>> >When viewing a photograph of a traffic cone presented as art I must say I
>> >struggle to see these serious themes.
>>
>> That you cannot see them does not mean that the themes are not
>> preasent however impenetrability has become almost the objective of
>> art.
>
>Although certainly not intentionally.
No, it very much is the intention of many artists.
Danny
"Peter Campbell" <no_spam@this_address.com> wrote in message
news:axoFa.15471$_c7...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Danny
"Ross" <ro...@callthemheavenlydancers.com> wrote in message
news:bc49vk$6b9$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Hehe
Though why you don't say the same to Stuart is beyond me ...