NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't help but feel that everything post-40's in America has become a synthetic, ultimately self-destructive lie that we, as a culture have perpetrated upon ourselves.

Pop culture and a world of pop-fashion, pop-art, pop-books, pop-music, and pop-music has created a world of cheap thrills and meaningless swill which we depend on so strongly that we have lost all sense of the origional.

It's in the way we dress, like clones, dependant on slogan-based clothing, or upon designed brand bullshit, all of it designed to create an indestinct world where we may as well be clones. It's in our ideal of beauty: so heavily made up, so heavily scarred by plastic surgery that we are merely a mockery of our own image. It's in what we read: quick, uncomplex concepts based in an escapism where good and evil are black and white, where the most complex concept is "whodunnit?". It's in what we listen to: music that is consumed by a fantasy world in which romance is a beautiful, ultimately good thing, sex happens in a beautiful, divine manner, parties are a bright chance for everyone to escape in some kind of orgy of unatainable good times (liberally assisted by drink, drugs, and dirty dancing).

Haven't we created the most useless, nonsense culture of lies, though? We are all just big money interests to be bought and sold according to today's new false fantasy? People don't even deal in reality today. They'd rather deal with their bands, who are giant lies constructed in the name of big-money interests. Their TV-shows, which are identical. Their politicians: the biggest, most contrived lies out there.

What the hell kind of world have we become? It looks to me like a synthetic, world, more plastic than protein. What can we even do, though?

What can we even do, though?
Not much.
We can't even rot, we're so plastic.

Not much.
We can't even rot, we're so plastic.

Eh... Depends on how you define rot. We seem to be rotting away as people, but we use the plastic and the lies to cover that up.

I can't help but feel that everything post-40's in America has become a synthetic, ultimately self-destructive lie that we, as a culture have perpetrated upon ourselves.

We're just a bigger, badder version of the Roman Empire. As long as there are still other countries we can borrow from/exploit/liberate, we're okay.

Pop culture and a world of pop-fashion, pop-art, pop-books, pop-music, and pop-music has created a world of cheap thrills and meaningless swill which we depend on so strongly that we have lost all sense of the origional.

We get what we pay for. I'm guessing you have a grudge against Hollywood, so I'll let the personification of Hollywood take it from here.

It's in the way we dress, like clones, dependant on slogan-based clothing, or upon designed brand bullshit, all of it designed to create an indestinct world where we may as well be clones. It's in our ideal of beauty: so heavily made up, so heavily scarred by plastic surgery that we are merely a mockery of our own image.

Hollywood: LOL! Don't be silly, we're all beautiful! It's just that some people are more beautiful than other people!

It's in what we read: quick, uncomplex concepts based in an escapism where good and evil are black and white, where the most complex concept is "whodunnit?". It's in what we listen to: music that is consumed by a fantasy world in which romance is a beautiful, ultimately good thing, sex happens in a beautiful, divine manner, parties are a bright chance for everyone to escape in some kind of orgy of unatainable good times (liberally assisted by drink, drugs, and dirty dancing).

Hollywood: LOL! Where did you find this guy?

Haven't we created the most useless, nonsense culture of lies, though?

Hollywood: LOL! Not yet, but we're getting there, by golly!

We are all just big money interests to be bought and sold according to today's new false fantasy?

Hollywood: LOL! Yes!

People don't even deal in reality today. They'd rather deal with their bands, who are giant lies constructed in the name of big-money interests. Their TV-shows, which are identical. Their politicians: the biggest, most contrived lies out there.

Hollywood: LOL! You're funny!

What the hell kind of world have we become? It looks to me like a synthetic, world, more plastic than protein.

Hollywood LOL! I know! It's so much better now, isn't it! Because everyone is having fun and everyone is happy!

What can we even do, though?

Hollywood LOL! Build your own little world, silly! Then give us a call and we'll help you sell your vision to the world and make tons of cash! Then you can have fun and be happy!

I like my fendi purse.

We're just a bigger, badder version of the Roman Empire. As long as there are still other countries we can borrow from/exploit/liberate, we're okay.

Well, I didn't use the term bread and circuses, but that does seem to hold some truth.



We get what we pay for. I'm guessing you have a grudge against Hollywood, so I'll let the personification of Hollywood take it from here.

I don't blame Hollywood for the way people act. Hollywood is a symptom, not a cause. We do get what we pay for, and what we pay for is a well constructed lie. I am disgusted by our willingness to buy into such a world, and not by the people who sell it. They are, after all, only in business. They could try to sell something else, but people wouldn't buy it. Hollywood is more of a reflection of our culture ad absurdum than it is a force controlling our culture.


Hollywood LOL! Build your own little world, silly! Then give us a call and we'll help you sell your vision to the world and make tons of cash! Then you can have fun and be happy!

*looks at generic building toys*

*looks at computer monitor*

Meh... Better than stewing, I suppose.

Right. Like none of what you just described hasn't been going on already for the last two or three hundred years.

Right. Like none of what you just described hasn't been going on already for the last two or three hundred years.

Personally, I think it's been going on in various forms for all of human history. The creation of complex alternate-realities and consistent self-delusion are hardly new phenomena.

I think you're pining for a utopia of the "good old days" that never existed.

Tell me about it. I think the biggest impediment to a free society isn't goverment force but the mountains of crap that modern capitalism produces which keeps us too tame to resist. Granted, the "Good Old Days" were hardly utopian, but back then, they were at least upfront about oppression and they did have better music. ;)

Tell me about it. I think the biggest impediment to a free society isn't goverment force but the mountains of crap that modern capitalism produces which keeps us too tame to resist. Granted, the "Good Old Days" were hardly utopian, but back then, they were at least upfront about oppression and they did have better music. ;)

was this song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdItwaLrv1U) written in the old days?

I think you're pining for a utopia of the "good old days" that never existed.

Good old days, nothing. I haven't got the least bit of respect for the "good old days" either, I just think that these days are now totally self-destructive. The sex-based advertising of the 50's, combined with the pop-music of the 60's, the modern celebrity culture and the celebration of vapidity and useless, self-absorbed "Beauty" created as a lie to sell us all an ideal that causes us to lie and adopt the same persona makes a joke of humanity and human potential.

I'm disgusted because nothing seems real any more, not because of some sort of "modern moral decay".

You're looking to the past as if it was somehow better. It wasn't. It was simply different. The past was just as fake as we are now. The only way to remove it from our society is to become cavemen again. Go live in a cave if you cannot accept the world we have created; there is no other alternative.

I like our world.

You're looking to the past as if it was somehow better. It wasn't. It was simply different. The past was just as fake as we are now. The only way to remove it from our society is to become cavemen again. Go live in a cave if you cannot accept the world we have created; there is no other alternative.

I can certainly understand the attraction of anarcho-primitivism in a way that I couldn't before (that doesn't mean I agree with it, just that I can understand that as a solution, it is one that would function).

However, that aside, I wonder what exactly makes it so that there is no solution to our problems? It seems more that you despair of (or, perhaps, celebrate) ever changing things, and conclude that the only option left is to run?

What of confrontation? Why must we lie down and allow ourselves to be cheapened and distorted with no more than a twitch? If we are to be destroyed by the lies constructed around us, is it not better to lash out against them, and at least show them for what they are, before we are destroyed by them?

I like our world.

Why?

I'm disgusted because nothing seems real any more,

What makes anything "real"?

What makes anything "real"?
Perspective.

What makes anything "real"?

The alternative has no utility.

But thanks for asking, Bishop Berkely.

combined with the pop-music of the 60's,
Some people like it and if they do it doesn't have anything to do with "moral decay" it's just what your brain enjoys certain music has certain different reactions for different people.Their choice, if it's makingthem happier then why not?
the modern celebrity culture and the celebration of vapidity and useless
Probably true, but for some people that is their interest just as NSG is interested in pirates. And when people get past hunger and have room to think they begin to idolize figures. it gives them a role model and since you don't know them you can interpret them so that they become God like figures. It's just away to let your imagination go and find something interesting. Personally, I prefer a good book, but there aren't many of those kicking around at coles.
self-absorbed "Beauty" created as a lie to sell us all an ideal that causes us to lie and adopt the same persona makes a joke of humanity and human potential.
Beauty is part of potential. Humans have ALWAYS been obsessed with it, corsets in the middle ages, crazy hair..... all the time, makeup now. It's part of evolution, the prettier people tend to be more healthy and live longer (I think I can dig up the study of this when I get home). It's a natural part of us to be attracked to certain things (the change depending on different cutltures so it is partly a culture thing. But it's natural to strive to be more liek them because... they get fucked more. Pretty Much.

I'm disgusted because nothing seems real any more, not because of some sort of "modern moral decay".

People are people, we all try to be better sometimes are perception of better is a little fucked but we want people to like us sometimes that makes us act strange but that's part of life and it is real. Life is real no matter how fucked up you think some people are. Move on and live your life.

Some people like it and if they do it doesn't have anything to do with "moral decay" it's just what your brain enjoys certain music has certain different reactions for different people.Their choice, if it's makingthem happier then why not?

It's not too difficult to figure out that I am mocking the concept of moral decay. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I don't care what makes them happy. False happiness is just a mockery of what they could be and attain. I should rather they be miserable, but realistic, than happy in their false world.

Probably true, but for some people that is their interest just as NSG is interested in pirates. And when people get past hunger and have room to think they begin to idolize figures. it gives them a role model and since you don't know them you can interpret them so that they become God like figures. It's just away to let your imagination go and find something interesting. Personally, I prefer a good book, but there aren't many of those kicking around at coles.

Role models.... *shudder*

We're making role models of the most vapid, most useless, most totally empty figures in society. That's not a positive thing.

Beauty is part of potential. Humans have ALWAYS been obsessed with it, corsets in the middle ages, crazy hair..... all the time, makeup now. It's part of evolution, the prettier people tend to be more healthy and live longer (I think I can dig up the study of this when I get home). It's a natural part of us to be attracked to certain things (the change depending on different cutltures so it is partly a culture thing. But it's natural to strive to be more liek them because... they get fucked more. Pretty Much.

Oh joy. So now we return to enslaving ourselves to natural selection. Never mind that we know what it is, and that it is controlling us, we like getting fucked, and if it feels good, it must be good. :rolleyes:


People are people, we all try to be better sometimes are perception of better is a little fucked but we want people to like us sometimes that makes us act strange but that's part of life and it is real. Life is real no matter how fucked up you think some people are. Move on and live your life.

Bah... Moving on and living my life is exactly what the problem is. We're all willing to shrug and go "Well, they may be fucked up, but at least I'm not."

My life is hindered and impeded by being surrounded by pop-culture robots. We are too willing to let it go. We must be willing to criticize, to belittle, and to make light of, because if we are not, we are failing other people. These are not just nice things to shrug about and let happen.

I can certainly understand the attraction of anarcho-primitivism in a way that I couldn't before (that doesn't mean I agree with it, just that I can understand that as a solution, it is one that would function).

However, that aside, I wonder what exactly makes it so that there is no solution to our problems? It seems more that you despair of (or, perhaps, celebrate) ever changing things, and conclude that the only option left is to run?

What of confrontation? Why must we lie down and allow ourselves to be cheapened and distorted with no more than a twitch? If we are to be destroyed by the lies constructed around us, is it not better to lash out against them, and at least show them for what they are, before we are destroyed by them?



Why?

I completely celebrate ever-changing things. Change is good. You're confusing many things, I think. Society is not what makes us, we are what makes us. We can chose not to be a product of society. I have made that choice, and can sit back and select what good I see in our society and avoid that which I don't like. I am not a clone, but I certainly don't go out of my way to be "different".

Society is not the problem. People are.

EDIT: And your opinion that happiness can somehow be "false" because of the way it's obtained is ridiculous. It's the same chemical process in the brain. Happiness through something you consider vapid is just as valid as happiness through something you don't. Because something doesn't make you happy does not mean it doesn't make another happy. Who're you to say that pop-art/pop-music is vapid? I could equally say that your points are just as vapid. Happiness is everything, no matter how it's obtained. There can be no qualitative measurement of something so subjective, so you're wasting your time whining.

I completely celebrate ever-changing things. Change is good. You're confusing many things, I think. Society is not what makes us, we are what makes us. We can chose not to be a product of society. I have made that choice, and can sit back and select what good I see in our society and avoid that which I don't like. I am not a clone, but I certainly don't go out of my way to be "different".

There is a difference between striving to be different, and failing to see any real value in our social institutions (please remember, society is people, and not vice versa. I beleive that people choose their path, and that they have chosen the wrong one, not that they are being misled). You also cannot sit out of society, since, as a human who interacts with other humans, you are invariably are part of it.

There is a difference between striving to be different, and failing to see any real value in our social institutions (please remember, society is people, and not vice versa. I beleive that people choose their path, and that they have chosen the wrong one, not that they are being misled). You also cannot sit out of society, since, as a human who interacts with other humans, you are invariably are part of it.

I believe you are misguided in your attempts to find "meaning" in ANY society.

I believe you are misguided in your attempts to find "meaning" in ANY society.

Society is just a conglomeration of human interaction. It is no more or less than any other view of a whole system, rather than its constituent parts. It has no meaning, it is merely an indicator of the parts that make it up.

Society is just a conglomeration of human interaction. It is no more or less than any other view of a whole system, rather than its constituent parts. It has no meaning, it is merely an indicator of the parts that make it up.

Then why are you looking for meaning? You've described modern society as without meaning, as vapid. What's wrong with this, if you concede that society HAS no meaning?

Then why are you looking for meaning? You've described modern society as without meaning, as vapid. What's wrong with this, if you concede that society HAS no meaning?

Because what our society is, is a reflection upon its people. And in this day and age, people have surrendered meaningful and valueble things and become tiny little lies. Society reflects that, and thus produces things which can be used to understand the people inside of it.

Edit: Why do we study economies? They too, are meaningless, unless we put them in the context of the individual people within them.

I can't help but feel that everything post-40's in America has become a synthetic, ultimately self-destructive lie that we, as a culture have perpetrated upon ourselves.

Pop culture and a world of pop-fashion, pop-art, pop-books, pop-music, and pop-music has created a world of cheap thrills and meaningless swill which we depend on so strongly that we have lost all sense of the origional.

It's in the way we dress, like clones, dependant on slogan-based clothing, or upon designed brand bullshit, all of it designed to create an indestinct world where we may as well be clones.
I don't think people are clones. People wear much more different things than they did 50 and 100 years ago.

Pop-culture's fine on it's own, the problem is the people who put down others for not being as "in to" it as they are. If people consider pop-culture as a part of who they are and they enjoy it, it wouldn't be nice to take it away from them, give them a butter churn, and say "go be wholesome."

I can't help but feel that everything post-40's in America has become a synthetic, ultimately self-destructive lie that we, as a culture have perpetrated upon ourselves.

Pop culture and a world of pop-fashion, pop-art, pop-books, pop-music, and pop-music has created a world of cheap thrills and meaningless swill which we depend on so strongly that we have lost all sense of the origional.

It's in the way we dress, like clones, dependant on slogan-based clothing, or upon designed brand bullshit, all of it designed to create an indestinct world where we may as well be clones. It's in our ideal of beauty: so heavily made up, so heavily scarred by plastic surgery that we are merely a mockery of our own image. It's in what we read: quick, uncomplex concepts based in an escapism where good and evil are black and white, where the most complex concept is "whodunnit?". It's in what we listen to: music that is consumed by a fantasy world in which romance is a beautiful, ultimately good thing, sex happens in a beautiful, divine manner, parties are a bright chance for everyone to escape in some kind of orgy of unatainable good times (liberally assisted by drink, drugs, and dirty dancing).

Haven't we created the most useless, nonsense culture of lies, though? We are all just big money interests to be bought and sold according to today's new false fantasy? People don't even deal in reality today. They'd rather deal with their bands, who are giant lies constructed in the name of big-money interests. Their TV-shows, which are identical. Their politicians: the biggest, most contrived lies out there.

What the hell kind of world have we become? It looks to me like a synthetic, world, more plastic than protein. What can we even do, though?
Why is this a bad thing? People seem to like it.

I actually agree entirely. People live in a superficial fantasy world. It’s why failure (debt, divorce, resignation) is so common. Reality can’t live up to the fantasy.

And you know what? The problem won’t be fixed because that would require people to face reality.

I actually agree entirely. People live in a superficial fantasy world. It’s why failure (debt, divorce, resignation) is so common. Reality can’t live up to the fantasy.

And you know what? The problem won’t be fixed because that would require people to face reality.

But why should they?

Because what our society is, is a reflection upon its people. And in this day and age, people have surrendered meaningful and valueble things and become tiny little lies. Society reflects that, and thus produces things which can be used to understand the people inside of it.

Edit: Why do we study economies? They too, are meaningless, unless we put them in the context of the individual people within them.
Give me an example of something meaningful and valuable and something that is a lie. Don't speak in generalizations if you're actually talking about the people that define today’s society.

I'm also going to ask you how your condemnation of the "modern world" is any different from the dozens of ascetic religious sects that believed their world was irredeemably corrupt for the same reasons you list here?

What you describe as a "lie" has been going on since the dawn of man. Countless examples of what you attribute to modern society can be found in virtually every culture in any period of history. How are the Geisha any less artificial then our "fake" concept of beauty? How was the drunken debauchery of ancient Greece any different from the sex, drugs, and rock n' roll of the 60s? What about their mythological hero worship? Their idealization of human "perfection"? How are the great masters of the Renaissance and the Aristocrats that patronized them any different from the modern entertainment industry?

I don't think people are clones. People wear much more different things than they did 50 and 100 years ago.

Pop-culture's fine on it's own, the problem is the people who put down others for not being as "in to" it as they are. If people consider pop-culture as a part of who they are and they enjoy it, it wouldn't be nice to take it away from them, give them a butter churn, and say "go be wholesome."

Once again. I'm totally unconcerned with people's faux happiness. People are better off miserable in the real world than they are happy in their little fantasy world.

Why is this a bad thing? People seem to like it.

I like blowing people up. That makes it ok, right?

Give me an example of something meaningful and valuable and something that is a lie. Don't speak in generalizations if you're actually talking about the people that define today’s society.

Oh, so the specific examples I gave at the top (mindless, name-brand clothing. Mindless, empty, pop music, which celebrates a world of faux-romance and sexual obsession.) weren't enough. Do I have to go find lyrics for you?

I'm also going to ask you how your condemnation of the "modern world" is any different from the dozens of ascetic religious sects that believed their world was irredeemably corrupt for the same reasons you list here?

And? Does that make them wrong either?

What you describe as a "lie" has been going on since the dawn of man. Countless examples of what you attribute to modern society can be found in virtually every culture in any period of history. How are the Geisha any less artificial then our "fake" concept of beauty? How was the drunken debauchery of ancient Greece any different from the sex, drugs, and rock n' roll of the 60s? What about their mythological hero worship? Their idealization of human "perfection"? How are the great masters of the Renaissance and the Aristocrats that patronized them any different from the modern entertainment industry?

I don't deny that the "Good Old Days" were, in fact, just as bad in their own way, but I do state that the modern world is a post-modern hell. Where are our great philosophers? Where are our Beethovens? Where are our Da Vincis? We've hidden them all under a cheap-thrill based social entity where value is measured in momentary pleasure, and in nothing deeper.

The alternative has no utility.

But thanks for asking, Bishop Berkely.

No no.

YOU are labelling some things as "real" as other things as not "real".

What allows you to ascribe this trait of "real" to certain things.

Oh, so the specific examples I gave at the top (mindless, name-brand clothing. Mindless, empty, pop music, which celebrates a world of faux-romance and sexual obsession.) weren't enough. Do I have to go find lyrics for you?


And what, pray tell, is a mindful type of clothing? What is it about being manufactured and marketed in an efficient manner that makes a scrap of cotton any more or less mindless then any other scrap of cotton?

And? Does that make them wrong either?

They were also mostly celibate. Incidentally, you can't deny the biological imperative and expect to last very long. They were the fake ones.

I don't deny that the "Good Old Days" were, in fact, just as bad in their own way, but I do state that the modern world is a post-modern hell. Where are our great philosophers? Where are our Beethovens? Where are our Da Vincis? We've hidden them all under a cheap-thrill based social entity where value is measured in momentary pleasure, and in nothing deeper.

I got news for you. In the days of De Vinci, the people who sponsored the great artists did so because at the time there was a social expectation to patronize fine art. If it weren't for the demand and deep pockets of vain, conformist aristocrats that you seem too loath so much in today’s world, people like De Vinci would have been irrelevant working stiffs. Same with Beethoven, he composed symphonies because that is what rich people paid to listen too.

Today, people like Beethoven and De Vinci get jobs. They go to work for one of those evil, soulless corporations you hate so much so they can apply their talent and make a living. Just like De Vinci did. He designed war machines for despots for Chirst's sake!

You can't get any more real then that.

So tell me, what, in your mind, is the real world? What isn't mindless, worthless, and fake?

'Cause frankly, your ideal little world doesn't exist.

So WHAT????? You make this development seem like it is something. People have always sought fantasy worlds and to say otherwise is to live in your own fantasy world. As well, you claim that the past worlds really cared about their great men either. In the past intellectualism was as rare if not rarer then it is now. Are you going to claim that past people really knew about their John Lockes even though most could not read? Today has great intellects and it has MORE education than any time in history. I think that you really do claim that there are "Good ol' days" where the world did somehow work differently and where the average man was somehow more concerned with a higher plane than with cheap thrills.

No no.

YOU are labelling some things as "real" as other things as not "real".

What allows you to ascribe this trait of "real" to certain things.

A pretty concept, but, as I said, it has no utility to claim that reality is anything but what it is. Otherwise functioning successfully is impossible.

And what, pray tell, is a mindful type of clothing? What is it about being manufactured and marketed in an efficient manner that makes a scrap of cotton any more or less mindless then any other scrap of cotton?

It is rather in our lack of creativity regarding clothing and self-presentation that our failure lies. How you present yourself is an art (whether or not you are aware of it), as it is an expression of how you wish to be viewed. However, we have taken that option away from ourselves, and replaced it with clothing that (while it is truly meaningless), takes away individuality and creativity. Essentially, we have taken our very essence, and replaced it with the broader social lie.


They were also mostly celibate. Incidentally, you can't deny the biological imperative and expect to last very long. They were the fake ones.

Early Christians were all celibate?


I got news for you. In the days of De Vinci, the people who sponsored the great artists did so because at the time there was a social expectation to patronize fine art. If it weren't for the demand and deep pockets of vain, conformist aristocrats that you seem too loath so much in today’s world, people like De Vinci would have been irrelevant working stiffs. Same with Beethoven, he composed symphonies because that is what rich people paid to listen too.

And? At least there was an art to them. It may have been snobbishness, but at least there was creativity. There wasn't an easily understood, lyrically simple, artistically uninteresting form of "art" being propogated.

Today, people like Beethoven and De Vinci get jobs. They go to work for one of those evil, soulless corporations you hate so much so they can apply their talent and make a living. Just like De Vinci did. He designed war machines for despots for Chirst's sake!

No, because Beethoven and De Vinci were both artists. That is what you fail to understand. I'm not talking about simple concepts like going to work and earning money writing documents for your boss. I'm talking about social creations, like art. Our new art is a convenient escape, made dirt cheap, and produced in such a way that helps no one. Once again, it is merely a symptom of a broader problem: the artificialness of social interaction.

So tell me, what, in your mind, is the real world? What isn't mindless, worthless, and fake?

Gee... You'd almost think that was my point?

'Cause frankly, your ideal little world doesn't exist.


And so we should consent, instead, to simply having our creativity, our vitality, and any of the value of human interaction taken over by a fantasy world where everything is a cheap, sickened version of itself, steriotyped and recreated so that we can have a world of vain, synthetic creatures?

Gee... Giving up seems so attractive.

It is rather in our lack of creativity regarding clothing and self-presentation that our failure lies. How you present yourself is an art (whether or not you are aware of it), as it is an expression of how you wish to be viewed. However, we have taken that option away from ourselves, and replaced it with clothing that (while it is truly meaningless), takes away individuality and creativity. Essentially, we have taken our very essence, and replaced it with the broader social lie. Yes, and what time period really had uniqueness in clothing??? In past societies clothing was both more difficult to make and dyes were more difficult to come by. I really don't think that past men really did much to increase their clothing creativity and rather than expressing themselves clothing was either utilitarian or just for them to act as another peacock. Modern clothing has the most expression and most variety out of just about all societies. Your claims of essence are blind to reality and correspond more with some internal lie than with reality.


And? At least there was an art to them. It may have been snobbishness, but at least there was creativity. There wasn't an easily understood, lyrically simple, artistically uninteresting form of "art" being propogated. Frankly, I dislike older music and prefer more modern music. Modern music has more energy to it and has more diversity than past music if only due to building off of it. Really though, what makes this new music objectively worse than the old?? Nothing, as value is subjective.


No, because Beethoven and De Vinci were both artists. That is what you fail to understand. I'm not talking about simple concepts like going to work and earning money writing documents for your boss. I'm talking about social creations, like art. Our new art is a convenient escape, made dirt cheap, and produced in such a way that helps no one. Once again, it is merely a symptom of a broader problem: the artificialness of social interaction.
In our modern society, art is more common and more widely enjoyed. You may speak of "artificiality" but this is still just some romantic notion that past societies had it better. We have more art, that is more widely viewed, and where more people know more, think more and do more than in any past society. Life is real not artificial, the notions that you speak of are the ones without utility.


Gee... You'd almost think that was my point?
I think his is that your point lacks validity due to its vagueness and lack of consideration of the actual merit of past societies.



And so we should consent, instead, to simply having our creativity, our vitality, and any of the value of human interaction taken over by a fantasy world where everything is a cheap, sickened version of itself, steriotyped and recreated so that we can have a world of vain, synthetic creatures?

Gee... Giving up seems so attractive.
Hmm.... I haven't given up any creativity, any vitality, or any human interaction for this modern world. I get exposed to more concepts than most past persons, I have greater mental health and physical than most past persons and I get to interact with humans from the comfort of my own computer on concepts by far exceeding what the past person typically thought. The past person was NOT noble or anything of that nature and human existence has improved beyond measure rather than experiencing degradation like you propose.

It is rather in our lack of creativity regarding clothing and self-presentation that our failure lies. How you present yourself is an art (whether or not you are aware of it), as it is an expression of how you wish to be viewed. However, we have taken that option away from ourselves, and replaced it with clothing that (while it is truly meaningless), takes away individuality and creativity. Essentially, we have taken our very essence, and replaced it with the broader social lie.

"Replaced it."

Look at those words you keep using. They're based around the assumption that we once "had it." What is the difference between an ascetic hermit dressed in filthy rags and a rich, Venetian Aristocrat dressed in the finest clothes gold and silver can by, and that he is expected to wear?

Has there EVER really been a period of time when people DIDN'T conform to social norms?

Does it matter whether or not your clothes are made from silk shipped in by a merchant from Antioch or made by a modern corporation?

Where is this creativity and individuality you speak of? Do you have to hand sew your own fucking socks to not live a lie?


Early Christians were all celibate?

I was talking about the monastic and hermetic orders that withdrew from the world in exchange for a life of asceticism and celibacy. The same theme can be found in the Far East, among ancient Jewish sects, and throughout the Middle Ages. However, these people's minds were so wrapped up in arbitrary religious devoting that they were quite literally in their own fantasy worlds.

And? At least there was an art to them. It may have been snobbishness, but at least there was creativity. There wasn't an easily understood, lyrically simple, artistically uninteresting form of "art" being propogated.

So? What about the Troubadours that sang about chivalry, courtly love, or outright sex? Literally the exact same “ideal” as the pimps n’ hoes image propagated by hip-hop. They were the typical pop-music of their era and they performed because their performance was in demand. They played what people wanted to hear and were paid for it.

The fact that it took talent and creativity does not separate it from anything that exists today. People are just as creative today; they simply have different demands to meet. Selling a pop CD isn't a lot different from a guy making up songs to flatter a noble and his wife, now is it? It's giving people what they want to put some money in your pocket.

Like I said, you can't get any more real then that.

No, because Beethoven and De Vinci were both artists. That is what you fail to understand. I'm not talking about simple concepts like going to work and earning money writing documents for your boss. I'm talking about social creations, like art. Our new art is a convenient escape, made dirt cheap, and produced in such a way that helps no one. Once again, it is merely a symptom of a broader problem: the artificialness of social interaction.

Goddamnit, man, I didn't want to do this but if you insist on being so damn obstinate about it, then I have no choice.

ar•ti•fi•cial (är'tə-fĭsh'əl) adj.

1. Made by humans; produced rather than natural.
2. Brought about or caused by sociopolitical or other human-generated forces or influences: set up artificial barriers against women and minorities; an artificial economic boom.
2. Made in imitation of something natural; simulated: artificial teeth.
3. Not genuine or natural: an artificial smile.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin artificiālis, belonging to art, from artificium, craftsmanship. See artifice.]

There you have it. Everything man-made is artificial. All art is artificial. Doesn't matter who makes it.

That, however, doesn't make it any less real. I keep asking you questions but you don't seem to keen on giving me a straight answer. Nevertheless, here's another one.

What is the difference between a guy advertising for Nike and a Renaissance master?

One is selling his talent to a small group of elite, pompous, snobs and the other is selling it to everyone.


Gee... You'd almost think that was my point?


Oh, so you're trying to say that reality isn't real. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

And so we should consent, instead, to simply having our creativity, our vitality, and any of the value of human interaction taken over by a fantasy world where everything is a cheap, sickened version of itself, steriotyped and recreated so that we can have a world of vain, synthetic creatures?

Gee... Giving up seems so attractive.[/QUOTE]

This is getting boring. You're so full of shit its not even amusing anymore.

Alright genius, if our world is synthetic (which it is) then what is natural? The problem here is that you are advocating the return to an ideal that never existed. You are the one creating your own fantasy world and you aren't being taken seriously because you can't inflict it on anyone else.

I like blowing people up. That makes it ok, right?
No, but it also doesn't make it wrong. The synthetic society might be value-neutral.

Radical Centrists is kicking ass... Good stuff.

*hands RC a box of cookies*

But why should they?
Why should we? So we can get in touch with our inner will, so we can end the trends that have marked humanity for the past six thousand years, so that we can get past our selfish desires and realize that the vast majority of the things we strive for were an illusion from the beginning, so that we can build a better world, so that we can work towards the Greater Good of all Humanity.

We live in a time where we have the resources to end world hunger, bring about universal and lasting peace and begin our exploration of the greater cosmos, but we are tied down to petty fantasies and unattainable goals and are incapable of seeing what we could accomplish if only we just tried.

Radical Centrists is kicking ass... Good stuff.

*hands RC a box of cookies*

Thanks!

*starts eating cookies and waits for another reply*

Should be fun...

Hmm, there are still people, who are not like that, take me:
* I am not the beautiful type, having short hair, not using makeup and all
* I wear either Linux-T-Shirts or neutral ones from $Discount-store
* I do not listen to commercial music (well, only seldom)
* I don't watch TV (except for soccer matches)
* I am in a minority party (Pirate party of Germany) because they fit my ideals best
* But not out of a sense of anti-establishment, but out of a sense of independence from their norms (not the same, I do not want to overthrow the establishment, I just have some ideas about how things should be and live according to them some are mainstream, some not).


What the hell kind of world have we become? It looks to me like a synthetic, world, more plastic than protein. What can we even do, though?

We can live according to what we think is right. not wait for others to make the first step but just start living authentically.

Yes, and what time period really had uniqueness in clothing??? In past societies clothing was both more difficult to make and dyes were more difficult to come by. I really don't think that past men really did much to increase their clothing creativity and rather than expressing themselves clothing was either utilitarian or just for them to act as another peacock. Modern clothing has the most expression and most variety out of just about all societies. Your claims of essence are blind to reality and correspond more with some internal lie than with reality.

I still fail to see why I am being accused of wanting an older day which was just as bad. Can we at least argue the real issue, which is what I'm talking about here and now? I don't want a return to the middle ages or the gilded age, I just want a change here and now.

Frankly, I dislike older music and prefer more modern music. Modern music has more energy to it and has more diversity than past music if only due to building off of it. Really though, what makes this new music objectively worse than the old?? Nothing, as value is subjective.

Once again, aside from maybe Beethoven and few others (Verdi, Wagner, and a few of the other politically and reality enaged composers), I would make no arguement for the superiority of older music in and of itself. I just protest against the brainless fantasy of modern pop-music.

In our modern society, art is more common and more widely enjoyed. You may speak of "artificiality" but this is still just some romantic notion that past societies had it better. We have more art, that is more widely viewed, and where more people know more, think more and do more than in any past society. Life is real not artificial, the notions that you speak of are the ones without utility.

I have yet to see real art celebrated by pop-culture in the modern era. I see shitty post-modern nonsense adorned beside meaningless pop-art, but I do not see anything that deserves to be celebrated.


I think his is that your point lacks validity due to its vagueness and lack of consideration of the actual merit of past societies.

Once again. Why the fuck are you asking me to defend past societies? I don't give a fuck about them. I'm concerned about what exists in the here and now of plastic surgery, plastic interaction, and plastic thought.


[qote]Hmm.... I haven't given up any creativity, any vitality, or any human interaction for this modern world. I get exposed to more concepts than most past persons, I have greater mental health and physical than most past persons and I get to interact with humans from the comfort of my own computer on concepts by far exceeding what the past person typically thought. The past person was NOT noble or anything of that nature and human existence has improved beyond measure rather than experiencing degradation like you propose.[/QUOTE]

Which just goes to show that my whole point went over your head.

Why should we? So we can get in touch with our inner will, so we can end the trends that have marked humanity for the past six thousand years, so that we can get past our selfish desires and realize that the vast majority of the things we strive for were an illusion from the beginning, so that we can build a better world, so that we can work towards the Greater Good of all Humanity.
You sound like Trotskylvania going on about "Genuine Human Solidarity".

I'm not going to bend over backward to help people who clearly don't want help. I fully expect some private enterprise to explore the cosmos before the rest of us get our act together, and I'll be the first one there applauding them when they do.

Some people will get left behind. Apparently that's how they want it.

I still fail to see why I am being accused of wanting an older day which was just as bad. Can we at least argue the real issue, which is what I'm talking about here and now? I don't want a return to the middle ages or the gilded age, I just want a change here and now. Well, such changes result from the idea that there is a BETTER way. If the current is actually the best then why complain so adamantly about the unreality of it when it has always been unreal?


Once again, aside from maybe Beethoven and few others (Verdi, Wagner, and a few of the other politically and reality enaged composers), I would make no arguement for the superiority of older music in and of itself. I just protest against the brainless fantasy of modern pop-music.So? Many people enjoy modern music. It brings them pleasure. I would rather have something that brings me pleasure than what another person argues is superior.


I have yet to see real art celebrated by pop-culture in the modern era. I see shitty post-modern nonsense adorned beside meaningless pop-art, but I do not see anything that deserves to be celebrated. Art is subjective. You don't see things you like, I see plenty of things I enjoy having that never existed in previous societies.


Once again. Why the fuck are you asking me to defend past societies? I don't give a fuck about them. I'm concerned about what exists in the here and now of plastic surgery, plastic interaction, and plastic thought. BECAUSE IF IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNREAL THEN WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU ACTING LIKE IT IS SOME CURRENT EVIL!!!!! Plastic surgery, plastic interaction, plastic though. Show me a time when real interaction and real thought really dominated??? If this is the best of all times then why be such a fucking whiner? It is stupid and annoying, if people have always been this way and enjoy being this way then there is probably nothing wrong with it.




Which just goes to show that my whole point went over your head.
I'd sooner argue that you have no point and are just going through some bullshit mood about how the world is all wrong and how you feel all different and that a few years from now we all won't care. Things are the best they have ever been and you whine and complain about plasticity when an era without such has never existed.

You sound like Trotskylvania going on about "Genuine Human Solidarity".
Him and I do think somewhat similarly. Which is surprising to me. Him being a communist and all.
I'm not going to bend over backward to help people who clearly don't want help.
What makes you think they don't want help, and who says you have to bend over backwards?
I fully expect some private enterprise to explore the cosmos before the rest of us get our act together, and I'll be the first one there applauding them when they do.
Well of course private enterprise will explore space, along with the government, I’m sure. Corporations, though are not independent of society, something many of them seem to try and deny.
Some people will get left behind. Apparently that's how they want it.
Not everyone can be as talented as you seem to think you are. That doesn’t mean they chose that.

"Replaced it."

Look at those words you keep using. They're based around the assumption that we once "had it." What is the difference between an ascetic hermit dressed in filthy rags and a rich, Venetian Aristocrat dressed in the finest clothes gold and silver can by, and that he is expected to wear?

Bah... The difference is that the Venetian Aristocrat is what we have all become. Vain, delluded little creatures with the resources to feed our vanity. The man in rags was indubitably a better person, although he suffered more by far.

Has there EVER really been a period of time when people DIDN'T conform to social norms?

Does it matter whether or not your clothes are made from silk shipped in by a merchant from Antioch or made by a modern corporation?

Where is this creativity and individuality you speak of? Do you have to hand sew your own fucking socks to not live a lie?

I am certainly of the opinion that making your own clothes has some real value. After all, by making our own clothes, we at least are truly involved in our self presentation. Otherwise we are just fed what to be and want.


I was talking about the monastic and hermetic orders that withdrew from the world in exchange for a life of asceticism and celibacy. The same theme can be found in the Far East, among ancient Jewish sects, and throughout the Middle Ages. However, these people's minds were so wrapped up in arbitrary religious devoting that they were quite literally in their own fantasy worlds.

But what if they had withdrawn to become scholars, or artists, or philosophers? If they had done so, they would have been freer than we are now. Either way, they were not, they were just as equally trapped, but I would contend that their example might have more utility than we otherwise grant it.


The fact that it took talent and creativity does not separate it from anything that exists today. People are just as creative today; they simply have different demands to meet. Selling a pop CD isn't a lot different from a guy making up songs to flatter a noble and his wife, now is it? It's giving people what they want to put some money in your pocket.

So music that litteraly uses the same chords, with lyrics that may as well be interchangeable is creative? Music that litterally only explores the already explored is creative? Music that says nothing controvercial, does nothing controvercial, and only exists to make money is creative? I call that the height of uncreativeness.



There you have it. Everything man-made is artificial. All art is artificial. Doesn't matter who makes it.

That, however, doesn't make it any less real. I keep asking you questions but you don't seem to keen on giving me a straight answer. Nevertheless, here's another one.

What is the difference between a guy advertising for Nike and a Renaissance master?

One is selling his talent to a small group of elite, pompous, snobs and the other is selling it to everyone.

The guy for Nike is selling to everyone by manipulating them in the basest, least interesting manner. The Renaissance master is doing the same. I'm not defending the past, and I don't want to be defending the past (interestingly enough, everyone who's chosen to attack me has tried to use the past, even though I have continued to state that the past is no better or worse than now, in terms of human creativity being strangled. My only contention is that we have spread our lie out, and created a culture of lies.)



Oh, so you're trying to say that reality isn't real. Gotcha. :rolleyes:


No, just human interaction.

This is getting boring. You're so full of shit its not even amusing anymore.

Ad hominems make you seem so superior.

Alright genius, if our world is synthetic (which it is) then what is natural? The problem here is that you are advocating the return to an ideal that never existed. You are the one creating your own fantasy world and you aren't being taken seriously because you can't inflict it on anyone else.

I don't want a return to anything, I am merely dissatisfied with the here and now (and if you'd stop attacking something I don't want to defend, I might even give you "straight" answers, because you'd actually be dealing with my arguments, and not the arguments of whoever you're shadow-boxing with.). I have no fantasy world, I just see the flaws in the one we have, and I seek to point those out (amazingly enough, those most invested in said flaws take offense to that and jump to defend the system they benefit from). If anything, I despair because I don't see an answer or an escape (look at the first post... You might notice "What can we do?" I used that phrase because, so far as I know, there is no answer.)

I wish you would stop putting words in my mouth. It is much harder to defend something you never said than it is to defend what you said.

I can't help but feel that everything post-40's in America has become a synthetic, ultimately self-destructive lie that we, as a culture have perpetrated upon ourselves.

Pop culture and a world of pop-fashion, pop-art, pop-books, pop-music, and pop-music has created a world of cheap thrills and meaningless swill which we depend on so strongly that we have lost all sense of the origional.

It's in the way we dress, like clones, dependant on slogan-based clothing, or upon designed brand bullshit, all of it designed to create an indestinct world where we may as well be clones. It's in our ideal of beauty: so heavily made up, so heavily scarred by plastic surgery that we are merely a mockery of our own image. It's in what we read: quick, uncomplex concepts based in an escapism where good and evil are black and white, where the most complex concept is "whodunnit?". It's in what we listen to: music that is consumed by a fantasy world in which romance is a beautiful, ultimately good thing, sex happens in a beautiful, divine manner, parties are a bright chance for everyone to escape in some kind of orgy of unatainable good times (liberally assisted by drink, drugs, and dirty dancing).

Haven't we created the most useless, nonsense culture of lies, though? We are all just big money interests to be bought and sold according to today's new false fantasy? People don't even deal in reality today. They'd rather deal with their bands, who are giant lies constructed in the name of big-money interests. Their TV-shows, which are identical. Their politicians: the biggest, most contrived lies out there.

What the hell kind of world have we become? It looks to me like a synthetic, world, more plastic than protein. What can we even do, though?Welcome to a view of America shared by Neocons and members of Al Qaida alike. A lot of the liberalisation that has happened over the past 60 odd years is instead seen as a steady corruption and loss morality. A nation so obsessed by image that it is rotting from the inside. Imagine the large, shiny, bright red, waxed apple you buy from the supermarket, you bite into it and find hollow and filled with magots.

Welcome to a view of America shared by Neocons and members of Al Qaida alike.
What? Neocons don't give a shit about society, just money and power. Sure, they are perfectly willing to take advantage of conservatives to achieve their goals, but that doesn’t mean they do any more than pay lip service to their causes.
A lot of the liberalisation that has happened over the past 60 odd years is instead seen as a steady corruption and loss morality. A nation so obsessed by image that it is rotting from the inside. Imagine the large, shiny, bright red, waxed apple you buy from the supermarket, you bite into it and find hollow and filled with magots.
This has nothing to do with liberty or morality. It has to do with the way people see and experience the world and how they interact with others.

Well, such changes result from the idea that there is a BETTER way. If the current is actually the best then why complain so adamantly about the unreality of it when it has always been unreal?

Because the other option is to embrace it?

So? Many people enjoy modern music. It brings them pleasure. I would rather have something that brings me pleasure than what another person argues is superior.

Like I said. I enjoy genocide, therefore it must be correct.

Art is subjective. You don't see things you like, I see plenty of things I enjoy having that never existed in previous societies.

I don't deny that you might enjoy it, merely that it has no real essence to it, and that it is just pleasure.

[ BECAUSE IF IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNREAL THEN WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU ACTING LIKE IT IS SOME CURRENT EVIL!!!!! Plastic surgery, plastic interaction, plastic though. Show me a time when real interaction and real thought really dominated??? If this is the best of all times then why be such a fucking whiner? It is stupid and annoying, if people have always been this way and enjoy being this way then there is probably nothing wrong with it.

It is an evil that has become easier now. That's not to say that it didn't occur before, or that the negative aspects of today outweigh the negative aspects of the before, just that I am discomfitted by the ones that exist today. There has never been a time when valueble interaction and valueble thought dominated.

Twain may of been right, it is the best of times and the worst of times, because in our affluence we have made available the ability to do great things to everyone, but in our arrogance we have embraced the pop-world.

And enjoyment is not justification.

I'd sooner argue that you have no point and are just going through some bullshit mood about how the world is all wrong and how you feel all different and that a few years from now we all won't care. Things are the best they have ever been and you whine and complain about plasticity when an era without such has never existed.

So? I'm whining because I don't say what you like? That's what I thought. Sorry, I'll get back to fellating the era of bad pop-stars and worse people like I ought to. My bad. :rolleyes:

Welcome to a view of America shared by Neocons and members of Al Qaida alike. A lot of the liberalisation that has happened over the past 60 odd years is instead seen as a steady corruption and loss morality. A nation so obsessed by image that it is rotting from the inside. Imagine the large, shiny, bright red, waxed apple you buy from the supermarket, you bite into it and find hollow and filled with magots.

I don't blame liberalisation at all. I blame willful stupidity and a fear of knowledge. I do not beleive that there is true "moral" rot, merely that we have always rotted intellectually and that mass communication has made it easier for us to rot communally.

I don't blame liberalisation at all. I blame willful stupidity and a fear of knowledge. I do not beleive that there is true "moral" rot, merely that we have always rotted intellectually and that mass communication has made it easier for us to rot communally.

I believe this is not a new phenomenon, I guess in all times most people were just happy to live the way they lived. 'Whatever gets you through the day' basically.

What? Neocons don't give a shit about society, just money and power. Sure, they are perfectly willing to take advantage of conservatives to achieve their goals, but that doesn’t mean they do any more than pay lip service to their causes.Well at least in appearances they did. If you listen to the rhetoric of Richard Pearle and the Neocons garnering of support from Christian traditionalists. The GOP conference thingy before Bush Senior sought reelection. You had a republican senator being booed off stage for supporting a woman's right to choose in abortion, saying that the state had no right to intervene.
This has nothing to do with liberty or morality. It has to do with the way people see and experience the world and how they interact with others.I'm not sure how you justify separating a person's morality with the way in which they see and experience the world. If, hypothetically, a Victorian woman was shown a 21st century edition of Cosmo, that because of her morality, she might faint dead away. Or how less hypotheically, how a gay bible belt christian comes to terms with their sexuality compared with a new yorker. The new yorker is less likely to see a conflict with the rest of their life and sexuality as they probably do not believe homosexuality to be immoral. Furthermore, New York society is likely to be more accepting of their sexuality than Bible belt society, thus this indirect lifestyle liberty effects who each see and experience the world.

Him and I do think somewhat similarly. Which is surprising to me. Him being a communist and all.

What makes you think they don't want help, and who says you have to bend over backwards?
They happily embrace modern society. I'm not going to fight with them just to improve their lives. I can improve my own life without worrying about them.
Well of course private enterprise will explore space, along with the government, I’m sure. Corporations, though are not independent of society, something many of them seem to try and deny.
I'm not sure I even accept that "society" is a thing.

I don't blame liberalisation at all. I blame willful stupidity and a fear of knowledge. I do not beleive that there is true "moral" rot, merely that we have always rotted intellectually and that mass communication has made it easier for us to rot communally.Seems like you give this more thought than the average Neocon then.

I generally find people are lazy and do the minimum they need to survive. Hence in times of plenty, where people are more able to intellectually flourish, are, ironically, more likely to rot intectually. And vice versa, because the minimum needed to survive requires people to have as many tools at their disposal as possible.

Bah... The difference is that the Venetian Aristocrat is what we have all become. Vain, delluded little creatures with the resources to feed our vanity. The man in rags was indubitably a better person, although he suffered more by far.

The Venetian was a patron of art, education, and philosophy; he was a business man and likely a politician. He and his contemporaries contributed enormously to what would become the modern world. Which, according to you, now exists in his image.

The hermit was a patron of nothing more then his own hollow delusions.

What you so narrowly depict as a lie has been the cutting-edge of human interaction and advancement since the early days of history. That is the point I am trying to make here. What you call fake is as real as it has ever been and will ever be.

Do you want to know why?

Because the hermit influenced nothing. Because he was the one living a lie.

Just like you.


I am certainly of the opinion that making your own clothes has some real value. After all, by making our own clothes, we at least are truly involved in our self presentation. Otherwise we are just fed what to be and want.

I assure you, sir, the value you speak of doesn't exist. It never did exist, not in the old American frontier when everything you'd ever use in life was made by your own hands, and not today. I guarantee you, when it was necessary to sew your own clothes, creativity and individuality was the LAST thing on these people's minds. When it was possible to simple buy clothes with some money they earned, it was even further from their minds.

What you have to understand here is that it is you that is vapid and vain. You that ridicules those who do not swallow what you extol. You that can't accept reality, so you escape to a delusion.

Oh, and no one feeds anyone what to be or what to want. That isn't the purpose of business. Business tries to understand what people want, and then it strives to give them it as efficiently as possible. It is reactionary, not dictatorial. An extremely important distinction to make when it comes to placing blame.

But what if they had withdrawn to become scholars, or artists, or philosophers? If they had done so, they would have been freer than we are now. Either way, they were not, they were just as equally trapped, but I would contend that their example might have more utility than we otherwise grant it.

They didn't. The scholars and philosophers went to universities to seek out masters and the artists sought out patrons to support their craft.

Who do you think built all those Churches the Vatican fronted the money for?

Those with a firm enough grasp on reality found people who would pay-roll their talents so that they could live comfortably.

Just like today.

So music that litteraly uses the same chords, with lyrics that may as well be interchangeable is creative? Music that litterally only explores the already explored is creative? Music that says nothing controvercial, does nothing controvercial, and only exists to make money is creative? I call that the height of uncreativeness.

I call it pragmatic, and yet, I listen to a completely different type of music...

Besides, the picture you paint is hardly convincing. You act like the generic pop-shit you belabor to no end is the all-end-all of modern music, when in fact it’s only a miniscule part of an era of greater diversity and talent then any one preceding it. What are you trying to get across here and what do you benefit from present such in incredibly narrow perspective?

You aren't the only one that desperately loathes Brittany Hilton, Simpson Inc. so stop pretending that you are being strapped down and forced to listen to it by some Evil Corporate Bogeyman(tm).

The guy for Nike is selling to everyone by manipulating them in the basest, least interesting manner. The Renaissance master is doing the same. I'm not defending the past, and I don't want to be defending the past (interestingly enough, everyone who's chosen to attack me has tried to use the past, even though I have continued to state that the past is no better or worse than now, in terms of human creativity being strangled. My only contention is that we have spread our lie out, and created a culture of lies.)

But he's doing it in an effective manner.

If that didn't work, he would do it differently. You see, for him his job is just as necessary as sewing blankets and bonnets was in some Little House on the Prairie. His talent. His job. His livelihood. Frankly, I won't begrudge him that, especially considering he probably is a fairly creative individual.

I presented a historic example to illustrate one very specific idea.

The idyllic virtues you extol never existed. What you call "fake" and a "lie" has always existed.

Which is more real!?!


No, just human interaction.

Which, in this matter, is a standard in and of itself, that governs itself. Human interaction is subjective only to the values given to it by the humans doing the interacting. Similarly, as all social interaction requires the imposition of one's own will onto the world around him, it can never be mindless. A guy in a comatose vegetative state isn't doing any social interaction, and he is quite literally mindless.

Everything we consciously put-forth and perceive is "real." You don't get to decide what is and isn't for everyone else.

Ad hominems make you seem so superior.

I am superior and insulting you has nothing to do with it. :p


I don't want a return to anything, I am merely dissatisfied with the here and now (and if you'd stop attacking something I don't want to defend, I might even give you "straight" answers, because you'd actually be dealing with my arguments, and not the arguments of whoever you're shadow-boxing with.). I have no fantasy world, I just see the flaws in the one we have, and I seek to point those out (amazingly enough, those most invested in said flaws take offense to that and jump to defend the system they benefit from). If anything, I despair because I don't see an answer or an escape (look at the first post... You might notice "What can we do?" I used that phrase because, so far as I know, there is no answer.)

I wish you would stop putting words in my mouth. It is much harder to defend something you never said than it is to defend what you said.[/QUOTE]

Throughout this discussion you insisted that something has been "taken from us," "replaced," or that we have otherwise regressed from a previous ideal.

I presented historical context to show this to be utterly false and that what you present as a modern development has always been the case.

And yes, you are living in a fantasy world.

Seems like you give this more thought than the average Neocon then.

I generally find people are lazy and do the minimum they need to survive. Hence in times of plenty, where people are more able to intellectually flourish, are, ironically, more likely to rot intectually. And vice versa, because the minimum needed to survive requires people to have as many tools at their disposal as possible.

Necessity is the mother of all innovation.

Human hardship, strife, suffering, and need have been the ultimate motivational forces of human advancement since our evolutionary birth. We are dealing with the same issues as our ancestors did. Today, we just deal with them more effectively, which, ultimately, leads to prosperity, which stagnates in the absence of hardship.

Then it all starts over again, 'cept better, faster, and more efficiently then the last time.

And yes, you are living in a fantasy world.

Since this is clearly the core of your argument, I will asume you mean that if I look outside, I will immediately be accosted by orcs and rescued by a unicorn.

Clearly this is what you meant, because you used the words fantasy and unicorn.

Two can play at the same game.

Anytime now, some christian zealot will come and along and try to promise him something that cannot be delivered.

Do you find the world was more than vanity and emptiness before industrialization and corporations?

Nothing has changed. The human condition is one of decadence...

I can't help but feel that everything post-40's in America has become a synthetic, ultimately self-destructive lie that we, as a culture have perpetrated upon ourselves.

Pop culture and a world of pop-fashion, pop-art, pop-books, pop-music, and pop-music has created a world of cheap thrills and meaningless swill which we depend on so strongly that we have lost all sense of the origional.

It's in the way we dress, like clones, dependant on slogan-based clothing, or upon designed brand bullshit, all of it designed to create an indestinct world where we may as well be clones. It's in our ideal of beauty: so heavily made up, so heavily scarred by plastic surgery that we are merely a mockery of our own image. It's in what we read: quick, uncomplex concepts based in an escapism where good and evil are black and white, where the most complex concept is "whodunnit?". It's in what we listen to: music that is consumed by a fantasy world in which romance is a beautiful, ultimately good thing, sex happens in a beautiful, divine manner, parties are a bright chance for everyone to escape in some kind of orgy of unatainable good times (liberally assisted by drink, drugs, and dirty dancing).

Haven't we created the most useless, nonsense culture of lies, though? We are all just big money interests to be bought and sold according to today's new false fantasy? People don't even deal in reality today. They'd rather deal with their bands, who are giant lies constructed in the name of big-money interests. Their TV-shows, which are identical. Their politicians: the biggest, most contrived lies out there.

What the hell kind of world have we become? It looks to me like a synthetic, world, more plastic than protein. What can we even do, though?

Since this is clearly the core of your argument, I will asume you mean that if I look outside, I will immediately be accosted by orcs and rescued by a unicorn.

Clearly this is what you meant, because you used the words fantasy and unicorn.

Two can play at the same game.

Hmm, well, that really depends on what your take on ass rape is, now doesn't it?

We have become one with faux.
(I dunno if that even make any sense.)

Hmm, well, that really depends on what your take on ass rape is, now doesn't it?

I don't consider it to be the most pleasant thing out there. I'm much more partial to crossword puzzles as a form of entertainment.

Fair enough. I reckon we should leave the unicorns out of this then, eh? ;)

Fair enough. I reckon we should leave the unicorns out of this then, eh? ;)

Erm... Ouch? :eek:

America is plastic.

Erm... Ouch? :eek:

Good answer. :D

Because the other option is to embrace it?
No, the other option is to accept it.


Like I said. I enjoy genocide, therefore it must be correct. You argue that directly harming individuals is the same as enjoying a genre of music when morally they cannot be equivocated. Genocide is wrong for plenty of reasons consisting of the violations of rights and other things, listening to a brand of music is a choice affecting you and whomever you buy the music from.

I don't deny that you might enjoy it, merely that it has no real essence to it, and that it is just pleasure. Essence?? I enjoy the beat and rhythm and I think that it affects my emotions more so than a Beethoven. It has meaning and significance to me, but perhaps not to you.


It is an evil that has become easier now. That's not to say that it didn't occur before, or that the negative aspects of today outweigh the negative aspects of the before, just that I am discomfitted by the ones that exist today. There has never been a time when valueble interaction and valueble thought dominated.
It is only easier than ever because we have the technology to spread it, where before these people would have just drank booze and made bad sex jokes. The character of individuals has not changed and for them to get more joy is not an evil.

Twain may of been right, it is the best of times and the worst of times, because in our affluence we have made available the ability to do great things to everyone, but in our arrogance we have embraced the pop-world. Yes, we make choices. It is you who are the arrogant one to take your stance though. You who attack individuals for making these choices and you who shout out about evils that only you see.

And enjoyment is not justification. Of course it is, enjoyment and the ability to do something justify most actions that people take. People have the ability to go on road trips and they enjoy them, it justifies it to them. I enjoy wasting my time on internet forums and I have the ability to so in my mind it is just. Frankly, for you to put that forward requires a form of justification fitting in solely with your morality to which few of us subscribe to or care of.


So? I'm whining because I don't say what you like? That's what I thought. Sorry, I'll get back to fellating the era of bad pop-stars and worse people like I ought to. My bad. :rolleyes:
No, you are whining because you are going on about the "artificiality" of society like somebody in their teens. The only thing is that your issue is not justifiable from most standpoints except that of an arrogant cultural elitist. Nobody's rights are being violated, nobody is unusually unhappy, no future harm can even result from what we speak of!! Crying out about a meritless claim is whining and I have yet to see merit from this.

No, the other option is to accept it.

Accepting is embracing.

You argue that directly harming individuals is the same as enjoying a genre of music when morally they cannot be equivocated. Genocide is wrong for plenty of reasons consisting of the violations of rights and other things, listening to a brand of music is a choice affecting you and whomever you buy the music from.

No, I'm just demonstrating that enjoyment is not a justification in and of itself.

Essence?? I enjoy the beat and rhythm and I think that it affects my emotions more so than a Beethoven. It has meaning and significance to me, but perhaps not to you.

I dig rock and roll music
And I love to get the chance to play. (and sing it)
I figure its about the happiest sound goin down today.

The message may not move me,
Or mean a great deal to me,
But hey! it feels so groovy to say:

:rolleyes:

Of course it is, enjoyment and the ability to do something justify most actions that people take. People have the ability to go on road trips and they enjoy them, it justifies it to them. I enjoy wasting my time on internet forums and I have the ability to so in my mind it is just. Frankly, for you to put that forward requires a form of justification fitting in solely with your morality to which few of us subscribe to or care of.

Ah, but enjoyment is just a meaningless momentary burst of happiness. When the harm we do by not using our full potential can be exchanged for pleasure it is a sad day.

No, you are whining because you are going on about the "artificiality" of society like somebody in their teens. The only thing is that your issue is not justifiable from most standpoints except that of an arrogant cultural elitist. Nobody's rights are being violated, nobody is unusually unhappy, no future harm can even result from what we speak of!! Crying out about a meritless claim is whining and I have yet to see merit from this.

Well I'll take some comfort in knowing that I'm acting my age for once. The world needs more teenagers, then (although you clearly know very few teens, as most couldn't care the least bit about the artificiality that they embrace).

Frankly, you use the word whining, but I suspect that what you really mean is disagreeing with you. It is easy to label that which we do not want to accept as whining. Rather than choosing an ad hominem attack, I suggest adressing the issue in your conclusion. It strengthens your argument without motivating me to find a response.

Accepting is embracing. No, embracing is to immerse yourself in it. Accepting is to accept that it exists and get on with life.



No, I'm just demonstrating that enjoyment is not a justification in and of itself.
Nobody was arguing that it could not be trumped by rights issues or things of that nature. The argument was that in the absence of such problems enjoyment is justification, which many people would agree with.


I dig rock and roll music
And I love to get the chance to play. (and sing it)
I figure its about the happiest sound goin down today.

The message may not move me,
Or mean a great deal to me,
But hey! it feels so groovy to say:

:rolleyes:

So, old music that I don't enjoy nearly as much somehow has more merit??? The only music that is important is the music that one likes.

Ah, but enjoyment is just a meaningless momentary burst of happiness. When the harm we do by not using our full potential can be exchanged for pleasure it is a sad day. So, all pleasure is meaningless and individuals that like pleasure should be beaten down and forced back to work? The entire reason why most people use their potential is to earn the freedom to enjoy themselves. Using one's full potential is meaningless as well, I mean, hell, we can argue that everything is meaningless. Let us though, say that people determine what means something to them, and with that assumption we can see that enjoyment means more to more people than "full potential".



Well I'll take some comfort in knowing that I'm acting my age for once. The world needs more teenagers, then (although you clearly know very few teens, as most couldn't care the least bit about the artificiality that they embrace).No, not really, the world has population problems and most teens are idiots. You are right though, most teens do not care, the only thing is that the only group that moans about artificiality is usually also teens.


Frankly, you use the word whining, but I suspect that what you really mean is disagreeing with you. It is easy to label that which we do not want to accept as whining. Rather than choosing an ad hominem attack, I suggest adressing the issue in your conclusion. It strengthens your argument without motivating me to find a response.
Yes, because you are whining. All you have is some vague nonsense about artificiality of the world but you don't argue about something that is even wrong. Frankly, I can accept the intelligibility of some arguments that I disagree with, however, you are whining. Nobody is having their rights violated, nobody is being harmed, nobody is at all even unfree, nothing is unfair, nothing is unjust, nothing has even changed since a past society. It is like you are arguing about the evils of hair and how that is a modern evil when people have always had hair and the quality of having hair isn't even necessarily wrong. Saying that your argument is just a whine about the world, isn't ad hominem as I do not claim that you are deficient as a person to discredit your argument, I am claiming that your argument is meritless to discredit your argument. Really though, I think that your claim isn't even a problem and you have done nothing to show me that it really is one. Besides, your poll gave me the idea to call your argument thusly in the first place! :D

Nobody is having their rights violated, nobody is being harmed, nobody is at all even unfree, nothing is unfair, nothing is unjust, nothing has even changed since a past society.

The potential of our society is not being reached and people are dying all over the world because of it. I think that’s kind of a problem.

The potential of our society is not being reached and people are dying all over the world because of it. I think that’s kind of a problem.
People are dying because of problems in certain areas of the world, not because of the choices that we make, to frame the problem as you are is saying like arguing that we have the gun and are shooting them which is utterly false. I dismiss the entire argument about the potential of our society because I think that it is built on a totalitarian premise that society should follow your goals.

People are dying because of problems in certain areas of the world, not because of the choices that we make, to frame the problem as you are is saying like arguing that we have the gun and are shooting them which is utterly false.
No. It's more like saying, we're eating a gourmet dinner in front of a homeless person and not giving a shit.
I dismiss the entire argument about the potential of our society because I think that it is built on a totalitarian premise that society should follow your goals.
Dismiss as you will. I just think human beings are capable of something greater than hedonism in the guise of prosperity.

No, embracing is to immerse yourself in it. Accepting is to accept that it exists and get on with life.

Which is, in essence, embracing it, since I must live with it every day. Since I cannot live and let live, because it will not let me live, accepting is embracing.

So, old music that I don't enjoy nearly as much somehow has more merit??? The only music that is important is the music that one likes.

The point of the song is that art is art, and not entertainment. Entertainment is clowns and actors. Entertainment is dancing. Art is producing something with message. I protest seeing music dengrated down to the level of mere entertainment.

So, all pleasure is meaningless and individuals that like pleasure should be beaten down and forced back to work? The entire reason why most people use their potential is to earn the freedom to enjoy themselves. Using one's full potential is meaningless as well, I mean, hell, we can argue that everything is meaningless. Let us though, say that people determine what means something to them, and with that assumption we can see that enjoyment means more to more people than "full potential".

So you deny yourself your ability to have an impact on the world around you? You would prefer to waste away in front of a television than go out and change lives? How cheap of you.

No, not really, the world has population problems and most teens are idiots. You are right though, most teens do not care, the only thing is that the only group that moans about artificiality is usually also teens.

Well then, I suppose that not being invested in the money and means of society does allow some level of clarity of vision.

Yes, because you are whining. All you have is some vague nonsense about artificiality of the world but you don't argue about something that is even wrong. Frankly, I can accept the intelligibility of some arguments that I disagree with, however, you are whining. Nobody is having their rights violated, nobody is being harmed, nobody is at all even unfree, nothing is unfair, nothing is unjust, nothing has even changed since a past society. It is like you are arguing about the evils of hair and how that is a modern evil when people have always had hair and the quality of having hair isn't even necessarily wrong. Saying that your argument is just a whine about the world, isn't ad hominem as I do not claim that you are deficient as a person to discredit your argument, I am claiming that your argument is meritless to discredit your argument. Really though, I think that your claim isn't even a problem and you have done nothing to show me that it really is one. Besides, your poll gave me the idea to call your argument thusly in the first place! :D


Bah. It is easy to judge things on "Well, I like it, therefore your whining is bad" but really, all you've prooved is that you don't dislike it like I do. Really, you should stop claiming victory before you have it. Declaring victory at the end of each post is a nice little tactic, but it really prooves nothing.

Which is, in essence, embracing it, since I must live with it every day. Since I cannot live and let live, because it will not let me live, accepting is embracing. Yes, because there is no choice on what you choose to watch or listen to! We are forcing Britney Spears down your throat! YOU MUST READ ENQUIRER!!!

It is not embracing it the very reason you consider it so is ridiculous and yes you CAN live and let live. The choice of other people does not mean you cannot listen to Beethoven or whatever you want to do.



The point of the song is that art is art, and not entertainment. Entertainment is clowns and actors. Entertainment is dancing. Art is producing something with message. I protest seeing music dengrated down to the level of mere entertainment. Art has always been entertainment or it has been the vain efforts of people who starve. Interestingly enough, I had always thought that clowns, actors and dancers were a part of art, clowns impart with us comedy which is deeply important, and without actors and dancers how do we express visual arts? Interestingly enough though, I think that there is a market for people with your views. Just go see an art film. They aren't entertaining at all, but they are artsy. The only thing is that people want entertainment and frankly, why should art be some abstraction that serves nothing? We should act in the best interests of people, not of abstract ideas that only serve those who think of them.


So you deny yourself your ability to have an impact on the world around you? You would prefer to waste away in front of a television than go out and change lives? How cheap of you. I have the ability, I choose not to use it in order to make the most out of my own life. If my regard for my own life and if my belief in my own purpose disgusts you then I really don't see what utility you see in freedom or other things of that nature. Man is and should be free to decide his life and to be the judge of his worth, not some snobbish social critic.


Well then, I suppose that not being invested in the money and means of society does allow some level of clarity of vision. No, not at all. You ignore that aspect rather than see it for what it is worth.


Bah. It is easy to judge things on "Well, I like it, therefore your whining is bad" but really, all you've prooved is that you don't dislike it like I do. Really, you should stop claiming victory before you have it. Declaring victory at the end of each post is a nice little tactic, but it really prooves nothing.
What I am getting at is that you have no purpose in this, you have not made an argument based upon rights, utilitarianism, justice or anything of the sort. You claim that something is bad because it is and that the world is artificial. My point is that these are blind cries without objective basis, I might as well say that homosexuality is the cause of all evil and argue saying that needless gay sex prevents us from reaching our potential. As well, I wasn't declaring an absolute victory at the end of each post, I was just stating that I didn't see your point, which means that you might need to make your argument from a standpoint that can be viewed from a more objective standpoint, because if you cannot prove the evil of current art then it stands that it isn't objectively bad and should be looked at from all angles.

No. It's more like saying, we're eating a gourmet dinner in front of a homeless person and not giving a shit.

Dismiss as you will. I just think human beings are capable of something greater than hedonism in the guise of prosperity.
Ok? I think that human beings are human beings and that they decide on what they choose to. People are free to choose whatever they want, they choose hedonism though, and I assert their right to do so.

America is still plastic.

America is still plastic.
No, it is paper or plastic! ;)

No, it is paper or plastic! ;)

:confused:

I never understood what that meant......

:confused:

I never understood what that meant......
What what meant?

What what meant?

"paper or plastic"

It bugs me.

"paper or plastic"

It bugs me.
Oh, at grocery stores people often get the option of having paper bags for their groceries or plastic bags for their groceries, so they ask you "paper or plastic" to get the choice of bag.

Yes, because there is no choice on what you choose to watch or listen to! We are forcing Britney Spears down your throat! YOU MUST READ ENQUIRER!!!

It is not embracing it the very reason you consider it so is ridiculous and yes you CAN live and let live. The choice of other people does not mean you cannot listen to Beethoven or whatever you want to do.

Oh, induibitably I can, but I still have the meaningless plastic culture spewed all over me the moment I leave solitude.


Art has always been entertainment or it has been the vain efforts of people who starve. Interestingly enough, I had always thought that clowns, actors and dancers were a part of art, clowns impart with us comedy which is deeply important, and without actors and dancers how do we express visual arts? Interestingly enough though, I think that there is a market for people with your views. Just go see an art film. They aren't entertaining at all, but they are artsy. The only thing is that people want entertainment and frankly, why should art be some abstraction that serves nothing? We should act in the best interests of people, not of abstract ideas that only serve those who think of them.

Why would it be abstraction? Pop is abstraction. It deviates from the real world and creates a lyrical fantasy. Good music and art have a point, they aren't just pretty songs. How it sounds doesn't really matter. Some of my favorite music was played by people with no ability, but at least they had a point and they weren't just singing mindless, feel good bullshit.

I have the ability, I choose not to use it in order to make the most out of my own life. If my regard for my own life and if my belief in my own purpose disgusts you then I really don't see what utility you see in freedom or other things of that nature. Man is and should be free to decide his life and to be the judge of his worth, not some snobbish social critic.

I never said I would take your freedom, merely mock your choices.

No, not at all. You ignore that aspect rather than see it for what it is worth.

I see no value at all.


What I am getting at is that you have no purpose in this, you have not made an argument based upon rights, utilitarianism, justice or anything of the sort. You claim that something is bad because it is and that the world is artificial. My point is that these are blind cries without objective basis, I might as well say that homosexuality is the cause of all evil and argue saying that needless gay sex prevents us from reaching our potential. As well, I wasn't declaring an absolute victory at the end of each post, I was just stating that I didn't see your point, which means that you might need to make your argument from a standpoint that can be viewed from a more objective standpoint, because if you cannot prove the evil of current art then it stands that it isn't objectively bad and should be looked at from all angles.

But I'm not. I'm saying that we keep building lies and feel good entertainment, and that it will utimately destroy us because we no longer pay attention to the real world. Politics are a once a cycle thing. Art (the great human acheivement) loses expression and becomes merely "fun".

That is a great destruction. Art is one of the most powerful mediums of human communication, you know. Music is the single most powerful. We destroy it and turn it in to pretty sounds.

Oh, induibitably I can, but I still have the meaningless plastic culture spewed all over me the moment I leave solitude. What? From random attacks by Brittney Spears? The "spew" isn't something so vicious that most people could not ignore it. Your disgust is ridiculous.


Why would it be abstraction? Pop is abstraction. It deviates from the real world and creates a lyrical fantasy. Good music and art have a point, they aren't just pretty songs. How it sounds doesn't really matter. Some of my favorite music was played by people with no ability, but at least they had a point and they weren't just singing mindless, feel good bullshit.
I said solely abstraction, as in that it does not benefit real people. If I would argue that any art was false, I would argue that yours is, it is done without thought of benefiting real people, but rather preys upon those who seek distance from reality. Good music sounds good and good art serves a purpose. When dealing with these matters aesthetics is paramount. Art is meant to please, that is why people patronize art, they want something that pleases them and they always have and always will. Just because it does not meet your definition of what should please does not mean it is a problem.


I never said I would take your freedom, merely mock your choices. And I think that your mockery is rather baseless. I do not assert the imperfections of what you like but you denigrate the choices of other people for no real reason because of some fake pursuit of "higher reason".


I see no value at all.
Of course not, you don't see reality. Reality is the exchanges and the workings that make up our world, which is what people also deal with. The world as it works is fundamentally real.


But I'm not. I'm saying that we keep building lies and feel good entertainment, and that it will utimately destroy us because we no longer pay attention to the real world. Politics are a once a cycle thing. Art (the great human acheivement) loses expression and becomes merely "fun".

That is a great destruction. Art is one of the most powerful mediums of human communication, you know. Music is the single most powerful. We destroy it and turn it in to pretty sounds.
We build no lies and entertainment has always been to feel good. The idea that it will ultimately destroy us is preposterous, it assumes that we have cared before the feel-good art, which we didn't. Man really pays the same if not more attention to the world than he would in most past societies. Politics have always been run by crazy lies ever since the common man has gotten the vote. We have had campaigns built upon farces long before the 1900s centuries. Art, as well, is not even the great human achievement. That title rightfully belongs to science. So much of art is bullshit, and the ramblings of the insane. We have the work of men who chop off their ears to create works about men who turn into cockroaches all expressing some maddened feeling that nobody cared to hear. Science has continually improved, it has striven to make the lives of men continually better and richer, and through its very acts it has reshaped society in a way that artistic expression never could.

We have destroyed nothing, art rarely touched many people in most forms of society anyway, and even the art you so worship likely has a higher seat today than in any other time. In past societies, only stuffy nobles patronized art and did so more out of the desire to conform to societal norms than out of any desire to be "touched" by the "power" of art. No, art isn't the most powerful of human communication. If anything it is simply written words. Men are not inspired by ideas about the nature of society from art alone, they seek knowledge which art so rarely really provides, they seek something solid and art is abstract from solid reality, they seek a philosophy or something of that nature. The basis of so much of our reality today isn't from artistic drivel but rather from the solidly defined thoughts of men who thought deeply and wisely. We destroyed nothing, we made our art serve us and our desires.

What? From random attacks by Brittney Spears? The "spew" isn't something so vicious that most people could not ignore it. Your disgust is ridiculous.

Do you not hear the music you are subjected to constantly? Do you not see the people who are disgusting in their faux beauty and their faux emotion? I find it nauseating to sit back and observe the vanity that whirls around me. Maybe it doesn't bug you, but I am made quite unhappy by it.

I said solely abstraction, as in that it does not benefit real people. If I would argue that any art was false, I would argue that yours is, it is done without thought of benefiting real people, but rather preys upon those who seek distance from reality. Good music sounds good and good art serves a purpose. When dealing with these matters aesthetics is paramount. Art is meant to please, that is why people patronize art, they want something that pleases them and they always have and always will. Just because it does not meet your definition of what should please does not mean it is a problem.

Then you misused the word abstraction. Abstraction is a thing not relating to the real world (like shitty pop musak). My music relates to the real world. Who cares how it sounds? It's just noise either way. That it has a point is the important part. I'd listen to static with a voice making points over it before I listened to Spears et al.

And I think that your mockery is rather baseless. I do not assert the imperfections of what you like but you denigrate the choices of other people for no real reason because of some fake pursuit of "higher reason".

I think you fail to understand art or creation in any way shape or form. You are content to merely enjoy, which is just silly hedonism, and most of it a lie anyway. If the price of happiness is a lie, I do not want it. I cannot understand why anyone would. What good is happiness if you are happy for all the wrong reasons?

Of course not, you don't see reality. Reality is the exchanges and the workings that make up our world, which is what people also deal with. The world as it works is fundamentally real.

Reality is faux romance? Reality is faux friendship? Reality is faux music? No. Reality is suffering. Reality is tension, conflict, and false resolution. Reality is posturing, posing, and meaningless tripe. It has nothing to do with our fake paradise in the sun of fake blondes, fake friendship, and a life spent wasting away in front of the television; never interacting, merely accepting.


We build no lies and entertainment has always been to feel good. The idea that it will ultimately destroy us is preposterous, it assumes that we have cared before the feel-good art, which we didn't. Man really pays the same if not more attention to the world than he would in most past societies. Politics have always been run by crazy lies ever since the common man has gotten the vote. We have had campaigns built upon farces long before the 1900s centuries. Art, as well, is not even the great human achievement. That title rightfully belongs to science. So much of art is bullshit, and the ramblings of the insane. We have the work of men who chop off their ears to create works about men who turn into cockroaches all expressing some maddened feeling that nobody cared to hear. Science has continually improved, it has striven to make the lives of men continually better and richer, and through its very acts it has reshaped society in a way that artistic expression never could.

What is so great about science (this, by the by, explains a lot, since I hear it all the time from science types who have never actually been involved in creating art, merely accepting it)? All science has done has provided new mediums for interaction. All it has done is changed the way we die. Science is merely unused knowledge. It is what we do with our knowledge that makes the difference.

We have destroyed nothing, art rarely touched many people in most forms of society anyway, and even the art you so worship likely has a higher seat today than in any other time. In past societies, only stuffy nobles patronized art and did so more out of the desire to conform to societal norms than out of any desire to be "touched" by the "power" of art. No, art isn't the most powerful of human communication. If anything it is simply written words. Men are not inspired by ideas about the nature of society from art alone, they seek knowledge which art so rarely really provides, they seek something solid and art is abstract from solid reality, they seek a philosophy or something of that nature. The basis of so much of our reality today isn't from artistic drivel but rather from the solidly defined thoughts of men who thought deeply and wisely. We destroyed nothing, we made our art serve us and our desires.

Once again, I don't give a fuck about past societies. They were merely microcosisms of the super-society that the age of communication has created. Philosophy, I could see granting as the great acheivement. But philosophy and great art are ever-intertwined. That too, is the reason that modern art is so disturbing, because it has no philosophy, or at least it is a sick mockery of Epicurianism.