Put a lot of thought into this thread?

Well I'll give it a shot. (WARNING: may offend creationists, just my personal beliefs)

I think creation was a fluke, that "god" im most likely some sort of insubstaintial form of energy which can create something out of nothing, which both exists and never existed. Everywhere and nowhere, etc... Earth happens to be a perfect planet for complex life to develop (possibly more, no way to prove it, very unlikely for life to be supported, but also uncountable amount of planets). Proper compunds were mixed, simple single celled organisms born, long process of evolution into human beings. Now heres the Philosophicle part. As humans we have evolved to the point where time can be spent on invention and abstract thinking. We have progressed to the point where we have become a danger to ourselves and the planet. We have also gained something called a conscience, and i think it is our new destiny to repair the damage we have done to the planet. As a species we are capable of almost anything. We, collectively, are on the doorstep of godhood. And as such, it SHOULD be our responsibility to protect and nuture the beautiful annomally that is life.

Wow, never thought id put that into words, even if it is that abbreviated

THE FACT THAT A BELIEVER IS HAPPIER

THAN A SKEPTIC IS NO MORE TO THE POINT

THAN THE FACT THAN A DRUNKEN MAN IS

HAPPIER THAN A SOBER ONE

George Bernard Shaw

This discussion seems to be as much about "religion" as it is about "philosophy."  In that regard, I have two queries:

1.  Is there a "line" between "religion" and "philosophy," and, if so, what is it?

2.  If not, is religion a philosophy?  Is philosophy a religion?

Peace.

Sometimes I believe in myself. Sometimes I believe in some others. Sometimes I believe in music and other art.

Sometimes I don't believe in anything.

Snow cuts loose from the frozen
Until it joins with the african sea
In moving it changes it’s cold and it’s name
The reason I come and go is the same
Animal game for me
You call it rain
But the human name
Doesn’t mean sh*t to a tree

If you don’t mind heat in your river and
Fork tongue talking from me
Swim like an eel fantastic snake
Take my love when it’s free
Electric feel with me
You call it loud
But the human crowd
Doesn’t mean sh*t to a tree

Change the strings and notes slide
Change the bridge and string shift down
Shift the notes and bridge sings
Fire eating people
Rising toys of the sun
Energy dies without body warm
Icicles ruin your gun

Water my roots the natural thing
Natural spring to the sea
Sulphur springs make my body float
Like a ship made of logs from a tree
Redwoods talk to me
Say it plainly
The human name
Doesn’t mean sh*t to a tree

Snow called water going violent
Damn the end of the stream
Too much cold in one place breaks
That’s why you might know what I mean
Consider how small you are
Compared to your scream
The human dream
Doesn’t mean sh*t to a tree

Grace Slick 1969

maani wrote: This discussion seems to be as much about "religion" as it is about "philosophy."  In that regard, I have two queries: 1.  Is there a "line" between "religion" and "philosophy," and, if so, what is it? 2.  If not, is religion a philosophy?  Is philosophy a religion? Peace.

My thoughts exactly.

The difference between the two.

Philosophy is a method of rationalising and imagining, religion is the applied method of philosophy defining the parameters, doctrine and dogma's of believe.

oliverstoned wrote: "I think creation was a fluke, that "god" im most likely some sort of insubstaintial form of energy which can create something out of nothing, which both exists and never existed. Everywhere and nowhere, etc..." It seems that there's no god, human-like with a long white beard. Probably an impersonnal energy form who or which doesn't care for us, individual ego trapped into our personnal hells. It even seems that that this "creator" creates us in order to fed himself with our ego... Exactly the same for us when we rise animals to eat them... Eventually, this is another way to see the reincarnation concept, in which you have to "loose " your ego, to die, like the saddhus in india, to break the reincarnation wheel, in order to reach total freedom.

If the "creator" is even sentinent. I think we are if anything accidental, but if thats true what an accident eh? , the buddist line of thought says that one can only find true happiness with "Nirvanva" which is in a sense coping with "nothing". If you can accept the possibility that you may no longer exist after you die an embrace it, happiness will be yours.

Great believe this boedism. If you embrace the emptiness of the void and seize to excist you will excist in a happier state

contradiction?

maani wrote: This discussion seems to be as much about "religion" as it is about "philosophy."  In that regard, I have two queries: 1.  Is there a "line" between "religion" and "philosophy," and, if so, what is it? 2.  If not, is religion a philosophy?  Is philosophy a religion? Peace.

Well maani, it has turned out that way. Most people's philosophies are based on thier system of beilliefs, or thier system of beliefs based on some ancestor's (or divine being's) philosophies or "laws". Philosophy and religion (or faith) often go hand in hand, and overlap.

I suppose the line itself is Faith (or religion) has to do with answering the unanswerable, and what a human being should and shouldnt do. All of the earliest western philosophers (greek of course) all started thier musings with the creation of the universe. This is important to philosophy because, for example; if you believe that some sort of all powerfull being wathces over you and judges you, you will behave yourself according to his will or suffer the consequences. This is going to greatly effect what you think is the proper behavior for a human being. Philosophie's earliest definiton that i can think of of the top of my head (for reference this is from my textbook on ancient western history, i cant remember the name and the musical box is borrowing it right now) is "To explain what it is to be a human being" this entails mostly, what we are here for.

Theres my best shot, I hope this clarifies your questions.

tuxon wrote: Great believe this boedism. If you embrace the emptiness of the void and seize to excist you will excist in a happier state contradiction?

haha yes, but a nice thought.

What is the purpose of philosophy?

Why?

taking the Socratarian road.

 there is no why, well just assume its right. Remember what socartes said; "Only a fool thinks he is right."

and if you disagree with said assumption lets hear your opinion?

Apparently this was a question on a fourth year Philosophy exam at some university. The question for debate was this:

Why?

The why question, remains the best question ever.

According to Garp:

What is the purpose of philosophy?

To improve our lives using intelect and imagination. with the purpose of becoming better than (potential) adversary's, coping with nature's laws. And thus for survival.

The student who got the highest mark on the exam wrote:

Why not?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the basis of human life.

Glass-Prison wrote: Why not?     And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the basis of human life.

Was the last sentence also included in this students reply, or did you add it?

tuxon wrote: The why question, remains the best question ever. According to Garp: What is the purpose of philosophy? To improve our lives using intelect and imagination. with the purpose of becoming better than (potential) adversary's, coping with nature's laws. And thus for survival.

Seems like a wordier version of mine, so well use it.

All:

From Websters:

Main Entry: phi·los·o·phy javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?philos07.wav=philosophy'">
Pronunciation: f&-'lä-s(&-)fE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -phies
Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Old French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=physical+science - PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ethics - ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=philosophical - philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=philosopher - philosopher

Main Entry: re·li·gion javascript popWin'/cgi-bin/audio.pl?religi02.wav=religion'">
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=rely - RELY
1 a : the state of a http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religious - religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religious - religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religious - religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=conscientiousness - CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Just figured we should have a basic parameter before this thing gets so deep we can't get out of the hole we dig...

Peace.

According to Garp:

Philosophy. The science of things in their ultimate reasons, causes, and principles, acquired by the aid of human reason alone.

Religion. A system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life.

There, now back to the philosophies themselves

The wall on which the prophets wrote
Is cracking at the seams.
Upon the instruments if death
The sunlight brightly gleams.
When every man is torn apart
With nightmares and with dreams,
Will no one lay the laurel wreath
As silence drowns the screams.

Between the iron gates of fate,
The seeds of time were sown,
And watered by the deeds of those
Who know and who are known;
Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules.
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools.

Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
and laugh.
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow I'll be crying.

Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules.
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools.

My passing interest in philosophy was sparked mostly by some serious studies i did into greek cultrue and history. But in terms of music, although this song is not prog, i would recommend "Within you, Without you" by the beatles.

We were talking-about the space between us all
And the people-who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion
Never glimpse the truth-then it's far too late-when they pass away.
We were talking-about the love we all could share-when we find it
To try our best to hold it there-with our love
With our love-we could save the world-if they only knew.
Try to realise it's all within yourself
No-one else can make you change
And to see you're really only very small,
And life flows within you and without you.
We were talking-about the love that's gone so cold and the people,
Who gain the world and lose their soul-
They don't know-they can't see-are you one of them?
When you've seen beyond yourself-then you may find, peace of mind,
Is waiting there-
And the time will come when you see
we're all one, and life flows on within you and without you.

I'm not a huge beatles fan, but I love that song and what it says.

Hangedman:

Bravo!   It took me multiple listenings to "get" Within You Without You (hey, give me a break - I was only 9 at the time...).  However, I'd have to agree that that song was as responsible as any other for setting me on a philosophical (and later "faith") path.  "Epitaph" was definitely another.

But, like you, my true philosophical development came from reading, not music (lyrics), despite the fact that music has been central to my life since age 5.

Peace.

When I was 15, I began taking yoga and Eastern philosophy with Swami Satchidananda.  One of my favorite aphorisms of his is the following:

"When we are born, we are 'fine.'  We are simply the 'I am.'  As we get older, we 'de-fine' ourselves by adding to the 'I am': I am male, I am white, I am short, etc.  And we continue to 'de-fine' ourselves throughout our lives: I am a New Yorker, I am an American, I am educated, I am talented, I am a doctor, etc.  Eventually, we have so 'de-fined' ourselves that we feel the need to 're-fine' ourselves by getting back to the 'I am,' even if only for a few moments a day, because the process of 'de-fining' creates constant stress.  Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid it."

Peace.

Apparently this was a question on a fourth year Philosophy exam at some university. The question for debate was this: Why?

LOL, when I was in first year of University in Perú in 1980, I heard the same anecdote,  and the guy who told me the story was suposedly in that class. I'm starting to believe it's an urban legend.

Iván

In very general terms, philosophy and theology co existed and frequently overlapped until the late eighteenth century enlightenment, most notably (though not exclusively) with Kant's great critiques.

Since then, philosophy has mostly concerned itself with theories of knowledge - what do we know, and how do we know if it is true, whilst theology has dealt with the questions of God's existence and the meaning of life. Of course, both sides continue to engage with each other - Kierkegaard and Nietzsche both tried to tackle the problem of God's place in post enlightenment thought in radically different ways, whilst the Copleston History of Philosophy was the work of a Jesuit (to pick a couple of totally random examples), but there definitely is a line between the two disciplines. 

maani wrote: When I was 15, I began taking yoga and Eastern philosophy with Swami Satchidananda.  One of my favorite aphorisms of his is the following: "When we are born, we are 'fine.'  We are simply the 'I am.'  As we get older, we 'de-fine' ourselves by adding to the 'I am': I am male, I am white, I am short, etc.  And we continue to 'de-fine' ourselves throughout our lives: I am a New Yorker, I am an American, I am educated, I am talented, I am a doctor, etc.  Eventually, we have so 'de-fined' ourselves that we feel the need to 're-fine' ourselves by getting back to the 'I am,' even if only for a few moments a day, because the process of 'de-fining' creates constant stress.  Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid it." Peace.

Ive never really given that too much thought before, but the more I throw the idea around the truer it seems. So a quick question for anyone interested in answering, what are some of the personal methods we use for getting back to the 'I am'? (apart from music of course, unless you want to describe how you feel in a particularily deep experiance with music).

I'll take a shot first. I used to practise martial arts, and I was tought a method of controlled breathing meditation which i still use today. I also like long hot baths in which i think about absolutely nothing but my immediate surrondings. 

Share with us, I find it interesting.

I have a philosophy for my philosophy. I think one has to have proof for his/ her faith. Faith is important, but not so important and essential that it is sufficient to support itself. I have two proofs for my Christianity:

A) If God wasn't real, why would 2 billion people in this world all follow Christ and profess that that he is alive and working his power? Why would there be a 10-figure following for a wacko with no supreme powers. People come to church because something is pulling them through those doors every Sunday. Teenagers don't testify in front of their skeptical and judging peers because they like being pressured. Jesus Christ is working each and all of his people to spread His news.

B) Second, it says in Genesis that we are created in God's image. This is evident. We are clearly separate from all other living things. For example, we have art, literature, super-science and technology, and advanced communication skills; things that other creatures don't have. That being said, if that part of Genesis is obviously true, what reason do you have not to believe the rest of it...or the rest of the Bible for that matter? Find a reason not to believe the rest of the Bible and PM me. I really would like to hear. For those of you who believe in evolution and the survival of the fittest, tell me, how did dogs and lions and tigers and bears survive when we are obviously so much more fit than them? Logically, doesn't survival of the fittest asure that the creatures that come out on top should be equally fit? YES!!!

Be enlightened and give your life to God!!!

Why do million of people buy small bottles of Evian for €1,40 a bottle?

read Evian backwards and understand why.

redbar89 wrote: I have a philosophy for my philosophy. I think one has to have proof for his/ her faith. Faith is important, but not so important and essential that it is sufficient to support itself. I have two proofs for my Christianity: A) If God wasn't real, why would 2 billion people in this world all follow Christ and profess that that he is alive and working his power? Why would there be a 10-figure following for a wacko with no supreme powers. People come to church because something is pulling them through those doors every Sunday. Teenagers don't testify in front of their skeptical and judging peers because they like being pressured. Jesus Christ is working each and all of his people to spread His news. B) Second, it says in Genesis that we are created in God's image. This is evident. We are clearly separate from all other living things. For example, we have art, literature, super-science and technology, and advanced communication skills; things that other creatures don't have. That being said, if that part of Genesis is obviously true, what reason do you have not to believe the rest of it...or the rest of the Bible for that matter? Find a reason not to believe the rest of the Bible and PM me. I really would like to hear. For those of you who believe in evolution and the survival of the fittest, tell me, how did dogs and lions and tigers and bears survive when we are obviously so much more fit than them? Logically, doesn't survival of the fittest asure that the creatures that come out on top should be equally fit? YES!!! Be enlightened and give your life to God!!!

*sigh* please do not start any arguments by claiming that you and you alone are right, especially with such insufficient proof. History has a rational answer to both your "proofs"

Whilst gazing at the ceiling with my finger two knuckles deep in my navel, I noticed the walls billowing, the windows become opaque and the walls becoming transparent. I could see, for the first time, the answer, the truth. My sphincter contracted and my toes curled in anticipation. The speakers standing atop the cabinet became mouths, gaping and drooling, tongue lolling as though in a purple haze of fabulous color and scent. The mouth slurped, glopped and began to speak, "First there was Adam, and then Eve came forth. The Mellotrons created all, the mellotrons.... Seek the answer there... the mellotrons...the mellotrons...."

As I awoke, flaccid and spent, I looked out the window and saw the boy on the bike hurling the daily papers in a skyward arc, falling helter skelter on the lawn, the porch, the driveway. "Mellotrons" I thought. "Hmmm, Mellotrons."

Scratching my nether regions, I rose and grasped my penis in the well known flow stopping grip, making my way to the head. As I released the grasp and let loose the flood gates the answer burst forth like a early morning urine flow. "Robert Fripp." Really? Hmmmm.... mellotrons....

redbar89 wrote: I have a philosophy for my philosophy. I think one has to have proof for his/ her faith. Faith is important, but not so important and essential that it is sufficient to support itself. I have two proofs for my Christianity: A) If God wasn't real, why would 2 billion people in this world all follow Christ and profess that that he is alive and working his power? Why would there be a 10-figure following for a wacko with no supreme powers. People come to church because something is pulling them through those doors every Sunday. Teenagers don't testify in front of their skeptical and judging peers because they like being pressured. Jesus Christ is working each and all of his people to spread His news. B) Second, it says in Genesis that we are created in God's image. This is evident. We are clearly separate from all other living things. For example, we have art, literature, super-science and technology, and advanced communication skills; things that other creatures don't have. That being said, if that part of Genesis is obviously true, what reason do you have not to believe the rest of it...or the rest of the Bible for that matter? Find a reason not to believe the rest of the Bible and PM me. I really would like to hear. For those of you who believe in evolution and the survival of the fittest, tell me, how did dogs and lions and tigers and bears survive when we are obviously so much more fit than them? Logically, doesn't survival of the fittest asure that the creatures that come out on top should be equally fit? YES!!! Be enlightened and give your life to God!!!

Truely, as a Christian myself, I cannot help but see the emptiness in your arguments. First major hole:

1-This is not only true for Christianity. What about Islam, Hinuism, Taoism etc.?

2- Why if we are different from other creatures, are we immediately the image of God? This is some kind of unbased axiom to be honest. And you show a remarkable hole in your knowledge of evolution theory. You take the whole planet as one whole, while in fact, there are plenty of different areas each with their own superior beings. We could never live in the jungle, for instance.

Lastly, 'Be enlightened and give your life to God!!!' sounds like something the opposite of Christians would say, especially the 'enlightened' part. We are not supposed to act superior, indeed, we are not, we are to testify of Jesus, and his loving and saving ways. Do not consider this to be an attack, but as a point to learn from. If we as Christians are really desperate to prove our Lord, why do it with arguments that are empty? Work on your theory, that you envoke not the opposite of what you want.

Give yourself fulfilling purpose and grow with time. -Kerry Livgren

Nah I think I'll waste more time here.

Hi Guys:

Just had to fall on this thread before the long WE. Another debate that has gone withoit me and will keep doing so..... so I will quickly give my two cents worth....

I agree with OliverStoned's first statements about life being a fluke. There are too many factors that there also  at stakes for an other intelligent life that managed to evolve and move out of our third rock/stone from our sun ( so I believe that we are also alone in the universe ) at least able to build spaceship.

The story of Religion and Brute Force (There is absolutely no special religion being aimed at.)

In pre-historian times, Religion was created out of our fears for the unexplainable and our questions about the unknown. Those ïntelligent and wise enough started answering those questions and realized quickly the power they could draw from their "knowledge" and the prestige of being a Shaman able to get the evil forces away. Religion then first became the "contre-pouvoir" to the Brute Force but those two often managed to ally to reign (the King always being given the right to reign by the God and this one being the first believer in the divinity). Soon, of course, religion started to ask for taxes/sacrifices as the King did with money. Both are now called politics. Religion has therefore lost credibility in the Free Man's eyes because of both its alliance with Brute Force and the fast-progressing science being able to explain the unknown other than by a supreme being and evil forces.

The actual clergies of any modern religion have been driven away from politics - since most consider these as philosophies (this is where Buddhism comes in but to me it seems that there are prayers , shrines , tempels, monks etc... just like all other religions) - and from power. This is why we are seeing Religions step backwards and going back to obscurantism (be it the neo-conservateurs or integrists of all kinds) wanting to force people to follow the doctrine/dogma " à la lettre".  It seems that in our increasingly multi-cultural societies , religions in the long-term should disappear (as to avoid conflicts) in favour of laicity (we do need some rules of good conduct) and maybe today, the same person looking for answers back in prehistory should tend towards agnosticism or even atheism...... This is of course not easy to accept that "we" are here (alive and on Earth) for no particular reasons(why do we reproduce?), and what happens to our soul without its lifeline (the body).... So I decided that I was here for fun.......

And I am going for the long week-end to my fave hideout in the Ardennes with a trunkful of wine bottles, prog records my best friends and some of the best looking women I know (that includes my girlfriend) .

promise not to laugh tooooooo hard when I give a thought about the suckers who have no such luck!!!!!

peace

redbar89 wrote: I guess I can distill my philosophy to this: I strive to do what I think is right during every moment of my life.

Thats a good thing to live by. sorry its just your other post almost implied you disrespected other peoples beliefs, i think i may have misinterpreted you. . After your first sentance i was sure i was going to have to chide an athiest for not being open to others spirituality.

Hangedman wrote: redbar89 wrote: I guess I can distill my philosophy to this: I strive to do what I think is right during every moment of my life. Thats a good thing to live by. sorry its just your other post almost implied you disrespected other peoples beliefs, i think i may have misinterpreted you. . After your first sentance i was sure i was going to have to chide an athiest for not being open to others spirituality.

I understand. I completely respect other people's beliefs, disbeliefs, what have you. I just always jump at the opportunity to talk. I really want people to have the right to believe what they want because I understand myself how horrible it would feel to not be able to choose my beliefs. I guess i was simply trying to touch a reader's spiritual side through their intellectual side, if that makes any sense.

HEY ReDBAR!!!!

My Mom used to go to Church but now she doesnt and says "its a crutch for the weak"!

The Bible is wrong at sum parts, for example:

Also my Bio teACHER IS LIKE "oMG hOW Can people believe in the story of Noahs Arc" ebcause of lots of reasons:

1)ALl the animals species(2x) cant fit in Noahs arc, WAY TOO many Critters (lol)

2) even if they did they wouuuld all kill each other and fight, plus penguines and other animals of the desert could not live in the same enviroment as Jungle cats and Spiders from aisa. Well the Ek0-system would mess up

3) even if u still bElievE, how could NOAH FEed ALL THOSE Millions of ANimals, and clean up poo (LMAO) and all that, it would take YEERS, too much work to keep millions of 2x every species alive and not killing each other

4) ANts Bees and other Bugs and some animals like gophers need more then just a male and a female to surrvive. THe 2 of every animal male and female is a male, lots of bUG COLONYS WOULD DIE WITH ONLY A QUEEN AND A DRONE THEY NEED WORKERS WHO ARE SEXLESS (LOL SEX) so that means the BIBLE LIES!!!!! 

5) IF THE ARK LANDED IN TURKEY how did penguines and stuff get back to ANtartika.GODS MAGIC POWER LOL NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! Maybe the pigs flew like in Pink FLoyd!!! :)

And if all those parts in the bible are obviosly fake my mom says thaT OTHER parts must be fake too

P.s: IM GOOD IN sCIENCE CLASS I GET 80-90!!!!!

Ok, KPG, lets not argue like that, you can't just apply logical rules to the bible, that does not work. You should think about the main point the "story" makes and not question the unimportant parts beside it.

I don't believe in the bible either, but not because of those reasons. I am not religious, but i think a lot about philosophy. I think there is something "higher", but it's not a god, but some kind of "real truth". God is more a spirit created by humans, to use general rules to live your life. I appreciate that those rules exist, but i don't think they come from "god"..... they are made up by humans.

K00l Prog Guruz wrote:   HEY ReDBAR!!!!   My Mom used to go to Church but now she doesnt and says "its a crutch for the weak"! The Bible is wrong at sum parts, for example:   Also my Bio teACHER IS LIKE "oMG hOW Can people believe in the story of Noahs Arc" ebcause of lots of reasons: 1)ALl the animals species(2x) cant fit in Noahs arc, WAY TOO many Critters (lol) 2) even if they did they wouuuld all kill each other and fight, plus penguines and other animals of the desert could not live in the same enviroment as Jungle cats and Spiders from aisa. Well the Ek0-system would mess up 3) even if u still bElievE, how could NOAH FEed ALL THOSE Millions of ANimals, and clean up poo (LMAO) and all that, it would take YEERS, too much work to keep millions of 2x every species alive and not killing each other 4) ANts Bees and other Bugs and some animals like gophers need more then just a male and a female to surrvive. THe 2 of every animal male and female is a male, lots of bUG COLONYS WOULD DIE WITH ONLY A QUEEN AND A DRONE THEY NEED WORKERS WHO ARE SEXLESS (LOL SEX) so that means the BIBLE LIES!!!!!  5) IF THE ARK LANDED IN TURKEY how did penguines and stuff get back to ANtartika.GODS MAGIC POWER LOL NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! Maybe the pigs flew like in Pink FLoyd!!! :) And if all those parts in the bible are obviosly fake my mom says thaT OTHER parts must be fake too   P.s: IM GOOD IN sCIENCE CLASS I GET 80-90!!!!!

KPG, stay away from this thread please, and thank you. and secondly everything in the bible isnt usually taken literally by the modern christian doesnt take every single story in the bible literally. They are supposed to be morals, and noahs ark is taken from the babilonian gilgamesh, so it is a very old story indeed, it may have a grain of truth (although i dont think so.) but it is possible

Sean:

Actually, no less a distinguished and respected person than Carl Sagan suggested exactly the opposite: that it is impossible for there NOT to be life on other planets - though what form(s) that life takes might be very different from life here.  He used straightforward statistics to point out that there are billions of stars in each galaxy, most of which have at least one planet or other celestial body in orbit around it.  And there are billions of such galaxies in the universe.  Thus, as Sagan suggests, it is not just the height of arrogance, but mathematically unsound to suggest that we are the only life in the universe - or, indeed, the only "intelligent" life in the universe.

Peace.

Had an interesting Phillosophical conversation with a guy selling copies of the Bhagavad-Gita (unaltered). I've read the text before, and this religion actually believes in the existance of intelligent beings on other planets, its always nice to be able to have an intelligent reasonable conversation with people of varied faiths. (I think a lot of the people gave the whole Hari-Krishna consciousness a bad name, it is a very old and quite beautiful religion. Eastern mysticism usually doesnt mix well with western civilization though . I think us white folks should stick to christianity and our older wiccan type stuff. We often misenterprit the eastern faiths) I've decided i like a society where a fiercly agnostic individual can speak with a believer of well anything and have a good time in an intellectual conversation when they are both complete strangers. Gives me hope in mankind.

The evolution of a species able to reflect on its own meaning and purpose was most likely a mistake. Philosophy and theology are both facets of man's search for ultimate truth- a pastime as necessary and hopeful for us as a moth's desire for light and warmth.

Still, the moths seem to manage; I haven't heard of a big reduction in their numbers since their furry-winged prophets heard that first lightbulb filament sizzle...perhaps they simply continue to reproduce sufficiently to afford the loss of those on the quest for illumination.

I only pursued degrees in the field because of my Catholic dedication to self-torture, and a spiteful desire to make myself useless to society. 

The deepest, truest mysteries aren't happy things, folks. Luckily, they're not easy things to track down- you have to listen closely to conversations for the things people don't want to talk about and then figure out why. When we're closest to truth we're usually in the midst of tragedy. Few people have any ability to communicate it, or even to understand it on any sort of rational level (another reason why music and poetry are so important). I have real, fundamental answers that I could never explain to anyone else, even if I wanted to. Sound like a cop out? Sure it does. That's one way that truth continues to get you...by making you doubt the warnings of the people who have 'been there'. ("He stoppeth one of three...")

Philosophy and religion typically try to conceal or avoid the truth rather than make it better known.

Philosophy gives us complicated word games, elaborate logical structures that define and compartmentalize and send our thoughts whirling in pretty patterns. When Mathematics goes to the wrong side of town and has a one-night stand with Poetry, the illegitimate child is Philosophy. And we all know how likely those kinds of children are to grow up healthy and well-disposed. We're about as likely to find truth through Philosophy as we are to find nature by watching "Bambi".

Theology, on the other hand, is a keen sense of sight focused on something just out of view. Without knowing the details of what it sees, it uses the best of its ability to fill in the details. Once you know what you're looking for, it's far easier to see it (just ask the folks who have never met but agree on the description of the aliens that abducted them). Religion convinces itself that it already knows the answers, and the focus is on our relationship with those answers.

Religion works where philosophy doesn't simply because you can talk in religious terms to anyone, especially a child. No parent has ever used Plato to explain a rainbow. Children have as much susceptibility to religion as they do to colds and peer presure. When you're in the womb, you already have a God...and She's physically connected to you, providing you with everything you need (and no fetus has ever bothered to ask why). Sooner or later, you're cast out of this Ovarian Eden, and no angel with a flaming sword is necessary to convince you that you can never, ever return to that blessed state. So to make up for it, you have (if you're lucky) twin gods to look out for you for a while. It's not such a big step to transfer those feelings to something "up there" who watches lovingly or judgingly over you. Every religion ever practiced uses "Father" and "Mother" to refer to its deities...isn't that a bit of a giveaway?

Philosophy and religion are as ultimately pointless as anything else we've created. Can we find meaning in them anyway? Absolutely...but it will just be a passing truth that serves its purpose until we no longer need it. Unlike truth, we can find meaning in anything if we look hard enough. Same goes for meaninglessness. I highly recommend finding meaning in eating, drinking, breathing, screwing, and pooping. Also sneezing, farting, and the hiccups. You're gonna do them anyway- no sense leaving them out as so many religions and philosophies have done before.

What's really nice is if this meaning ends up including ways to make other people happier. An inappropriate belch is sometimes just the thing to bring a smile. An atheist who listens to a friend's problems is worth more than a million preoccupied zealots...but the inspiration for a single hymn of beauty justifies a religion.

I'm done (thank god!). I have to go take a holy crap and then make sure my furry angels have enough food and water.  

James Lee wrote: The evolution of a species able to reflect on its own meaning and purpose was most likely a mistake. Philosophy and theology are both facets of man's search for ultimate truth- a pastime as necessary and hopeful for us as a moth's desire for light and warmth. Still, the moths seem to manage; I haven't heard of a big reduction in their numbers since their furry-winged prophets heard that first lightbulb filament sizzle...perhaps they simply continue to reproduce sufficiently to afford the loss of those on the quest for illumination. I only pursued degrees in the field because of my Catholic dedication to self-torture, and a spiteful desire to make myself useless to society.  The deepest, truest mysteries aren't happy things, folks. Luckily, they're not easy things to track down- you have to listen closely to conversations for the things people don't want to talk about and then figure out why. When we're closest to truth we're usually in the midst of tragedy. Few people have any ability to communicate it, or even to understand it on any sort of rational level (another reason why music and poetry are so important). I have real, fundamental answers that I could never explain to anyone else, even if I wanted to. Sound like a cop out? Sure it does. That's one way that truth continues to get you...by making you doubt the warnings of the people who have 'been there'. ("He stoppeth one of three...") Philosophy and religion typically try to conceal or avoid the truth rather than make it better known. Philosophy gives us complicated word games, elaborate logical structures that define and compartmentalize and send our thoughts whirling in pretty patterns. When Mathematics goes to the wrong side of town and has a one-night stand with Poetry, the illegitimate child is Philosophy. And we all know how likely those kinds of children are to grow up healthy and well-disposed. We're about as likely to find truth through Philosophy as we are to find nature by watching "Bambi". Theology, on the other hand, is a keen sense of sight focused on something just out of view. Without knowing the details of what it sees, it uses the best of its ability to fill in the details. Once you know what you're looking for, it's far easier to see it (just ask the folks who have never met but agree on the description of the aliens that abducted them). Religion convinces itself that it already knows the answers, and the focus is on our relationship with those answers. Religion works where philosophy doesn't simply because you can talk in religious terms to anyone, especially a child. No parent has ever used Plato to explain a rainbow. Children have as much susceptibility to religion as they do to colds and peer presure. When you're in the womb, you already have a God...and She's physically connected to you, providing you with everything you need (and no fetus has ever bothered to ask why). Sooner or later, you're cast out of this Ovarian Eden, and no angel with a flaming sword is necessary to convince you that you can never, ever return to that blessed state. So to make up for it, you have (if you're lucky) twin gods to look out for you for a while. It's not such a big step to transfer those feelings to something "up there" who watches lovingly or judgingly over you. Every religion ever practiced uses "Father" and "Mother" to refer to its deities...isn't that a bit of a giveaway? Philosophy and religion are as ultimately pointless as anything else we've created. Can we find meaning in them anyway? Absolutely...but it will just be a passing truth that serves its purpose until we no longer need it. Unlike truth, we can find meaning in anything if we look hard enough. Same goes for meaninglessness. I highly recommend finding meaning in eating, drinking, breathing, screwing, and pooping. Also sneezing, farting, and the hiccups. You're gonna do them anyway- no sense leaving them out as so many religions and philosophies have done before. What's really nice is if this meaning ends up including ways to make other people happier. An inappropriate belch is sometimes just the thing to bring a smile. An atheist who listens to a friend's problems is worth more than a million preoccupied zealots...but the inspiration for a single hymn of beauty justifies a religion.

Wow, welcome back!!

We, indeed, are not worthy James. I for one doff my cap to you.

Kool Prog Guruz/Rob The Plant makes a perfectly valid point about the bible.Similar to the one I have been banging on about in another thread.The Bible deals in grand themes described in a simplistic way. The Christian/Jewish Establishment does nothing to clarify these over-simplifications for "the ordinary man on the street." One has to really wonder about this.There is an incredibly wide gulf between what is "known/accepted" by the Higher Academic departments at say, The Vatican and what is accepted by ordinary practising Catholics.

As James so eloquently puts in his post:

"Philosophy and religion typically try to conceal or avoid the truth rather than make it better known."

Addressing Maani's point about life elsewhere in The Universe:

I too believe there is life all over the Universe,but just because mathematically it seems probable does not make it certain.Try covering 30 numbers on a Roulette Wheel and you'll find out that probability can be impossibly difficult to predict.

James:

You say, "Every religion ever practiced uses "Father" and "Mother" to refer to its deities...isn't that a bit of a giveaway?"  Ummm...not quite, for two reasons.

First of all, let's not forget that the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and others referred to their Gods with names - none were called "father" or "mother."

Second, human beings can only express "ideas" in terms they can understand, and that those with whom they are interacting can understand.  Thus, it is obvious that any monotheistic religion is going to call its deity "father" or "mother," since those are easily graspable words.  In this regard, you are sort of "putting the cart before the horse" by referring to it as a "give-away."

Peace.

maani wrote: James: You say, "Every religion ever practiced uses "Father" and "Mother" to refer to its deities...isn't that a bit of a giveaway?"  Ummm...not quite, for two reasons. First of all, let's not forget that the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and others referred to their Gods with names - none were called "father" or "mother." Second, human beings can only express "ideas" in terms they can understand, and that those with whom they are interacting can understand.  Thus, it is obvious that any monotheistic religion is going to call its deity "father" or "mother," since those are easily graspable words.  In this regard, you are sort of "putting the cart before the horse" by referring to it as a "give-away." Peace.

maani, I'm surprised at you! Greek mythology is full of parental imagery and themes. Sure, in a polytheistic religion it's not always as obvious as in monotheistic ones (except of course for "Odin, the All-Father"- I notice you didn't include the Norse ), but the entire storyline of the Greek Mythos revolves around familial relationships and especially the son usurping the father. Prior to the worship of the Gods which became the Titans (whose fall is a clear metaphor for generational overthrow), the Greeks based their religion around Gaia, almost always referred to as the "Earth Mother".

And as for Egypt, there is Atum (like Odin, known as the "All-Father") and Anat and Tatenen ("Mother" and "Father" of the Gods, repectively). While the lineage and geneology of polytheistic pantheons are by nature much more complex and intertwined than monothesim, this actually creates more situations where the character and destiny of the mythological individuals revolves around the circumstances of birth and family.

I would counter, with all respect and courtesy, that defining deities in terms of fatherhood and motherhood is a function not of our limited understanding of the essential nature of godhood but rather of our development from reliance on our parents. The explanation of God as something more than an idealized parent only develops as a more complex understanding of the world is desired. I could just as easily say that you are putting the 'cart before the horse'.

I find it immensely fascinating that religion becomes more 'streamlined' as society progresses, rather than the reverse. For many people, especially in the third world, Christianity is pretty much a polytheistic religion; it's generally only the more individual-oriented societies that extract the supreme god from the collective. The parables and themes of polythestic mythologies are almost more applicable to our daily lives as those of the Judeo-Christian texts. However, they have a more specific nature that makes them less malleable to differing interpretations (one of the strengths of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam; the words can always be used to support the current cultural and political power).

Well, I guess I'm back now, huh?

Maani Wrote:

Actually, no less a distinguished and respected person than Carl Sagan suggested exactly the opposite: that it is impossible for there NOT to be life on other planets - though what form(s) that life takes might be very different from life here.  He used straightforward statistics to point out that there are billions of stars in each galaxy, most of which have at least one planet or other celestial body in orbit around it.  And there are billions of such galaxies in the universe.  Thus, as Sagan suggests, it is not just the height of arrogance, but mathematically unsound to suggest that we are the only life in the universe - or, indeed, the only "intelligent" life in the universe.

By no means did I mean that our planet was the only life existing in the universe.... It is so weird that how life evolved to be the way it has turned out to be on Earth, that the chances of a planet being able to host a life are so small and that the conditions stable enough to have it evolve to a degree of sophistication such as our would take an odd so great that it is almost impossible that it exist.

Who Knows? There might be a mineral life out on one or Orion's planet (if that star is able to have planet and let alone ones that are solid and not gaseous). But that this one has managed to evolve and change galaxies abooard spaceships....... not likely.....no points in taking a bet....

PS: If you could tell me about how to frame a quote because my sort of life evolving has not managed to grasp that one yet....

I believe in a world called "Progarchives":

Our God Maani is always there for us, keeping our thoughts in check, our morals in line, and of course as any good god does: he sets bounderies.

We here are all followers of the righteous king Danbo (take a bow mate) and are an advanced reace of opiniated chaps out to spread the good word of "Prog". We are constantly spreading on our faith to others, and act with violence when folk dont accept our ideals. Our only goal is to spread the divine word of Maani and his message of  progress, of deviation from the norm. Our members are proud of their befiefs, and although they may be different, they are the cream of humanity! Some of our group include:

The Obssesed maniacs: Rob The Plant, ThreeFates, Reed Lover

The Genesis Freaks: Ivan, Ceasar Inca, Peter, Hangedman, The Musical Box

The Village Idiots: VelvetClown, The Oracle, K00l Prog Guruz

The Master Debaters: Certif1ed, Danbo, Jim Garten, James Lee, Garion, Dick Heath, Mr. Peter Rideout (although hes on an "extended" hiadus) and countless others...

.........: Gdub.......Sigod...the umm..."special ones"

The Dudes: Sweetnighter, Joren, Radioactive Toy, Metropolis

The Cute Girls: Selling_ Echoes, Shrinking Violet

The "Looker": Jim Prog Wizard (refer to page 5 of the picture thread..sorry man)

AND EVERYONE ELSE

(im out of time)...god this was a stupid idea

TMB:

Thanks....I think (?).

Actually, it might be more accurate to compare me to Einstein.  He said that the universe has boundaries, but no limits.  Using my "god-like" powers, I make sure that ProgArchives is like the universe in that way...

Peace.

James Lee wrote: The evolution of a species able to reflect on its own meaning and purpose was most likely a mistake. Philosophy and theology are both facets of man's search for ultimate truth- a pastime as necessary and hopeful for us as a moth's desire for light and warmth. Still, the moths seem to manage; I haven't heard of a big reduction in their numbers since their furry-winged prophets heard that first lightbulb filament sizzle...perhaps they simply continue to reproduce sufficiently to afford the loss of those on the quest for illumination. I only pursued degrees in the field because of my Catholic dedication to self-torture, and a spiteful desire to make myself useless to society.  The deepest, truest mysteries aren't happy things, folks. Luckily, they're not easy things to track down- you have to listen closely to conversations for the things people don't want to talk about and then figure out why. When we're closest to truth we're usually in the midst of tragedy. Few people have any ability to communicate it, or even to understand it on any sort of rational level (another reason why music and poetry are so important). I have real, fundamental answers that I could never explain to anyone else, even if I wanted to. Sound like a cop out? Sure it does. That's one way that truth continues to get you...by making you doubt the warnings of the people who have 'been there'. ("He stoppeth one of three...") Philosophy and religion typically try to conceal or avoid the truth rather than make it better known. Philosophy gives us complicated word games, elaborate logical structures that define and compartmentalize and send our thoughts whirling in pretty patterns. When Mathematics goes to the wrong side of town and has a one-night stand with Poetry, the illegitimate child is Philosophy. And we all know how likely those kinds of children are to grow up healthy and well-disposed. We're about as likely to find truth through Philosophy as we are to find nature by watching "Bambi". Theology, on the other hand, is a keen sense of sight focused on something just out of view. Without knowing the details of what it sees, it uses the best of its ability to fill in the details. Once you know what you're looking for, it's far easier to see it (just ask the folks who have never met but agree on the description of the aliens that abducted them). Religion convinces itself that it already knows the answers, and the focus is on our relationship with those answers. Religion works where philosophy doesn't simply because you can talk in religious terms to anyone, especially a child. No parent has ever used Plato to explain a rainbow. Children have as much susceptibility to religion as they do to colds and peer presure. When you're in the womb, you already have a God...and She's physically connected to you, providing you with everything you need (and no fetus has ever bothered to ask why). Sooner or later, you're cast out of this Ovarian Eden, and no angel with a flaming sword is necessary to convince you that you can never, ever return to that blessed state. So to make up for it, you have (if you're lucky) twin gods to look out for you for a while. It's not such a big step to transfer those feelings to something "up there" who watches lovingly or judgingly over you. Every religion ever practiced uses "Father" and "Mother" to refer to its deities...isn't that a bit of a giveaway? Philosophy and religion are as ultimately pointless as anything else we've created. Can we find meaning in them anyway? Absolutely...but it will just be a passing truth that serves its purpose until we no longer need it. Unlike truth, we can find meaning in anything if we look hard enough. Same goes for meaninglessness. I highly recommend finding meaning in eating, drinking, breathing, screwing, and pooping. Also sneezing, farting, and the hiccups. You're gonna do them anyway- no sense leaving them out as so many religions and philosophies have done before. What's really nice is if this meaning ends up including ways to make other people happier. An inappropriate belch is sometimes just the thing to bring a smile. An atheist who listens to a friend's problems is worth more than a million preoccupied zealots...but the inspiration for a single hymn of beauty justifies a religion. I'm done (thank god!). I have to go take a holy crap and then make sure my furry angels have enough food and water.

Welcome back, brother. I missed you. Try to make Cal-Prog, eh? You, me and Garion could swill a beer and wax philosophic all night. I, too, was the victim of a catholic up-bringing (guilt, supported by fear with a huge helping of responsibility to frick up a youth) and would love to hear your opinion of non-Japanese sushi chefs. Your words above, reflect the things I cannot put into meanful words. Thank you.

Thank You, Reed... But I am not righteous, only flawed, like anyone.

Velvetclown wrote:

HEY! Who turned on Mtv?

I haven't Master Debated in years.. Errr, weeks. 

Okay, okay, last night, but I couldn't sleep and Shanon Tweed was on Showtime.

danbo wrote: James Lee wrote: Welcome back, brother. I missed you. Try to make Cal-Prog, eh? You, me and Garion could swill a beer and wax philosophic all night. I, too, was the victim of a catholic up-bringing (guilt, supported by fear with a huge helping of responsibility to frick up a youth) and would love to hear your opinion of non-Japanese sushi chefs. Your words above, reflect the things I cannot put into meanful words. Thank you. Thank You, Reed... But I am not righteous, only flawed, like anyone.

Yes James come on down to Whittier in June.

danbo wrote: I haven't Master Debated in years.. Errr, weeks.                              Okay, okay, last night, but I couldn't sleep and Shanon Tweed was on Showtime.

I resemble that debate err i mean

Thanks for putting me in some awsome company Musical Box but I am not worthy.  These gents be far ahead of anything I could do. 

Garion81 wrote: danbo wrote: James Lee wrote: Welcome back, brother. I missed you. Try to make Cal-Prog, eh? You, me and Garion could swill a beer and wax philosophic all night. I, too, was the victim of a catholic up-bringing (guilt, supported by fear with a huge helping of responsibility to frick up a youth) and would love to hear your opinion of non-Japanese sushi chefs. Your words above, reflect the things I cannot put into meanful words. Thank you. Thank You, Reed... But I am not righteous, only flawed, like anyone.   Yes James come on down to Whittier in June.

Sounds like the perfect birthday gift to myself!

But "non-Japanese sushi chefs" is one of the few things I don't have any opinion on.

...I guess if I had to choose, I'd prefer my sushi chef to be Japanese, but that's about it. Hmmm...

Now you really got me thinking!

oliverstoned wrote: You have ruin this topic words are empty

It doesn't get funnier than that. Any time I see a post that does nothing but complain about another post being useless it tickles my deepest sense of absurd irony. Who says the French have trouble with humor?  

I truly think that music is the answer to the dilemma posed by selling echoes.

It comes with the caveat that the listener needs to be selective in his/her choice of music - but simply having joined this discussion forum means that you've already made the right decision

Of all art forms, only music physically touches you; in the form of sound waves. This has been proven to affect people biologically in terms of the chemical reactions the waves promote.

Science aside, and back to the more mystical realms, simply focussing on the ears when listening to music - ie listening in a darkened room with the volume up - can transport you into a deeply personalised dream world. Here, unlike with psychedelic drugs, it is possible to focus on things that are important to you, draw your own conclusions - and remember it.

This does not have to be a solitary activity either, as the right kind of music as background can promote conversations on deep levels. I have enjoyed many such conversations whilst listening to "Selling England..." for example. Whether such conversations are consequential or not is largely irrelevant, but having them frequently seems to assist the brain in focussing on what is important to the individual and the group to which he/she belongs.

It is but a short step from focussing the brain to having ideas, and a short step from there to acting upon those ideas - given motivation and energy. If you think, for example, that the human race is on it's way to self-destruction, then focus on what you can do to stop it - or at least help slow down the processes. If everyone did that, then maybe, just maybe, the madness would stop.

Of course, such "fireside" conversations are nothing new or revalatory - and work best with plentiful supplies of whiskey and "smoke" - but when teamed up with good music; Man! There are few things in life that are more enjoyable!

Expression of the soul, that are the words that have been used to diminish art to something meaningless.

Art is about OTHERS. You don't just perform an art to satisfy your own desires, that would be unartful. Art is about making the world more beautiful, for the sake of beauty, other people, divinity, or the concept itself.

Music is by far the best artform to do this.

I would think that selfish art can be beautiful too - since every soul is different, it can be fascinating to look inside and witness an individual soul - to appreciate the good bits along with the bad.

When I perform, it generally is from a selfish perspective - I would love to think that I was benevolent enough to be attempting to create something amazing in order to enrich other's lives, but generally I don't.

Maybe it's just me, but when I perform music I've written, it's generally with a sense of "This is the music I've been working hard to create, I'm performing it to the best of my abilities and loving every second simply for the sake of recreating my music. Your positive feedback is a real ego-stroking bonus, but the bar is behind you if you don't like it!

I hope they charged the dog..."

I think that music that can be perceived as coming from the depths of the soul is the most profound and moving.

That's true- that's why total strangers can feel so connected to musicians, because they seem to share an understanding, something deep and personal. Then you find out they didn't even like that song when they wrote it... 

The dark side of that is: no matter how positive the feedback, no matter how many external sources praise you, an artist can still be dissatisfied with what they've done. I think that's the root of why so many greats burn out or blow themselves away one way or another.

The beauty in the artist's head is constantly filtered by the limitations of expression...and not always due to lack of proficiency; the mechanics of expression impose forms upon raw inspiration. What will music be like when we can extract the essence directly from the pure energies of the inner self?

I'd imagine that my soul's soundtrack is pretty similar to the incidental music of Wile E. Coyote cartoons.

JrKASperov wrote: Expression of the soul, that are the words that have been used to diminish art to something meaningless. Art is about OTHERS. You don't just perform an art to satisfy your own desires, that would be unartful. Art is about making the world more beautiful, for the sake of beauty, other people, divinity, or the concept itself. Music is by far the best artform to do this.

I'm afraid i've most likely known a lot more artists in my lifetime than you have, and it isnt about OTHERS. It's about baring yourself to others, it's about creating something to satisfy an urge you have to share what you feel with the rest of the world.

Also there are the artists who work on the muse level, the ones who suddenly have inspiration work as if possesd and when finished feel as if they were just a vessel for what was just created. This is common among artists.

Then there are "craftsmen" or as i call them... whores, who exploit a talent they have simply to make stuff that other people like or would like to buy, with no expression of the self, with no spiritual experiance.

Look, my family owned an art gallery, i still talk with many real artists, onese who make a living out of it, ones who get government contracts to create sculptures or paintings, or get hired to make huge murals for large companies. My mother is one of these (and also a goldsmith). True art is all about being absorbed in the self, but letting others share in it. Ifyou had it your way, art would still only be about painting murals of jesus like it was hundreds of years ago, carefullly tailored for the publics approval. and you say self expression is detremental to art.

I think there's a middle ground or combination of the two extremes.

The desire for self-expression is a selfish desire, but it requires someone else to actually fulfil (or it's not expression- you can't express yourself to yourself, just as you can never sneak up on yourself ).

While there are certainly artists who can exist without feedback, and performers who are only concerned about how the audience responds, most music-makers are somewhere in between the two.

One of the important things about rock and roll is that it straddles the middle ground between a personal statement and a public experience. Any performer will tell you that the difference between a good night and a great night is not how the band plays, but how much the audience got into the show.

indeed, I've always found that when the band plays well, the audience get it, if the audience gets it, the bands just gets better again - it is the wonderful thing about music, the symbiosis between players and audience.

Granted the players are always ultimately writing and playing for themselves (and the chicks ) but when an audience responds and you and your band can rise to meet that expectation - that's as good as it gets, as good as sex!

Of course if the audience is restricted to a drunk, a janitor and a barman then all the 'rawk and roll's!!! and 'hello cleveland's' in the world won't get your fire started

Hell, why do you think all actors (such a self-regarding lot) want to be rock stars, the immediacy  and enormity of the connection appeals to their super-size egos

On the other points about artists and their motivations - any artists (musicians, painter, writers etc) do what they do simply to satisfy their creative urges. most of 'em couldn't not write or paint, it is their way of making sense of reality and of expressing their view of it. And the expression of their creativity was purely selfish. Sure there was some need to have the approval of others for what they did, but the good ones just couldn't not create. it was like breathing to them, completely natural.

It's when the desire to please overrides the desire to create that the problems begin....

Art is a medium of sharing yourself and letting others identify themselves in you, it is selfish and if it isnt and not some testament to something you love (which is still selfish as far as im concerned) then it probably isnt real art. It's a craft or a trade, there is a distinction.

As Mcluhan once said, 'The medium is the message'. In other words, any form of expression(the medium) is a direct link into the mind and thoughts of the artists(the message).

This transcendant nature of art is what I find so appealing about it! We can also say that true artists create art not for the sake of appeasing an audience, but merely to express themselves.

James Lee wrote: I'm reminded of "Annie Hall".

Wait a minute James I have Marshall Mcluhan right here and he says your memory about him is wrong.

arcer wrote: indeed, I've always found that when the band plays well, the audience get it, if the audience gets it, the bands just gets better again - it is the wonderful thing about music, the symbiosis between players and audience. Granted the players are always ultimately writing and playing for themselves (and the chicks ) but when an audience responds and you and your band can rise to meet that expectation - that's as good as it gets, as good as sex!

I agree 100%, Arcer.  I remember seeing the Black Moon tour for ELP (1992 or 3?) and they were just going through the motions for the first 4 songs or so. Very little energy.  The audience was polite but no one had left their feet yet and we were waiting for that spark anything to say yeah this was what it was like 15 years ago. Then Emerson sat at the piano and started playing his solo pieces. (I know one was Close to Home and the other was, I think, Creole Dance.)  He was just on fire and after two standing ovations he just went nuts on stage and gave a great performance for the rest of the concert.  The other members picked up on it and joined in with him.  But just that on click between artist and audience sparked a great show out of what was turning into a mediocre one.

Garion81 wrote: James Lee wrote: I'm reminded of "Annie Hall".   Wait a minute James I have Marshall Mcluhan right here and he says your memory about him is wrong.

Don't you wish life was really like that?