Nice work.

I still have a problem with expression. It sounds inadequate to me. Conveying experience is better for me. But that still feels inadequate, but if that means conveying your sense of existence at a particular point in time then fine.

If I’m at the beach, swimming in the surf on a fine clear day, and I want to make that the subject of a piece of art what should I focus on: sight, sound, touch, hearing, smell, and then my state of mind at the time and my perceptions switching about with the priority of my senses, A painting is not going to do that. Obviously that’s a big call to catch all that and the materials I use compromise me even more. But if it’s just going to be a very good painting of a wave on a perfect day then that’s all it can be. And there are thousand of images of waves out there reducing its value even more.

Multimedia might work here, and conceptual work that doesn’t tie things down, that keep your mind tracking over the subject. But you can see where the inadequacy lies, that what’s produced relates very little to the experience, and obviously that experience takes place as consciousness.

So for instance, what was called new journalism that appeared in the sixties is possibly more effective in telling a story than a novel. One, because it doesn’t pretend to be the real thing like a novel does, and two because it includes the subject and the writer; it has facts and the experience of the writer observing the subject.

My other thought, as I mentioned, is the modern consciousness. Is it real? If so then does it need new ways of regarding itself?

Edit: a person could sit on the beach and write down on paper every word that comes to mind over a 60 minute period then hang it in a gallery. Is that any less than a painting?

The ends could justify the means but only if the means are just. If the means are just so are the ends. — NOS4A2

I would agree with you. But expect posters to jump about the definition of “just”.

If we were actually in the thick of it we (most people) would be too emotional to do anything close to an objective analysis. — ZhouBoTong

Or too inadequate. I think some experience is required to do this. I don’t know what would contribute to that experience. Even with experience maybe only so many would be up to it. Anyway I’m not sure if this is really the subject of the OP.

In 1965 Martin Luther led a march from Selma to Montgomery. At some point he feared there would be real violence ahead and turned the march around. He was criticised for this. What do you think of his decision, should he have done that? How would you go in that position? Is this man a leader?

From what?

But they also got to be presidents — Noah Te Stroete

And you just take examples that serve your purpose.

Just as you can’t relate to someone who is on disability — Noah Te Stroete

Dirty.

But do you think I’m disgusting for having opinions? — Noah Te Stroete

First of all you brought up the word disgusting. I said it was a luxury to sit around theorising about means and ends.

Of course you can have an opinion, and my opinion is that it’s a luxury to sit around theorising about means ands ends when there are those who must actually do it.

Why bother with leaders of evil countries. There’s no debate there about their intentions.

World leaders worldwide don’t care about you. Why do you care about them? They are mainly concerned about themselves and what will give them a good name. — Noah Te Stroete

It’s not just world leaders who must make decisions based on outcomes. It’s leaders or people required to make decisions that you must also consider. If you think you’re world has been constructed out of corruption then I can’t argue with you. But do you really believe the benefits you receive now aren’t the result of someone making tough decisions in the past?

So all decisions made by all politicians are corrupt?

Was the decision to send convoys from the US to Britain, carrying men and equipment, knowing that there were submarines that would sink some of the ships corrupt? Was sending men up into the air during the Battle of Britain, knowing that many wouldn’t return, corrupt?

It’s not accurate. You’ve chosen only to look at politicians. What about politicians in wartime, the military who decide where to deploy soldiers, budgets and health decisions; where the money should go?

That’s an easy generalisation. Once again you are unlikely to have to make such a decision.

Isn’t it a luxury to sit around theorising about this idea and very likely never, ever having to make a decision, and yet there are those out there who must make these decisions.

I’m sure there’s meaning there but I don’t get it.

Fear is extremely important to my point because hell/jail/the gallows serve as threats to prevent people from doing what they want — TheMadFool

But the gallows doesn’t stop that.

That which we want to do but shouldn't do needs disincentives and being evil assures eternal torment in hell. The way the reward-punishment system in religion is structured suggests in no uncertain terms that we prefer not to do good (why promise heaven?) and, not surprisingly to me, that we prefer to do evil (why threaten hell?). — TheMadFool

Like I said, if it’s all based on a belief in God then I can’t really engage with this idea of heaven being a reward.

How would you describe the world in terms of good and evil? Balanced? More evil? More good? — TheMadFool

I would say balanced and leaning towards good.

I’m not sure if “expression” is the right word in all this. It’s an inadequate word, it might even be a lie, being used to justify something. That part of us behind this idea, call it consciousness if you like, is far more valuable in inventing a car, or the engine. That’s taking our experience of the world and turning it into something understood as artifice, synthetic, no pretence about what it is, something that actually interacts constantly between consciousness and the world. A painting is totally synthetic, it’s inactive and does nothing. People talk about “art that changed the world”. No art ever changed the world. An individuals actions might change the world when their consciousness is transformed into action. A painting is inactive, it’s a very poor result of consciousness.

In a way art is an effort to tie something down, freeze a moment in time, like butterflies behind glass. It’s turning an experience into a corpse at best. If that’s the “expression” then it is a lie.

I don’t really want to stir this up again, but it got me thinking.

I’ve tried many mediums and forms to try and capture (for better use of a word) my experience in the world. But I feel like I’ve failed in every attempt. Whatever I do never quite makes it. Not that anyone would necessarily know that. But I’ve realised I’ll always fail because art is artifice, a synthetic version of my experience. How could it possibly succeed at capturing my experience?

Well I like that one.

Edit: but you still messed up the grass a little.

That said, at critical events in US history like the Civil War or the Depression/WWII these "power figures" (in a more modified American sense) or "centralizers" did step up and expand the state and we generally look upon Lincoln and FDR favorably even though they were undoubtedly centralizers who took considerable executive privilege. — BitconnectCarlos

Does that suggest they are essential figures in history or culturally?

Interesting, that could be something which naturally tends to happen when there is a major war. — IvoryBlackBishop

Or it could happen in a moment of history when a dynamic action moving forward is required to avoid degeneration.

Edit: degeneration; I don’t think that’s the best word choice.

Use vegetate.

... as a means of distinguishing anger (as an example of a 'natural tendency') from civility (which I introduced as a convenient catch-all term for what you were describing as choosing sometimes not to assert anger). — Isaac

Anger = natural tendency

Civility = free will applied, creates cultural styles

Since all intelligent animals have a culture, then all intelligent animals have the possibility that the behaviour they exhibit is 'learnt behaviour', yes? — Isaac

Not necessarily. Not all behaviour can be learned. Cultural norms are learned, passed on through mimicry.

So what I'm asking is - if any exhibited behaviour could be learned behaviour (including the behaviour of other animals), then how do you know that anger-associated behaviour is not learned (but rather is a 'natural tendency'), but civility is learned? — Isaac

Anger could be learned as a tool to get what you want. Animals may mimic their elders. But you have to possess that anger first. It’s real, not an act. It’s like our mind learning to speak or write, there has to be something inherent in us to approach those possibilities.

But all creatures like us are embedded in a culture, s — Isaac

I understood your post to mean us and animals.

Embedded in culture was the point. Your post suggests that we are our culture. That was what I could not agree on. My position is that we create our culture, not the other way around.

I believe humans are motivated primarily by a desire to be happy. When a person's actions do not contribute to or even undermine their happiness, I consider those actions ignorant. — Tzeentch

Are you talking about modern humans or human nature since they stood on two legs? At what stage do you think a desire for happiness entered the picture?

A well-known "solution" to the problem of evil is that god allows evil because he desired to bestow free will upon us. Thus, we, possessed of free-will, have the liberty to do anything and "sometimes" we do evil and hence there is evil in the world. — TheMadFool

I just want to clarify this. You mean that in order for free will to exist, to be given it by God, we must be evil and good, there must be two opposites to chose from otherwise there is no free will. If we are just evil then there is no other way of acting and vice versa.

So therefore to have free will we must have a tendency for evil. So yes, God allowed for evil so that free will could exist.

Edit: but it’s an interesting notion that God gave us free will when he could have just made us good. Only in terms of the God, story though.

Would we have been complete if we were only good?

No, because we had to be free otherwise we were not complete.

I can’t really look at this through the idea of God creating man. So i suppose I shouldn’t be here.

in fact if free will has any role, it would be to allow the robot to be good, not bad. — TheMadFool

I can’t think of anything that’s only bad. So when you create a robot that’s bad then it’s not a very realistic proposition. God or nature did not create a bad creature. They created a creature capable of being good and bad, that is they were whole, complete. Whether you believe in God or not they have free will.

Ambiguous. What's a "real war"? That's definition got subject to revision after 9/11/2001, right? — Wallows

As soon as someone starts on definitions I know the conversation’s over.

not a personal whim. — Wallows

Not my words, yours.

We can't really forget nuclear, because it is the (deterrent) from full-blown conflict... nowadays — Wallows

But meanwhile real wars are going on.

What prevents conflict, isn't the whim of some general or politician; but, the threat of the conflict itself and the losses incurred or instilled through deterrents. — Wallows

But it doesn’t happen, does it? That has never stopped a war. You’re talking constantly in terms of defence. That’s fine, but the world doesn’t operate like that. Of course no one wants a war. But we get them and soldiers, not conscripts, are interested in it.

Forget nuclear in this conversation. That’s just a means of smothering the conversation. We’re talking about military action to win not just as defence. That soldiers and generals want to fight. They want to win. To win the war requires many battles. Each battle has a different objective. How many of those objectives would be a posture of battle ready but no action? Not too many. I don’t know if it’s a military theory to wait for attack. It doesn’t seem that common. Your theory seems to be just scare off the enemy.

Aspirational has nothing to do with reality. Hitler was never going to sit down over a cup of tea anymore than Bin Laden was.

Nowadays? Let’s not just talk as if it’s only western democracies who might engage in war.

Good, and it's the job of generals to keep the generals of your adversary occupied with not going to war. — Wallows

But it doesn’t work like that, does it? Otherwise there would be no war.

So we only train soldiers for defence, is that what you mean?

I don’t know enough about this to take it any further.

Why difficult?

I am. It's the delicate balance of the military (and even police) to maintain peace through adherence to some policy or line of reasoning, at least in the majority of the West. — Wallows

A peace keeping force? That’s pure politics.

No... the premise of WWII was that if Hitler invaded Poland, then England and France would retaliate. Nobody really thought Hitler would actually invade Poland; but, nevertheless, it happened. — Wallows

Then the premise of being battle ready for defence doesn’t work. Not that Britain was battle ready by any means. Your example of Poland can be used in many military operations. Most military exercises are offensive. Though I can’t claim to be an expert. But I can’t go along with your thoughts. You haven’t really given me enough to think any differently.

cities.

That’s not the same at all.
— Brett

Are you sure? — Wallows

Are you suggesting the police and military perform the same purposes?