Second, one needs a 'controlled nuclear explosion' to generate the amount of power needed to create a laser beam powerful enough — ernestm

I have to say I never considered just what this laser was.

Yeah, but who wants to live in fear in perpetually? — Wallows

Under STI America would no longer live in fear and why should they, and their allies.
‘Might is right’ finally confirmed.
Happy wife (USA) happy life (the rest).

The world of MAD actually looks quite civilised in retrospect, in that it seems to have kept everyone reasonably clear headed. The Cuban missile crisis being one example. How would such an event pan out today?
Did MAD actually work or have we just been lucky?

But I’m not sure if STI can really give a country security in an age of Terrorism. Assuming it did then, if America had the power and security of SDI, geo politics would definitely look different. How could anyone stop America doing this and what would it do to America as a nation?

If I’m reading you right you’re for the Strategic Defence Initiative. If so is that because it finalises the situation once and for all as opposed to the constant threat under Mutually Assured Destruction? And that only one power have this ability.

Edit: Mutually Assured Destruction as a preventative idea works only if opposing sides are operating rationally, right?

Why have we decided to make certain words objectionable. — Frank Apisa

The words have to be said first before someone can be offended. Who uses these words?

I think you’re right about this language being vulgar, ‘of the people’, as you say, the ones who eat with their hands.

They’re using it to separate themselves from a class they don’t like and they’re using it as a weapon against that class. They know it defines who they are and they know it offends people. It’s through that language that they maintain that difference. Maybe the class that uses knifes and forks are pretentious, materialistic, maybe they feel threatened by ‘the people’, but don’t feign shock when they’re offended by the language.

Why, I’m assuming you do, why do you prefer to use ‘cock’ over ‘penis’?
— Brett

What makes you think I do? — Frank Apisa

I was asking because I was wondering if a person might use ‘fuck’ instead of ‘intercourse’ because the rawness feels more real, more honest.

Why, I’m assuming you do, why do you prefer to use ‘cock’ over ‘penis’?

I truly do not understand. — Frank Apisa

It threatens language by using such words as a substitute for a word that has an etymology.

As I said, it’s not extending a vocabulary, it’s just replacing a word with an alternative that has limited meaning. Most people will know what penis means, not as many will know what ‘cock’ means. It also suggests that the people choosing to use such language have no interest in reaching out to others outside their milieu.

Why have we decided to make certain words objectionable. — Frank Apisa

I suspect it’s because people, adults, regard them as infantile.

So...why not use "cock" for "penis"...and why, oh, why...would using cock be considered so offensive? — Frank Apisa

Because if I say ‘cock’ to people who don’t agree with its use they’ll stop listening to me. If I’m speaking to them then my intent is to communicate.

I like to be in control of what I’m saying, well I try. I adjust my language to the occasion, the people. They’re only words but you can’t take them back once spoken. People can be hurt, or misunderstand you if you use language they’re not familiar with. Of course you can use the language any way you like, but language is about communication so why not use the most efficient word and one understood by the other person?

I interpret your post as meaning how do we co-exist? How it’s done is another thing, but by reaching agreement would be the way so far.

Not an easy thing to do. At first I thought smaller communities would make this easier, but I don’t think it’s ever been easy.

Harmony: maybe it’s just an ideal. I think the reality is a pragmatic agreement that promises some degree of security for both sides. The idea of security could be many things. If you think about what you want personally and think about what’s stopping you it’s likely to be other people. They want the same thing. So that understanding is pretty important. Then it comes down to compromise. But the other party has to be on the same wave length.

History suggests that sometimes you may have to pick up the sword.

Great leadership might be the way.

Actually, this is more about freedom of movement than speech.

this forum is social media. — ernestm

That’s so funny. Is that elitism?

Which I why I said this:

“I don’t think these words exist by accident. “

They’re purposely offensive, or maybe more accurately, contrary or rebellious . That’s what they’re for. Why? I don’t know.

all other things being equal, a person unwilling to use certain words has fewer to use than someone willing to use those words. Fewer words = a more limited vocabulary. — Frank Apisa

Using these words isn’t extending a vocabulary. Those words being used are just replacing another word. But it’s interesting that you think it’s extending a vocabulary by counting the words used, because when I hear people using these words it sounds like using twice as many words as necessary:

‘ I saw the ******* **** come out of the ******* **** bar, little *** she was, the ***** with her, ***** he’s a big ******, she’s a ******* ****!

There is no art that is "better" than other art; there is only art. You will find that you like some art, and don't like some other art. This is the nature of you (i.e. all of us humans), art and the world. — Pattern-chaser

Unfortunately what you’re talking about here is just consumerism, which maybe explains the state of art today.

You don't trust an artist, any more than you admire a scientist. — Pattern-chaser

Its because art is considered so subjective that we need to have this trust. If an artist is going to take us somewhere, like Picasso did with Cubism, then we have to trust that he’s doing it with some integrity (that may not be the best word), unlike the copycats who came along on his coat tails.

This is part of the problem for me. If the copycats come along, and because art is subjective that work is given as much value as the originator then it demeans the original and turns art into a commodity.

As for measurement, if you're trying to measure art - aesthetically or otherwise - in order to judge it, I think you may misunderstand art. :chin: — Pattern-chaser

At its most basic art, visual art for instance, can be measured aesthetically or otherwise. These are ‘The Elements and Principles of Art’: line, shape,form, colour, value, texture and space. A shape for instance is created when a line crosses itself, a shape is given form with tone.

Artists use these elements consciously and unconsciously.

I feel these words are almost anti language. They’re a primitive vocalisation and in their use potentially a threat to language.

Edit: a threat to language and understanding.

I don’t think these words exist by accident. You feel they should be for every day use. But if that happens then they’re no longer the word they were.

For me...the notion that someone will essentially say, "If you use certain words, I am going to be offended"...is so idiotic, it embarrasses me to have to deal with it. — Frank Apisa

It’s worth considering that some of the words you are talking about are used specifically to be offensive, to insult someone or denigrate them. Let’s not pretend these words are always used innocently.

For me...the notion that someone will essentially say, "If you use certain words, I am going to be offended"...is so idiotic, it embarrasses me to have to deal with it. — Frank Apisa

I didn’t say I was offended.

Fact is, a better case can be made that individuals who do not use those words are, de facto, more limited in vocabulary. — Frank Apisa

Go ahead, make your case.

Adult language will probably help you answer a lot of your questions.

Art is art if the artist says it is. — Pattern-chaser

This is probably based on the comment of Duchamp. It has some merit, but it only leads us to ask “What is an artist?”

How do we trust the artist, how do we know he’s being honest and not just playing a game?

I think I missed something in that last post.

Art is man made, so of course any evaluation is subjective. That’s doesn’t preclude us from understanding and appreciating what we might regard, or construct, as more valuable in terms of art. Somewhere I believe there is a way of determining this in a rational way, as opposed to the way Schzophr regards it.

But none of that is non-subjective re valuing or evaluating anything. — Terrapin Station

I don’t think I can, or need to, prove that these evaluations in art are non-subjective.

I haven’t seen anything to convince me otherwise that art is common only to people. If this was not true then, if it appeared that other life forms created art, then there would be grounds for believing there was an objective evaluation of art.
Though there is a problem with that, because if someone showed me an example of art being created by an animal then I could not be sure we were back to the subjective again. So I can’t see any way of proving an objective evaluation of art.

That doesn’t mean I don’t believe that there is work that is greater than work that is lesser. For some reason I do believe that, and in this post I’m trying to build an argument that I can put into a language that is beyond ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘brilliant’, etc., all obvious and useless subjective views.

In schools in this part of the world, as a teacher, you are discouraged from teaching ‘creativity’ in art classes on the basis that if you can’t assess it then you can teach it. If a parent comes to you, concerned that their child got low marks in creativity, how are you going to explain to them why they don’t have it?

Creativity shouldn’t be confused with expression, which is what children do with paint.

So I’m looking for a set of rules, a language, that’s understood and agreed upon to move a bit further up the curve, closer to that line we cross into art. Sport is very easy, as you say. My example of writing still holds, I think. And not because sophistication is indicated by the number of words as you suggest but by the control over those words.

Let me try this using the soccer analogy. There is one player among the team of players who are all extremely skilled. This player takes more goals and creates more opportunities for others to take goals. He doesn’t use any other moves or techniques that the others don’t use, but there is something about how those skills when he applies them that create magic to watch.
Those people who go to the games regularly or watch his team on tv recognise that there is something special going on here, within the rules of the game. Those who do not follow soccer would not recognise what they are seeing, what is happening in front of them. But everyone else does: the fans, the coach, the team, management, the media.
The important thing is that he is playing within the rules, the language, that others operate within and those that watch recognise.

Is this merely consensus when it’s the very rules he operates under, those that confine him and direct him, that prove and demonstrate his skill above all others. The rules aren’t arbitrary, nor are they interpreted differently by each individual watching. If, to perform his magic, he breaks the rule then he’s immediately penalised, and everyone can see, because they know, when he breaks a rule.

The rules of language. These are understood and agreed on. Without grammar sentences would be unintelligible, the meaning would be lost.

Then someone who has proven themselves to be a master of this functional form of expression or communication suddenly breaks the rules. An example of this would be Virginia Woolf or James Joyce. Joyce wrote ‘Dubliners’, ‘A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man’, then ‘Ulysses’ and then finally ‘Finnegans Wake’.

‘Finnegans Wake’ broke the rules completely. The trajectory of his writing is like a curve moving from functional writing steadily through to something completely unknown. Somewhere on that curve he crossed over into art, but he was still operating in a form rooted in tradition and the rules of language, even if that meant breaking those rules

?? How would understanding not be something dependent on mentality? — Terrapin Station

Well your right, but in this conversation it seems to me that by subjective we are meaning something determined to be ‘good’ or ‘art’ by personal likes and dislikes, personal preferences, and because of that it’s impossible to determine whether ‘Macbeth’ is better than the film ‘Transformers’.

When I said “At the very least it can be judged by how easily the reader understands what the writer is saying. I don’t think this is a subjective, or based on likes or dislikes, it has to reach a certain standard to succeed at what it sets out to do”, I was referring to the idea that writing has to reach a degree of function to be understood. The writing of a ten year old is more advanced than a six year old. This develops until a degree of sophistication is reached that is determined by everyone around us. If it can’t be read and understood then it fails in intent.

What we require in writing to be understood are the accepted rules of language, otherwise it’s meaningless.

Some writers develop great sophistication in their use of language, but we would still not call it art. It’s just extremely functional writing. But it’s recognised as being more advanced than how people generally write.

It’s the idea that the community is the collective, (the whole), of the people (the parts).

If the parts have properties/qualities different from the whole then it’s in conflict with the whole, and vice versa. Then the community is not representative of the people, as it’s purported to be.

So this is clearly a case of a part having properties that the whole does not have. — Troodon Roar

I find this an interesting idea applied to communities or society.

Because he wants to.

By doing what you’ve just done.

You didn’t reply to my post. I asked whether it was my comments you were calling rubbish or my paraphrasing Zhoubotong.
Just in case it was mine I’d like to make it clear that I’m in agreement with you, though your posts haven’t been successful in convincing others.
One of my comments was: ‘I know a movie script is a tool, but looking at things in terms of the same form, writing, then ‘Macbeth’ contains a lot more than the script for ‘Transformers’, the poetry for a start‘.
What I’m saying is that in writing we can at least judge one piece from another based on how the sentences are structured, syntax, etc. At the very least it can be judged by how easily the reader understands what the writer is saying. I don’t think this is a subjective, or based on likes or dislikes, it has to reach a certain standard to succeed at what it sets out to do. If you agree with this then it can be taken further: the script for ‘Macbeth’ and ‘Transformers’ must at least have achieved this criteria. After that they begin to separate in relation to content. ‘Macbeth’ continues on with other attributes that ‘Transformers does not have.
It’s a shame we’ve got stuck on Shakespeare. It would be a lot easier to refer to some contemporary written work, then we might be able to compare apples with apples.

An argument from pure ignorance. — I like sushi

Do you mean my post or Zhoubotong’s?

This conversation has largely circled around comparisons of Shakespeare’s play with film, and the film used as an example was ‘Transformers’. So it became about film versus the written word: which was the most successful, which was favoured the most. The argument based on popularity clearly falls on the side of film. The idea that students would prefer ‘Transformers’ over ‘Macbeth’ in the classroom, for whatever reason, is fairly obvious.
Zhoubotong maintains that ‘Tranformers’ carries as much moral content as ‘Macbeth’, so why should ‘Macbeth’ be regarded as superior. He argues that it’s through the persistence of the elites that it still holds this position, even though its not viewed that way by most of the population.He’s probably right.It’s possible that without the elites Shakespeare may have become relatively unknown.
And why shouldn’t ‘Transformers’ be used as an educational tool over Shakespeare, given that students, generally, will just shut down on Shakespeare, with the result that they come away with nothing but a dislike for Shakespeare?
So Zhoubotong goes for film first as a learning tool over the written word, or at least regards it as an equal.(I’m think that’s his position).
But, the idea of books and the written word have one quality film does not have, and that’s in the area of literacy. Whether a film is developed from an existing novel or from an original script there has to be a written work before the film:the script comes first.
Writing, literacy, an understanding of grammar, etc. cannot be learned from watching a film, it comes about from both reading and writing.
So while Shakespeare may no longer be considered of value, the written word itself still is.
Something determines the superiority of one piece of writing over another. Something about the movie script convinces millions to be invested, something about it inspires the director and actors to take it on (and it’s not always money).
From those written words all the ideas, images, symbols and meaning are converted into film.
That script for ‘Transformers’ is the source from what the film became.(Let’s not forget that ‘Macbeth’ is the script for a play).
There must be some quality in the writing behind all that.Call it art if you like, and also concede it reaches a certain standard, a particular quality that might be rare or distinguished in scriptwriting, which is what the writer was consciously working towards.
I know a movie script is a tool, but looking at things in terms of the same form, writing, then ‘Macbeth’ contains a lot more than the script for ‘Transformers’, the poetry for a start.
This is a bit if a ramble and I don’t want to make it too long.If I haven’t started to make my point then I probably don’t have one.

Sorry, that’s just letting people off lightly. You’re right,they are not special. There needs to be more humility and more genuine curiosity.

Well, Judaka, then they’re not really about philosophy. People on this forum probably regard themselves as intelligent people but their attitudes belie that. There are posters who try to explore sensitive ideas and straight away the street fighters enter the room, we know who they are.

It must be a very uninviting place to a new comer.

Yes we did. There are posters who seek to further a discussion and there are others who shut it down. Discussions just never go anywhere. There’s no exploration, no original ideas, no testing of thoughts.