Cool, much appreciated. :up:

Like I said, I'm not well read on this topic, and I hold a provisional view of Chomsky at best, so I'd be curious to hear a specific argument from you about why you find him so "diametrically opposite" to what you seem to think is reality? This is an honest question and I welcome any ideas.

Language is a system of thought. It's communicated very rarely, whether by sign or through speech. So it's communicative properties aren't what's essential. One can communicate with a hairstyle, bees with a waggle dance, etc. There are all kinds of ways to communicate, down through the insects. So language certainly isn't that. — Xtrix

I'll preface this by saying that this topic actually fascinates me to no end, but I'm not well read in this type of rocky terrain (mixed metaphor; what do you have to say about those? Do they "communicate"?), so I'm just tossing out a few informal thoughts for informal consideration.

What do you mean by system of thought? Are there multiple systems of thought, language being one? It looks like you're trying to distinguish between a "system of thought" and "communication". Is that correct or no?

Because I don't understand what "system of thought" is supposed to mean, I'm not clear on how it differs from communication. So, for instance, when you say "Language is a system of thought. It's communicated very rarely..." is "it's" referring to language, or to a system of thought? If language, then to say that language is communicated very rarely sounds like a non sequitur; language communicates various meanings with success all the time: "I'm replying to your post here on TPF because I find it interesting". Is that not a sufficient communicational use of language? Did you receive no communication from me when you read that sentence? Or, if "it's" refers to "system of thought" then I can't really imagine what you would be trying to say there.

Slowly been learning this...devoting all my creative energy into a piece that's above my pay grade. It's a good experience.

Donka.

https://www.addictinggames.com/funny/burger-time ....

Oh yeah, I released this new album. My best stuff yet...kind of wondering if I'll write music again...

https://matthewanderson.bandcamp.com/album/the-window

Sounds like a change in your perception. And/or if you're putting out a different energy these days, people will respond differently, and your perception of them will change. Inner development is good!

Edit, nevermind, I see he was banned.

"Life is sacred". Claims like these feel supra-rational; i.e., rationality actually has nothing to say about such a claim, because it can't, via it's own rules. The claim functions above rational thought. For life to be sacred, it needs to be other than rational. And it certainly is so. This feels like a good beginning point.

Not much, sorry @Wallows; I know you requested a response from me on this topic. And I know I brought in rationality on my own, there.

I guess a natural rebuff to my post would be "why begin with 'sacred' as a concept"? And I would counter, "why begin anywhere else?" I'm a true existentialist, I guess...

Jung is under-appreciated.

True, I'm just one of the few nostalgic types around here I guess. Or if anything, I think the sort of spiritual analogy of being "banned" hits me, or something. It's that pesky Christian-ese.

I agree that it was justified, and that he had a poor signal-to-noise ratio, at least in theory...I just find it sad, in a weird way, to see cantankerous folks who boiled my blood suddenly gone. I don't know, it's a weird paradox. Maybe the "iron sharpens iron" trope. Posters who were essentially my polar opposite getting banned makes me feel less...present.

I certainly didn't get along well with TS or S, but it's weirdly saddening to see them get banned, as long time posters. And I agree with @Wallows, I was waiting for that inaugural Terrapin OP...I think I even called him out on that once...

Damn, I wanted to get in on this.

A disturbingly insane idea. There are lots of low quality phil of religion threads, of course, but you can't strong arm or wish-fulfill your way into the type of philosophical milieu you wish you existed in. The reality is that you exist in one where there's a large push (often from younger people) to ask these questions, albeit often poorly.

The more interesting question is why all these threads exist.

I've made plenty of ungracious exits, and then plenty of ungracious entrances afterwards. I'm pretty sure no one is enriched, but here I am. Btw, your name is an annoying non sequitur.

What I got out of Job, over many years of being brought up very Christian, was, weirdly, the Christian gospel narrative itself. Job as a blameless, "upright" dude nonetheless suffered greatly. So...his "works", his actions, didn't win him any favors; he still faced suffering. ("not by works alone", etc.) No matter how perfect he was, he still suffered. He wasn't exempt. He does function as a Christ figure, of sorts. But, outside of Christianity, this is a lesson that rings, if anything, even truer. The spirit of the story breathes even clearer: pain will find you; suffering will find you; you are not special, just because you follow the rules. And, as all religions attest to, the experience of suffering, if accepted humbly, leads to wisdom. And wisdom is a beautiful gift; an esoteric gift.

Philip K. Dick has nothing on you. Let me know when your first (or latest) novel is out!

:brow:

If you ever wanted to hear the art rock record I've been working on for four years (well before I began annoying the shit out of people on here) which I've finally completed...well, now you can listen to a pesky little sampler and then wait two weeks until you can actually listen to the whole album...

Preacher, why should anyone take your word for it?

Much like Socrates, I'd take any really important information from some super-being, from that super-being. — jorndoe

Do you take this really important information directly from Socrates?

Trash! Sounds like it was written by Max Martin? If not, his mark has been made.

See ya soon

Question: Is music just a pattern of notes? It seems to be the case because it doesn't matter which frequencies form the basis of the piece so long as the intervals between notes are carefully crafted. — TheMadFool

I don't get what you mean. A single frequency forms the basis of a musical note, and then tons of other frequencies are built on it instantly based on a lot of factors (the harmonic series; the resonance of the instrument, the resonance of the room, frequency masking and it's result etc). Maybe you meant notes, not frequencies? If so I still don't get what you mean if you meant that "It doesn't matter which [notes] form the basis of the piece as long as the intervals between notes are carefully crafted". Why would it not matter? The difference in tone between D major and D flat major, for instance, is pretty huge, aesthetically. I'm probably missing your point here. But I also don't understand what "isn't music just a pattern of notes" means, either. As if reducing something like music to the mechanical workings of it, to mere acoustics, can define or explain music. So no, reducing music to it's mechanical acoustic properties doesn't create a canvas for building "speech music". I mean I guess you could just sing whatever you have to say?...

:ok:

Get outside dude! I sometimes go on walks in the city for hours. Sometimes seeing a new corner of the city I've never laid eyes on sparks the imagination. Good for the soul if nothing else.

Being a musician can you tell me the differences and similarities between music and language? — TheMadFool

I think I gave a few above. Generally, language conveys meaning, and music can maybe suggest some meaning (at best), but then things get hairy because language (body language, etc) can also suggest, and some music beats you over the head.

Music is about harmony between sounds. A musical note, A for example, by itself isn't music but if followed by other notes in a particular order we get music. As far as I know notes are particular frequencies. — TheMadFool

I don't wanna split hairs, but I consider drone music to be music. So, if you sit on A for 12 minutes...and you make it sound nice...it's music. Maybe music is about an emotional response to sound? Maybe.

In English for example the sound "K" is distinguishable at any frequency of the musical scale. That's how songs work right — TheMadFool

If I can get metaphorical, then no. Musical keys, for instance, possess their own "personalities". The classic example is that D major is "bright" and "intense", whereas D flat major (one half step down, so one "step" in the western scale down) is considered "lush" and "beautiful". Tones seem to depend on their scale location in terms of how they're experienced by listeners.

But how did you arrive at that conclusion?

I do. I was a little buzzed last 'eve.

I mean what you say may be so for yourself, but are you entitled to extrapolate that it must therefore be so for others? — Janus

I don't see how this is an argument because i can turn the reverse around on you, no? Can you extrapolate that it must therefore be so for others "for yourself", within your view?

But, as a quick argument for my position... I would say that "reverence" is a concept that originally obtained within a religious context. Reverence suggests something "holy", something "set apart". You can make an argument that "nature" or "humanity" fill the role of something "set apart", maybe, but you're still indebted to the original religious context, and so, at the least, you're required to show how the old religious context of this concept is out dated, and how your new context of understanding this concept holds new water. If that makes sense.

Besides the idea of nature is not necessarily confined to phenomena (See Spinoza). — Janus

Was just using your language there.

The only other candidates for absolutes would seem to be nature and humanity. Can they also be counted as divinities, worthy of our reverence? Reverence for all of nature, including humanity, would seem to be the most useful influence I can imagine right now, given the current looming convergence of crises that have resulted precisely because of a general lack of this kind of reverence. — Janus

I'm pretty dubious that the concept of having reverence can obtain (or not be a lie to oneself) without a concept beyond the given (nature) or the personal/relational (humanity).

Congratulations on discovering a colour that expresses equally the notions of cancer and diarrhea while dressing its inherent abomination up as an innocuous neutrality. This is surely the colour of evil. I need a drink. — Baden

I literally lol'd.



I know how to do a lot of crazy shit with digital audio, but I don't know the first thing about "warm" colors. You might as well have said...any other word. But yeah, it looks like s***.

Sometimes it's grey.....

What, the color of poop?

Yoaw this gr/a/e/y just makes me feel even more boring than I actually am. Maybe this is actually the ideal TPF color though? Boring AF? Or, alternatively, wouldn't it be more ideal to choose a color that makes people think we're less boring than we actually are? Without, of course, slipping to the other extreme and trying to frame ourselves as "red" people (god forbid). What about a nice magenta? Is that back in style yet?? Oh! What about whatever the fuck it was before this disastrous change??

The reticence of red @'s are still problematic, oh powers that be.

What is this? Gray? Grey? I can't fucking tell. I'm so ungrateful.

Yoaw this red is so bad

Or my homeboi Berdyaev?