Yikes, hard to wade through this with all the ad homs. I get it's sensitive material. But why is it? The actual topic of sources shouldn't be so sensitive that both sides are lashing out like this.

We live in a technological world of marvel and awe. All around us are technologies of wonder and miracle. Consider the awesome wonder of human technology and what immense role it serves in the existence and flourishing of human life. Consider how naked and starved human existence would suffer had human technology never been created, or if suddenly vanished. But most consider why you hold the weight of blank indifference toward the bright spectacle of the man made and artificial, which grants you life and and happiness — Alen White

We live in a technological world of horror and terror. All around us are technologies of dread and nightmare. Consider the awesome horror of human technology and what immense role it serves in the destruction and manipulation of human life. Consider how naked and starved human existence would never have suffered had human technology never been created, because creativity is an integral part of humanity itself, rendering that theoretical scenario tepid. But most, consider why you hold the weight of fully formed worship toward the twilit spectacle of the man made and artificial, which grants you bondage and suffering.

I want to debate the idea that human technology is awesome, wondrous, and sacred. — Alen White

There's nothing sacred about technologies used for mass murder, technologies used to feed addictions, etc. Those technologies might elicit awe (as in horror), or wonder, but there's nothing sacred about them. That's also a weird appropriation of a religious term that I don't think holds. It's one thing to be in awe of a theoretical sacredness of human volitional effort, but what that effort produces is neutral in relation to any kind of value you might place on the effort itself. The technologies themselves reflect the human condition; a condition in which technology is used for anything from freely debating ideas with strangers all over the world, to sex trafficking, arms dealing, etc.

I just re-clicked it from here to listen again, and noticed it started in the middle (at one of the best moments), but you should go back and listen through the whole piece if you haven't.

Sounds like your gout helped you understand Hume's argument. Doesn't sound meaningless.

Actually, ya do seem so close. What causes ya' ta' brake'off saw?

Nah, lad, but yer close. Oh so close. Do keep tryin'

Oh, clearly :love: your posts are so scintillatingly devoid of emotional appeal, it's simply seductive.

By the way, do you only respond to posts that allow you an opportunity to look smart? For instance, I'm waiting on a reply from you in the thread named "What is the difference between gnoseology and epistemology"?

Oh, then show me. Clearly my memory is "deplorable" (is that a nifty enough word for your ivy-league standard?)

I remember post after post where you ripped him/her to shreds. Was that some sort of Darth Vader tactic that I was unaware of?

Now you're on @Pseudonym's side once @Agustino joins in. :rofl: Why is this jig so familiar?

No, not about terminology.

So you don't care?

What do you think, personally?

I have so many pet peeves about big words that sound impressive. Vis-a-vis is one. Say it as simply as possible, people.

Not as good as a Spoonerism — charleton

Nah, malaprop is better.

Oooo, aso, liminal. Liminal is...liminal.

Malaprop is nice; especially in the context of the forum.

What is contemporary liberalism? That's the real question.

Good points. There’s nothing more enraging than band members or session players who come in unprepared, or try to fight my instructions. Play it how I told you, or you won’t be playing at all.

And I remember reading an essay by Henri Pointcare describing his creative process in maths. He spent weeks brooding over a problem, and then, the answer just “came”. It actually squares with one aspect of the artistic creative process as well. He also talked about “elegance” in that essay.

Oh right:

______ always makes me think of that time I accidentally ______, causing a an unexpected chain of events, culminating in ______.

Not everything that can be counted is worth having a clever maxim made in it’s honor, and not everything that counts can be turned into a clever maxim.

This would work better as like an exquisite corpse type thing in the form of a philosophical treatise.

My personal experience on both sides of the spectrum, a musician as well as an engineer, has shown me that music has shown me glimpses of joy beyond anything I've ever known, and yet it is so capricious that after the high it can (and often does) send me crashing into depths of unbearable misery. When I'm wearing my engineer's cap, life is more even tempered. Not awesome but not agonizing either.

But I think a lot of that comes from one's ability to share one's talents with the world. In a technical field, your productivity is immediately recognizable, quantifiable and dare I say profitable. But if you're a musician, artist, inventor, then your ideas are wholly inside your head until you can "prove" to the outside world that they are worthy. This often leads to frustration as well as disconnection from the world which fails to see what you see. — MobiusTripped

Well said; my experience is similar. It's also interesting to note that the large majority of engineers I've encountered were pursuing music at one point themselves, and then eventually ended up on the other side of the desk, usually just for financial reasons. It's rare to find an engineer who's not also a musician, to some degree. Even top engineers working with top artists often have their own side projects, or did at one point in time.

And yes, the issue of technical work being more immediately apparent, versus whether or not a new artist has anything to offer is a major component. This definitely takes a mental/emotional toll. At my day job, it's clear what I need to do to make my boss happy, and do my job properly. All things being equal, my job security, to the extent that I can control it, is based on me doing those things. As an independent artist, I can do everything in my power to make great art, and try to find an audience, but there's no correlation between that hard work, and career success.

utter devastation

Tell me one thing. Why did they change the name of the Triborough Bridge to the RFK? As if NYC traffic isn't bad enough. — T Clark

I don't live up there, but I know it as the Triborough Bridge; so I can't say. I live quite near the Verrazano at the moment.

It's cliche, but when I think about beautiful structures ( as someone who isn't particularly taken with visual beauty), I always think of the view when I walk over the Manhattan bridge, from Brooklyn to Manhattan. These pictures don't do the trip justice, but:

https://www.google.com/search?q=view+from+manhattan+bridge&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS768US768&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWq8P1g_rZAhUlnOAKHR5zB84Q_AUICigB&biw=1393&bih=730#imgrc=_

:up:

wot

I prefer "wut".

:clap:

I'm just now realizing how profound this poem was for me since childhood as I re-read it. The way that words that have no real meaning convey a story is a parallel to how music works, and to how I write both music and words....yeah, anyway

I'm partial to all of these words:

"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."

-Jabberwocky, Lewis Carroll

Oof, I don’t do well with having words put in my mouth, and I can’t keep going in circles like this. Till next time.

Since by your own admission you reject any use the Bible might have in giving us an insight into gods moral guidance I cant see what your argument is for. — charleton

That’s an egregious characature of what I said.

If you want to use the book as an example to uncover what the writer thought about god, then that would be more interesting. — charleton

Indeed, not interpreting scripture in a literal manner does just that because it naturally takes into account the unavoidable anthropomorphism of ancient religious texts.

But I fail to see what use it is, if you ignore anything we can learn about the portrayed character of god, to conclude any moral insights. Moral insights from a wager between god and his buddy Satan which ignore the basic facts of the scenario are worthless. — charleton

Another egregious caricature of what I said. You’re presenting the interpretation of scripture as a black and white affair; a nuanced approach to interpretation takes all various approaches to interpretation and attempts to judge which tool to use in which case. Surely you should know that since atheists know scripture better than Christians (of which I’m neither).

Again, respond to my argument with at least a fraction of the effort I put into responding to yours, and I’ll be happy to continue the discussion.

Millions misinterpreting scripture says nothing about my argument, and the argument isn’t original either; it’s well known. Try again.

Respond to my counter argument that you’re interpreting scripture literally rather than metaphorically just like the Christians you critique, and I’ll then respond to your points.

I read the text metaphorically. It’s a human story about human experience; of course the Old Testament depiction of God is barbaric; it was a barbaric time. To the contrary, the Israelite God was revolutionarily different to competing gods of the time. Today stories about God are told differently, based on the cultural milieu. The fact that you place so much significance on the Old Testament God in your arguments against the existence of a deity is ironically solely dependent on an Evangelical interpretation of scripture that considers it inspired and innerant, and most of all, unchanging, positioning the Old Testament God as something still valid to a modern milieu. It’s such an old and uninteresting argument, to be honest with you.