I agree, sort of.

First, I think I didn't claim that your existence made a cause in my dreams, and I did because I write a lot of word salad. I am sorry because it wasn't my intention. What I said is that the source of your existence seems legit to me because I had (literally) the same experience of interacting with you in both reality and dreams. For me, this is more than sufficient to claim that you actually exist. This is not about identifying a cause, but rather exploring the origin of why you influence certain experiences or stimuli in my life.

On the other hand, I even believe that my point would also be plausible if you were AI, because my argument is that I suggest you exist because you interfere in me. It is not possible to dream of God or Zeus because they never made an impact on me. But I consider it plausible to dream of you, Michael or Baden. Isn't this a good starting point to consider people real?

Whether my dream is irrelevant or not is not the case, Michael. The point is that I have knowledge and consciousness that you exist because you caused me certain experiences in both dreams and reality. Disagreeing with my point may mean that you do not exist in one of these. :sad:

I am interacting with you right now, so you exist. Wait when I dream of you. :cool:

You've used the phrase "dreaming with" several times, whereas "dreaming of" sounds more apt. It's kind of odd because in order to dream with someone you'd have to share in the same content. — Nils Loc

It was a grammar oopsie, sorry.

The frustration of a lucid dream is apparent in and round those rare moments when you take what is occurring in a dream to be reality. The only notable example of this was thinking I had a drawer full of cash, which evaporated on waking. — Nils Loc

It is frustrating butsatisfactory at the same time. Lucid dreams are fun, yet I think I should not consider my dream as lucid because I wasn't aware that I was dreaming of you. I came to this conclusion when I woke up.

At times, I have dreamt that I am interacting on the forum and either disappointed or relieved that the exchange was not 'real'. — Jack Cummins

I know that feeling. I experienced something similar. After waking up, I felt disappointed because the mentions were all products of my dream. Nonetheless, I still think that my dream did not cheat me because I actually dreamt with people who I interact with in this forum. If they also appear in my dreams, then they have to be real. You evoke certain experiences in me that lead me to believe you exist.

You’re begging the question.

Your argument is now “if I dream of X and if X exists then X exists”. — Michael

I guess you disagree with my notion, right?

You’re arguing that dreaming of X is proof that X exists.

If the argument fails when X is Zeus then it fails when X is Michael. — Michael

No, it does not fail.

There are different subjects in your premises. Zeus is a deity, and its characteristics are based on Greek mythology. It is the subject of a "myth", nothing close to something real.

Meanwhile, Michael or Javi is real, because you are causing me to feel certain experiences. There are some chances that you might appear in my dreams, because the source of your existence (at least in what I consider real) is based in my experience of interacting with you. Then, you exist.

I have never experienced Zeus, nor did I dream with him. I think it is pretty obvious the cause: his source of existence is missing.

However, the source of your existence is obvious to me.

My dream was based on the experience of interacting with other living beings like me, not deities or gods. I believe that addresing Zeus is not particularly relevant to the existence of you, me, and the other members of this forum.

This thread is very intriguing, and the replies are informative. Yet I don't know whether it should be observed from a physicalism perspective or perhaps idealism. This is what makes me struggle the most.

I think it's mysterious that even with knowledge of all the laws of physics, it seems impossible to decide whether plants can suffer. — SolarWind

They (some at least) have awareness and memory. That's sufficient. I suspect they have that capability. — noAxioms

As @noAxioms pointed out, some plants have sensory abilities. It is true that plants do not have pain receptors, because they do not have nerves (or a brain), so they do not "suffer" or feel pain as we do.

The post of @SolarWind made me think if he referred to psychological or physical suffering. It is understandable that a carrot (for example) does not suffer when we trim or uproot it. We can eat a carrot without the worry if we did a kind of botanical torture. But some plants have obvious sensory abilities, such as the Venus flytrap. If this plant has an incredible sensory capacity to trap insects, it might have a similar sense to perceive suffering.

I read a brief article on the matter in Britannica and it says: Plants have exceptional abilities to respond to sunlight, gravity, wind, and even tiny insect bites, but (thankfully) their evolutionary successes and failures have not been shaped by suffering, just simple life and death. Do Plants Feel Pain?

And this example is pretty awesome: Arabidopsis (a mustard plant commonly used in scientific studies) sends out electrical signals from leaf to leaf when it is being eaten by caterpillars or aphids, signals to ramp up its chemical defenses against herbivory. While this remarkable response is initiated by physical damage, the electrical warning signal is not equivalent to a pain signal, and we should not anthropomorphize an injured plant as a plant in pain.

In conclusion, plants do receive stimuli when they receive some kind of physical damage, but it is different from the pain that humans experience. Still, they have awareness of something.

Selected Works and Personal Notes (1880 - 1885) by Anton Chekhov.

Try to grab the link on the website shared by @praxis. Upload the image there, and you will see multiple options.

The third option, starting from below, says: "direct link to forums". It should work this way.

So you want to be spared: — Roke

If you do not quote or press the reply button, it is very hard to follow who you are replying to.

Yes, that's how public houses looked under Franco's regime. They look like they were printed because they are flat and similar to each other. I was raised in a "public house" (we call them VPO= Viviendas de Protección Oficial) building, but my parents' house was built in 1994, so it is obvious that everything is better in the sense of urbanisation.

As you noted, the blocks are repetitive, and the main plan was to build as many flats as possible to locate the workers there. I don't see it as problematic, because everyone deserves to live in a house. The problem is that, in most cases, those blocks had poor materials, they were located in the outskirts, and they lacked basic public services such as a bus or train station. But, again, everything started to change for the better since the 1980s when these neighbourhoods received more funds.

Glad you are not living there -- you were just visiting, right? — BC

Exactly. I ended up there randomly. The main road was interrupted by works, and I needed to cross through there to go to my destination. Otherwise, I don't think I would approximate myself to San Cristóbal.

I can find deteriorating neighborhoods in Minneapolis; you can probably find them in your city, too. — BC

I'm revisiting this thread because I recently visited San Cristóbal (Madrid).

It is deteriorated, but the chimneys are what impressed me the most. The neighbourhood was a working-class building block of people working in the industry of bricks.



They [the industries] are now closed, and the hood experienced a financial recession. Most folks say this is the most "dangerous" place of Madrid.

Good point, Clarky.

I thought something similar: The girl seemed polite, and she felt self-conscious about wanting to eat the peaches in front of the person looking at her.

It is interesting that you and I perceived the same -- The girl felt self-conscious about something. I guess the expression of her eyes and the innocent position of her hands caught our attention.

This painting is beautiful, sincere, delicate, pleasant and with hints of melancholy.

Girl with Peaches by Valentin Serov.




It is (probably) one of the best paints I have ever seen, and it has become my favourite now.

Is the version you've read older or younger? — Dawnstorm

It is younger. It was written between 1979 and 1981.

There's a lot I can't say, because there's a lot I don't know. See? For example, I don't know how he framed the list you gave us. — Dawnstorm

Neither do I.

I do not have a big problem with his list nor the way he framed it. He was free to write about important books, and, according to the introduction, it seemed that those books were classics to him because they helped him to become a writer and a man of arts.

Nonetheless, I disagree (at least with the version I have) with how he overreacted. Because, as I said, he named his work "Why Reading the Classics". This means to me that he was inviting us into his canon of literature or aesthetics. I am grateful for that; but I think that I would have disagreed with him if I had had the opportunity to discuss his work with him.

Bias is inevitable, and I don't think eliminating bias is even something one should attempt. Especially not in an article that wavers between social and personal, like this one. — Dawnstorm

I agree.

Then, since bias is inevitable, I think he should have named his essay in a different manner. I repeat that the list is actually good, and I understand why he chose those books over others. Yet, I think that Calvino must have said that the list was a personal project rather than being objective.

And I hope you don't think I'm denigrating Don Quixote — Dawnstorm

German translation — Dawnstorm

No, no. I haven't thought of that while debating with you. Au contraire I believe you respect Don Quixote.
--------------
So, you are German or from Austria. Look at Calvino's list again then. He didn't mention any relevant work of your language, such as "The Nibelungenlied" or Rilke's poetry. When there is too many to name.

Rose, o pure contradiction, desire
to be no one's sleep beneath so many
lids.

- Rilke. :flower: :sparkle:

I think we are interpreting Calvino's essay differently. It is not a problem since literature is open to interpretation and criticism. For this reason, I still argue that it is surprising how Calvino skipped or missed very important authors, and he was biased with Italian writers. It would not be a problem if he would have called his work "my favourite books of all time" or "my top list of books I always enjoyed" etc.

But his essay is called "Why Reading the Classics". It means – at least to me – that he is inviting us to read them because those works are the epitome of literature, and we would miss important knowledge on literature if we did otherwise. I am not against his personal list. I just disagree with how he overreacted to those books and authors.

On the other hand, I disagree that Don Quixote is not necessary to be mentioned in his essay because it is already known by the vast majority. According to that point, he wouldn't have mentioned Odyssey as well, when this is another important and recognised work of literature.

It's like he's encouraging you to go beyond the well-known and figure out your own canon. — Dawnstorm

It might be.

Yes, but isn’t that the point? If he were an American, there would be Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Bellow, Melville, Whitman; all exceptional. In fact, one could probably make a list like this composed entirely of Americans. — Tom Storm

Tom, I guess I found the solution: why not write a list of classics of each country? :smile:

Might "a classic" just be called "a great book"? — BC

That is what I think, yes. At least it is more accurate than call them "Classics"

#5. "A classic is a book which even when we read it for the first time gives the sense of rereading something we have read before."

I like that. — BC

I also like that definition. In my edition it is located in the 2nd place, not the 5th; it was very important to him to reread some works. I wonder if he read them for pleasure or to help him become a better writer. We can't really know; Calvino was a bit ambiguous in this essay.

I've never liked Hemingway. — BC

Neither do I.

I read Don Quixote, once upon a time. — BC

Surprisingly, Calvino did not include Don Quixote in his list. He just mentioned "Tirant lo Blanch", an epic poem very similar to Cid. I mean, of course these are important and excellent books of my country, but putting them above Don Quixote... Wow! That was kind of excessive.

What about individual poems -- can they be classics along side novels? — BC

I think so, too.

There are poems which deserve to be regarded as classics, and I think that some are better than the books on Calvino's list. But I do not want to criticize him for this, because it is true that he focused on prose, not on poetry.

Honestly, if I were called to do a list of classic poets and poems, I would put haiku poets for sure, even though I understand that haiku are very ambiguous and they are hard to understand for Western readers. Then I am aware that doing a list of classics is a very serious task, not exempt from controversy.

"'I'm rereading...', never 'I'm reading...'" — Dawnstorm

This is true. Sorry for my mistake.

Edit: I just corrected it.

I find it more bizarre to see an Italian who doesn't include Virgil and the Commedia. It's like leaving out Shakespeare and Milton in English. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I thought the same. I believe he didn't add that since it would be too evident given that he is Italian. However, he made sure to mention his fellow (Italian) writers.

The idea of a “universally agreed upon” classic novel is probably seen as a bit outdated these days. — Tom Storm

I agree. :up:

Literary value is filtered through culture, history, and personal taste. — Tom Storm

True. But I believe that Calvino was more influenced by his personal taste than culture and history. This is why I dislike his bias towards Italian authors. Honestly, I didn't know most of them. Furthermore, I think that he missed important authors from Asia and Oceania. He started with good points on Greek literature because it is obvious that they shaped our thoughts and our opinion on culture. Yet, this even depends on what kind of culture we are talking about. I bet Asian students consider "Classics" the haiku and Samurai stories rather than Balzac.

I dislike most of Dostoyevsky I have read, except for his mercifully concise The Gambler - — Tom Storm

I also enjoyed The Gambler a lot! Why didn't you enjoy the rest of Dostoevsky's works? You are free to dislike it, but since I am a very big fan of him, I am here if you want to discuss something about him or his novels.

Not really. French novels have often been considered masterpieces of world literature, and writers like Voltaire, Balzac, Stendhal, Hugo, Flaubert, Zola, Maupassant, Proust, and Gide usually appear on those venerable lists of the 'greatest writers' of all time. I have read most of these and would consider them very fine, although Proust does bore me somewhat. — Tom Storm

I can't disagree with that. I understand that French writers had an important influence on most modern authors. Nonetheless, I still think that they are no longer that important. It appeared in other styles and authors, which can illustrate the modern readers. If you look closely at his list, it is obvious that it is very European, not to mention that he avoided important authors in Spanish. One French author is OK, but he seemed obsessed with them.

Classics are very much a collective canon; "individual classics" is an oxymoron. — SophistiCat

Exactly.

Perhaps, Calvino did a mix between the collective and the oxymoron. I fully agree with him when he stated the Odyssey as the first-ever classic work. I am aware that there are also other works written in Sumerian, but Homer's works shaped the culture and literature of the world in the next generations.

On the other hand, it is remarkable that he also mentioned a large number of French authors. Although France was the epitome of the 19th century, it is no longer a known country for its literature. I can understand that Balzac is very important, but considering him a classic when his works didn't survive in the 21st century is a bit excessive. I thought that Clavino was very influenced by what was the literature stream of his time. It is strange that he didn't have a look at Asian literature, for instance.

But it is just that, a personal list.

You mentioned Calvino's bias towards Italian authors. Each culture will have its own version of the literary canon — SophistiCat

Absolutely.

But it is a bit unfair that he claimed those works as "classics", and keep in mind that he even called the essay "Why Reading the Classics", meaning that he is inviting us to read them, and it seems that we are missing "something" if we do otherwise.

If a Greek tells me: "Homer is a Classic." I have to agree with him. But I don't know if we could consider Odysséas Elýtis as a classic, although he was an excellent poet and a Nobel laureate.

If a Russian fella tells me: "Dostoevsky's works are Classics". I have to agree with him as well. But, what works of Dostoevsky? Because some of them are unknown to the vast majority of the public.

For that reason, I believe that in terms of writing an essay about the "Classics", we have to leave aside our bias towards our country and culture and try to have a more universal opinion. Again, I think my list of classics would have more works of Japanese and Chinese authors, for instance.

Minding is a metacognitive activity (i.e. strange looping process), and not an entity; it is what an ecology-situated, sufficiently complex brain can do, rather than some ontologically separate (e.g. non-physical) or "emergent" woo-stuff. Also: not to be confused with consciousness. — 180 Proof

:up:

What do you think the boundaries of both are? Is there a difference between minding and consciousness?

My father's ancestors were farmers. One of the features of farming in the late 19th into the 20th century is how often farmers moved -- not for better views, but because farms failed financially fairly often. Good land but bad economies. — BC

My ancestors were farmers too. They worked the land in Toledo and a region located in the south of Madrid, which no longer exists because it is urbanised. I understand what you are referring to -- farmers are often condemned to be here and there, like nomads. It is true that my family had never experienced a similar psychological impact to the Great Depression, but my grandparents recall the financial struggle after the Spanish Civil War or in the 1970s when Spain suffered an inexplicable inflation of prices.

Due to the reasons and circumstances expressed above, the next generations were always taught to avoid farming as labour or financial status. It is poorly treated and low paid. I don't know what your ancestors grew. Mine grew cereals and grapes. Very important products to feed the population, but they are paid very cheaply (as always), and the profits go to the supermarkets and intermediaries.

My point is that farmers have always suffered from failed financial status all over the world.

October 20th, 2015: I remember it well. — Jamal

Just over a month to go pals... :cool:

I think we might celebrate doing something. and all.

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy.

Exactly. My granny is 91 years old, and it seemed that the covid didn't even approximate to her. It is crazy how this virus works. Hopefully, we live in a very modern era, and scientists can overcome this virus quickly.

I got infected with coronavirus. It is not the first time, though. Nonetheless, I feel this time it hit me stronger. There was a small wave of infections in Madrid for the last few weeks. I was exhausted as never before, and my muscles ached and cramped.

I thought: Fortunately, I am vaccinated. Otherwise, with this "new version" of Covid, I would be in serious trouble.

I will never understand anti-vaxxers. Do they wish to die from the coronavirus?

When the test marked that I was infected with coronavirus, I remembered all the people who sadly got infected before the vaccines were launched. What a complete tragedy the people suffered in 2020.

This film shocked me in an indescribable way. What scared me the most is that it is based on a real-life story: the murders of Danish serial killer Dagmar Overbye.

The film is set on a black-and-white screen and in 1919 Denmark. The main protagonist did a very nice job, convincing. There are scenes which are "hard to swallow", and it might not be for all kinds of audiences.

Anyway, it is a great film.

The Petty Demon by Fyodor Sologub.

@T Clark -- It's been a while since I recommended you a film. :cool:

I watched two amazing and unique Russian films this month. I am aware that Russian film directors are great and original, but I chose these two because of the difference in time span between them and the iconography used.

Come and See (Idí i Smotrí): a 1985 Soviet epic tragedy film directed by Elem Klimov. Klimov had to fight eight years of censorship from the Soviet authorities before he was allowed to produce the film in its entirety... The starring were two talented kids called Aleksei Kravchenko and Olga Mironova. The flim mixes surrealism with a bit of existentialism that we used to watch and read in Russian arts.



The other film is more recent but also interesting and worthy to watch. It is called Petrov's Flu.
Just before the start of the new year, Petrov's family gets sick with the flu. Then he meets a trickster named Igor who can mix the world of the living and the dead. The Petrov family begin to suffer surrealistic hallucinations and the line between reality and hallucination begins to disappear.

The Book of Laughter and Forgetting by Milan Kundera.

@daniel j lavender wasn't a new member per se.

He returned after years missing only to be banned. This is what I call a real "plot twist."

But I think this latest one is copied from el fin del mundo- it's the exact same town. — Manuel

Yes, that's true. I confused the titles of the books, sorry.

Absolutely, I enjoyed reading "comendador" and "crónica". I think "After Dark" is also really nice, and I've never read Norwegian Wood, which is one of his most famous works.

To be honest, I think Murakami is very good at writing short stories and essays. I read "Underground" last year, and it was amazing. He did a great job interviewing all the victims of the 1995 Tokyo Underground terrorist attack. However, when it came to novels, I (sometimes) believed that he wrote solely to please his fans and the Western market.

Had to drop the newest Murakami after reading 30% of the book, his quality has dropped quite a bit since 1Q84, this meditative side is very boring to me. — Manuel

I remember getting very sad and disappointed after finishing the book. He admitted in the book (Tusquets Spanish edition) that the new novel was a "cut and copy" from Crónica del pájaro que da vuelta al mundo.

I haven't read anything again from him since last year...

El Bataraz by Mauricio Rosencof.