I've underlined the first sentence in your quote directly above. It's the gist of your argument for refuting my two quoted statements at the top. — ucarr
As you can see, by my definition of Love and War, marriage, home, family and community are directly linked to Love and War. — ucarr
making the same claim about each statement, namely that they are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences is not a contradiction because the two claims, in actuality, are about the same thing — ucarr
the attributes of two parts of one unit — ucarr
ere is a unit articulated into two parts — ucarr
are not contradictory. — ucarr
Its the combination of the two parts that refutes your ascription of contradiction because contradictions cannot combine. — ucarr
By my definition, Love and War both include: marriage, home, family, community. If this is true, then they can't be contradictory when defined as I've defined them. — ucarr
Can you show that, during WW2, it was not the case that there were married couples, homes, families and communities in both America and Germany? An example supporting your argument would have to show that in one country there were marriages, homes, families and communities whereas in the other country there were anti-marriages, anti-homes, anti-families and anti-communities. — ucarr
Do your answers establish a separation between art-in-itself and art-in-itself weaponized? — ucarr
I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have. — ucarr
Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences. — ucarr
This is directly contradictory. If the former, not hte latter. If the latter, not hte former. — AmadeusD
In the above quote you make a claim about my [two-part] statement. Can you show that my statement is a contradiction? — ucarr
It is self evident. See:
I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have
— ucarr
Is in contradiction to the very next phrase:
Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences.
— ucarr
You cannot have both stand in the same symbolic role. They are contradictory (though, admittedly, indirectly so). — AmadeusD
I've underlined the first sentence in your quote directly above. It's the gist of your argument for refuting my two quoted statements at the top. Your refutation is false because, apparently, you've forgotten something. What you seem to have forgotten is reposted directly below:
Art and morality within the context of this thread reduce to four elements:
Love | War
Love -- Marriage, home, family, community
War -- Power & Money in service to Partisan: Marriage, home, family, community
— ucarr
As you can see, by my definition of Love and War, marriage, home, family and community are directly linked to Love and War. Therefore, making the same claim about each statement, namely that they are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences is not a contradiction because the two claims, in actuality, are about the same thing, albeit, the thing in question here is a unit articulated into two parts: concentric circles. The outer circle houses the two big parts: Love | War; the inner circle houses the smaller parts that fill in the big parts with pertinent details: marriage, home, family, community.
If I say a Swiss watch runs like a precision mechanism, and likewise, its sweep second hand runs like a precision mechanism, there's no contradiction because the two statements are talking about the attributes of two parts of one unit. — ucarr
I'm asking you to take the words in my statement and arrange them into a configuration that shows it is a contradiction. This would be an argument supporting your claim.
— ucarr
You cannot have both stand in the same symbolic role. They are contradictory (though, admittedly, indirectly so).
— AmadeusD
in your quote directly above, you make an approach to arranging my words into a configuration that shows it is a contradiction: "You cannot have both stand in the same symbolic role." But I counter-argue that statement by showing that two parts that combine to make a unified whole are not contradictory. Its the combination of the two parts that refutes your ascription of contradiction because contradictions cannot combine. — ucarr
It is not an argument. Your phrase contradicts itself. I've had to say nothing at all. Simply quote you. — AmadeusD
If you mean art-in-itself or 'art for art's sake' and art weaponized, yes I've made that separation. — praxis
I'd like to move on to the weaponization of religion. Can religion be meaningful and propaganda simultaneously? — praxis
I have a notion that religion and politics are either nearly or even exactly the same thing. There's a Gordian knot linking religion, politics and morality. — ucarr
I'll venture to surmise from your statement above we agree that art lies beyond morality, the central theme of this conversation.
...
I think the weaponization of religion, unlike the weaponization of art (as propaganda), lies outside of the scope of this conversation. — ucarr
There is politics in the conservation/construction of any way of being, wherever there are priests and parishioners (politicians and the public) who are "relating to the citizens", promoting the rules and regulation of that way of being in dialectical good will. It's complicated for sure. — Nils Loc
I can mentally separate art for art's sake and utilitarian-based art but to say that art lies beyond morality raises it to a Godly height. How is art lived beyond morality? — praxis
n order to continue your attack, you have to attack my defense quoted above. You have to show why my thesis is still contradictory, even in light of my defense. — ucarr
In order to continue your attack, you have to attack my defense quoted above. You have to show why my thesis is still contradictory, even in light of my defense. — ucarr
...your two claims are either empty, as they are the same claim... — AmadeusD
...or literally contradict one another, I need do nothing else. — AmadeusD
I’m not following at all. It seems to me that art beyond morality would be morally inert. It might happen to be completely inline with moral norms or be completely against them, or even more incomprehensible, be with and against simultaneously. — praxis
If I stretch the meaning of "inert" a bit and construe "inactive" as being "neutral-adjacent,"... — ucarr
... then life-and-art-beyond-morality are the sources and causes of morality. — ucarr
Even if they were the same, an identity is not empty, nor is it a contradiction. — ucarr
two different parts of a unified whole — ucarr
Love and War are two sets, both of which contain marriage, home, family and community as members. The members are doubled by symmetry across two countries. — ucarr
The lack of restraint about events and outcomes in the non-living world becomes charged with emotional and, later, moral value when events and outcomes are perceived by sentients. — ucarr
Art isn't beyond morality any more than baking or dropping a nuclear bomb.
Even if you framed the latter as performance art it would still have purpose. — praxis
What are you wanting to talk about here? — AmadeusD
Your formulations make no sense to me, provide no criteria and are just picking out random, badly-defined (and, in your world, completely stretched, unrecognizable) terms... So, even if you're going to invoke language-use to support some of these readings...no one but you, it would seem, could assent to what you're trying to say. — AmadeusD
This is my premise — ucarr
blooming creation leads to sensory overload for human unless he filters out, morally speaking, what's excess beyond what his brain can handle — ucarr
I know my sampled reality is a sham replica standing in for the actual state of affairs of the world, but its the best that I can do in the way of acknowledgement, so I'll stay the course of my jury-rigged reality with as much integrity as I can muster. — ucarr
cosmic logic — ucarr
AmadeusD, I know I have a better chance of winning the lottery than persuading you with anything I write. — ucarr
a God-bearing universe is more interesting and more fun — ucarr
What are you wanting to talk about here? — AmadeusD
My title is my guide: Art Lies Beyond Morality. This is my premise, and I see now it is related to existentialism as I understand it... — ucarr
It isn't a premise. Once again, you do not know the words you are using. — AmadeusD
a God-bearing universe is more interesting and more fun — ucarr
In fairness, 'interesting' has no moral valence. — AmadeusD
If it bleeds it leads. — ucarr
I.e. existence (reality) is the all-encompassing – eternal, unbounded – brute fact. As a pandeist, I concur :100: :up:Rationality and its language of logic therefore are contained within the continuity_continuum of existence. The continuity_continuum of existence being the sine qua non prerequisite for reason, it can make no start outside the material theater of action. Given this fact, there can be no rational explanation for existence-itself-in-general. — ucarr
hat I've learned from this conversation: — ucarr
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.