You've pissed yourself, old chap.

Art is the end of all living.

You won't deal with it, though, old chap.

Then go do it. Don't wee your trousers.

How does it not apply to living?

Collingwood refers to the difference between techne and art as something which emerged only after, even, say, Shakespeare and uses the example of a scene from a play by this dramatist; something about referring to a cloak as "his art", meaning the word had a different meaning. Techne is not art, it is craft. Collingwood is referring to everything, though, with this dichotomy. The idea of art, itself, is relatively recent, but still opposed to the aspect of modernity which is merely craft-like; reproducable, repetitive, et alii.

The guy's a fucking troll, you fucking retard. This site is probably a troll site, thinking about it. Or you think you're hazing me.

The term Collingwood used was art. I was trying to explain it to you, but if you are reading about him, any way, I am sure, as someone who claims to have read so many philosophers on your page, that you can figure it out on your own.

You're a fucking retard yourself, evidently.

Can people just do this on this forum? Is there no moderation?

If a man truly understood the meaning of living functionally, he would lose all creativity and die, since the truth of function is death. This is what I think Céline means. We can only put our hope in a genuine shift in the matrix of our thought, on a communal, perhaps national, level. Only then can we live as truly creative beings, enlightened to the reality of a higher way of life.

What exactly do you have left to say?

Then start a thread about your favourite type of sandwich in the relevant sub-forum.

But since when are these threads your personal blog? I don't give a flying fuck if you think it sounds like nonsense.

If it is overly pedantic, it is annoying, as I am sure you know.

One would imagine a certain level of inference is necessary to think at all.

I am not going to dignify you with any more answers.

I think Oscar Wilde defined art and creativity quite well; something completely useless. What he means by this is that it is useless to most people. Plotinus and Eckhart write of the difference between Being and Nothingness, no? And this is adopted by Heidegger and Sartre. We inhabited the middle realm between the two, but fell in to the abyss of nothingness, through the emergence of modernity. Our only hope, then, of returning in to the realm of Satya Yuga, as Evola puts it, is a complete and utter paradigm shift.

I was reading Collingwood, who distinguishes between three types of living, which are either merely functional, creative (I think this is similar to the idea of genuine Being) or both. Collingwood also seems to think that archaic systems like those of the occult are also functional, but can and should be utilised in a truly creative way of living.

The way I take it, after reading some ideas from Heidegger, is that modernity is essentially opposed to the idea of creativity and I believe Spengler agrees. All three political positions of modernity lead to the same thing; functionality taken for itself. To try to be creative within the context of modernity is impossible; some paradigm shift needs to occur which recognises all three positions as bankrupt and returns us to a state of true creativity.

Cheers.

I am interested, yes.

Someone else mentioned Wilber and I think he is probably the philosopher to go for.