The cloudiness of a liquid. Also reminded me of turgid, another old fav.

A word really tickled my fancy today, and I thought "why not start a word of the day thread?"... but something in the back of my mind felt like it already existed...one quick search later, and sure enough. This goes out to our old friend @T Clark who I dearly miss.

Anyway, the word is turbidity.

The main point for an objectivist (and I hope and think most of us are objectivists) is that nothing is ever right just because someone thinks it is right. — Congau

I'll add my applause :clap:

Thanks for your wisdom in this thread. I feel like I'm eating philosophical kale.

In other words, are they an amateur, or a master? — darthbarracuda

This language seems completely false; a "master" of suicide would presumably be long gone. Does the master teach the apprentice? How can he if he has "opted out"? How can a master teach an amateur how to opt out?

"Committing" followed by an action does suggest a crime, to be sure. I don't argue that.

Some people kill themselves for bad reasons, and they ought to be offered helped if possible. At the same time, other people kill themselves for completely rational reasons, and so helping them doesn't make any sense. — darthbarracuda

What are "bad reasons" for suicide, versus "rational reasons"?

But it's not your place to interfere with someone's destiny. — darthbarracuda

This is way too loaded. At least for me, as a suicidal greenhorn.

Ideally there would be ways to opting out that aren't so makeshift and clandestine. Just like how there should be ways of having abortions without coat hangers. — darthbarracuda

"Opting out" being a metonymy for suicide? Or no? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I sense your emotion on this subject; it seems important to state my own position: I've entertained suicide on a hypothetical level. Amongst those who have really tried, I guess I would be a greenhorn. My sincerity in committing the act would be rightly questioned.

That being said, I was calling into question what I saw as conflicting ideas of 1) "a lending hand should be offered to suicidal people" and 2) it's dignified to let people commit suicide.

Is blending a salad wrong?

The problem is that we often don't know when someone needs a helping hand. And to suggest that it's dignified to let someone determine their own life or death? As if to let them determine when they "need a helping hand"? How does that square with an outside influence "lending a helping hand"? Should we be "sensitive" enough to realize when someone doesn't "want" a helping hand and let them end it? There's no logic here.

Anyone watch that German show Dark on Netflix? Finished that recently. Mixed feelings, but very well done. Definitely a fairly philosophical show, as far as mainstream TV goes. Mostly just dealing with the conundrum of free will.

Yes, I doubt anyone is questioning that.

I can't see how purely hypothetical moral options are useful in dealing with morality.

What exactly are these moral options? Concrete actions, for instance?

I agree there's an inherent logic to morality, and not even necessarily in a "it's just common sense" way; often it's not common sense. All I have to say at the moment is that I've been consulting the I Ching fairly regularly over the past year, and have developed a sense of there always being a correct action, thought, or attitude to take at any given time. "Well being" as you say, occurs when the correct path is taken, and does not occur when it's not taken. That's the logic of morality; a simple 1 or 0. A sort of pure logic that doesn't have to be guided by emotion. So yeah, I voted yes.

I like it a lot. Any reason for using prose form and then stanzas?

It has it's charm. Can't remember the last time I was in that hood during drinking hours, though.

Not to be pedantic, but I would imagine it was in development for quite awhile, and then he eventually published that book outlining it. But since you were wondering about a philosophical bent, I would argue that the concept of the limited modes existed for as long as it existed in his head before he published the treatise (obviously in an evolving state, conceptually). So I'm still not grasping the idea of it coming into existence at the exact time that it...came into existence? Maybe I'm missing something.

Otherwise, as far as a more philosophical angle on this, I'm not well versed in math or science to add that angle; all I can point to is what I mentioned earlier; that music theory is essentially aesthetic theory. So if music theory is the technical information for musicians, then aesthetic theory is that information applied to philosophy.

EDIT: ...or rather, if music theory is the technical information for musicians, then aesthetic theory is the same information but viewed from a remote perspective, from which philosophical claims can be made. But it helps to know the information from the technical perspective first before removing oneself to a perspective from which the information is seen as remote.

Messiaen’s modes are a closed system, to my understanding; each one can only be transposed a very limited number of ways, in contrast to the seven traditional modes, which can be transposed to all 12 tones as key centers. Because transposition of Messiaen’s modes is so limited, they basically eliminate key centers, which was something that was already being developed before he did so. So yes, he certainly broke rules, but math is key to music theory; Messiaen still set up a new set of rules. Im not sure what you mean by a theory being generated at the same time as the thing it’s describing. Love Messiaen btw! Funny thing, I’ve actually been slowly trying to learn the modes myself. Not easy!

I don't think the word "Theory" applied to music is used in quite the same way as in other uses. It is a sort of "right way" that musicians learn, but musical artists generally find ways to "break" theory rules once they understand them; so theory was never a true set of rules in the first place, especially considering the relative nature of music theory (there's Western music theory, and then there's Indian. I'm not sure the way African music is organized is considered a "theory"). Because music is a form of expression, whatever theories exist for it's organization tend to just be traditions, which are always evolving (or devolving).

Music theory is essentially aesthetic theory; what pleases the ear. There are more aesthetic and less aesthetic ways to form chord shapes, for instance, but even that is relative to a culture. For instance, in Western music you generally don't allow melodic lines to bisect each other; it doesn't sound that aesthetic to western ears, but that's not to say a way can't be found to make it sound aesthetically pleasing. Dunno if any of that helps; just off the top of my head.

Yup.

:up: ha! A good entry for this thread, I guess.

Funny NYC story about McSorley's though...when I was pretty new to the city, a friend invited me to McSorley's for a group gathering. I arrived a bit late; everyone was already at the table with their beers, so I thought "I'll just order a beer at the bar right quick and join the group". I walked up and didn't see a menu, so I asked "what kind of beer do you have?" The bartender, in stereotypical Irish broque, said "we've got a light beer and a dark". I ordered the light, but I guess what makes the story "funny" is that McSorley's is notorious for typical rude NYC service...but this guy seemed so refreshed by the fact that I didn't even know anything about the bar's historic pedigree, that he was actually quite polite. Anyway, it's actually a really boring story. oh well

Not a very socially progressive spot, btw...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McSorley%27s_Old_Ale_House

How bout McSorley's?

I can imagine!

The no-man's land! Sadly the only time I checked that area out a homeless person was stalking me. :sad:

Oh wait is that in the northeastern part that's sectioned off from the rest of the park?

I have not.

Of course. I know that spot well as well.

Please go asap. Also that photo looks weirdly photoshopped between the Di Fara and Supper J [sic] Discount Store storefront. It's not, just a curiosity.

LOL I copy-pasted that from a mod responding to a different thread. I guess my jokes blend in with my ernest posts; my own fault.

The free jazz continues to flow

Nice! That's a decent little encapsulation of some of his thought.

Actually I want to convince you that you are a poem. — Yellow Horse

Sure, go ahead.

Eh I feel like you're trying to play into me saying I'm a poet.

Carlyle had me at the word "tawdry" :sweat:

But I would recommend Barfield's "Poetic Diction" on this topic; i.e. dead metaphors.

I will try to rescue the metaphor. The intelligibility or structure of mundane reality is dead poetry, or at least on its death bed.

Even 'poet' is a dead metaphor. — Yellow Horse

I very much agree. Owen Barfield's "Poetic Diction" is of the same vein.

I mean that 'subjects' or 'egos' or 'minds' or 'poets' are themselves 'poems.' They are interpretations of us having (in some ways) separate bodies. — Yellow Horse

I'm a poet but I'm having trouble with this. It's not poetic to say that subjects, egos, or minds, or poets are poems themselves. It's just clunky. So clearly you mean to use the metaphor differently? I don't know what it means that "they are interpretations of us having (in some ways) separate bodies".

The concept of the poet is one more poem here, as is the (self-referential here) concept of poetry. — Yellow Horse

Not sure what you mean.

Interesting. Do you connect Λόγος to the concept of "Kairos" at all?