Says the guy with the most posts here. :P

If the latter, on a literal level the entire thing made sense. The fireman has to put out the 'fire' (nuke goes off and the bell starts ringing) and has enlisted numerous agents to get the job done. The FBI are also working to this end and have informants like Ray in Dopple-Cooper's gang. — JupiterJess

There are connections like that which make sense, yes, but that's not "the entire thing". Even something so simple as "has anyone seen Billy?", or why there were so many one-off characters having conversations at the Roadhouse, are more of what I'm referring to. As for the weirder moments, it's still unclear to me what the frog-bug was, and who's mouth it went into. But I mostly agree with you.

And this is the interpretational part, that "everything that is a thing comes from consciousness" and that it may all be a story of someone making sense of their abuse by their father (Laura is the one). — JupiterJess

Yeah, I really loved that he brought her back in. That was unexpected to me. I think that's a valid interpretation. I always interpreted the first two seasons as trying to make sense of sexual abuse in general, and the "cycle of abuse"; I interpret Leland's lines in his death scene to mean that Bob was also a real person who abused him in his childhood.

I'm a screwed up kid myself (I think you have to be in order to enjoy the new Twin Peaks), so I appreciate the wisdom.

I don't feel provoked; I'm getting bored. How does the idea that "we don't have anywhere to go" from the realization that it's up to us to make sense of our lives make that realization trivial? That doesn't make sense.

So far you've just made assertions that it's trivial; I was hoping you had an argument to make about it.

I agree, and that's a great quote. This is what always happens when I make threads about aesthetics; I just agree with everyone. So boring. :P

But I don't think a majority of posters here would agree with that idea of experience driving their philosophy. Or rather, they're unaware that it does, and so would disagree.

What's trivial about it?

What, this thread, or the show?

I think Lynch would agree with you. :P

It is about accessibility. Had he been capable of being my friend, where we could have gone out for a coffee and talked, perhaps I may have been enabled with access to this core. — TimeLine

What I'm saying is that you can't have access to that core; it's the very identity of the person built up over the years of their entire life. Being able to alter that would be like being able to change someone's mind on a philosophy forum. :P

It is not just exemplifying moral behaviour, but also taking care of yourself. I never accept handouts, I work really hard, I am healthy and strong and deeply content, together with holding strong convictions and integrity. You become impenetrable and that shapes a different understanding in this opposing ego. — TimeLine

I agree. Just be wary of becoming too impenetrable.

here's my aesthetics. Four types of art 1) Stuff that moves me. 2) Stuff I don't get, but that I can see has value or know that people whose judgment I respect think it does. 3) Stuff about which I don't have an opinion. 4)Crap. — T Clark

So how come your philosophy in general doesn't follow those types? Or does it?

I always think there should be more on the philosophy of dreams anyway. Some too easily take verdical experience and a strong distinction between dreams and waking reality as a self-evident proposition. — JupiterJess

I'm with you!

A lot of it did make sense and it needs to be remembered there are two authors to it. Mark Frost had a lot of input. — JupiterJess

Which parts?

It tries to portray things as meaningless and not tied together - as senseless. But that's just one way to experience life. Some people experience life as inherently meaningful, and weave stories around their experiences such that they make sense. — Agustino

I don't think Lynch is trying to show life as meaningless or senseless. As I mentioned, what he said was something to the effect of "life doesn't always make sense". I like the way he plays with the foundational narrative structure we've all come to rely on; it confounds expectation, and it's truer to real life; our lives aren't the equivalent of a 2 hour Hollywood blockbuster; all the plot points of our lives don't get tied up nicely. That's what's interesting about his use of surrealism to portray an aspect of real life.

Can I ask a question in good faith? Why is it that when it comes to aesthetics, us philosophy types are suddenly beholden to personal experience?

We, the observers are as necessary as the artist, as the work, as the whole history of art. — Cavacava

Yeah, again, i've made that point on this forum for awhile now. I'm not sure how it's a response to my question about beauty being it's own referent.

But what fascinates, what sets our imagination on fire is the work it self (not its context but certainly its contents) — Cavacava

What? How can you say the audience is as important as the artist, and then say that context is not as important as content?

Since all experiences are different there is no single correct interpretation as I said previously and as I think we have discussed in the past the experience of a work of art depends on how in tune one is with the work. — Cavacava

Wait, so which is it, according to you? Is there no single correct interpretation of a work, or does "how in tune one is with the work" determine the interpretation?

Try posting in the Phil/art subforum sometime. :P appreciate your thoughts there regardless.

I still don't follow - maybe you should start a thread on the feeling of horror — Agustino

Actually, I kind of did, but it didn't receive much attention, which is what I expected.

Surely what is horrifying is the certainty that something bad will happen — Agustino

Not at all; certainty is the antithesis of horror.

whereas the existential confusion that you speak about can create a sort of paranoia that something bad is happening since you can't make heads or tails anymore, and hence you can no longer use reason to protect yourself from what is now perceived to be inevitably bad. — Agustino

Your description here seems to highlight my point.

No... :) It's a weird show, after all. But, as I said in my initial post here, I was never a fan of horror as a genre until I watched Twin Peaks (ok, writing the music to a short horror film for a friend of mine was also a factor). Suffice it to say I have a weak stomach like you and .

What a show like Twin Peaks does, is that it plays with your perception of reality. It plays with your perception of what's known and unknown. So the feeling of horror isn't the feeling of watching someone be brutally murdered ala Hollywood; the feeling of horror is simply the feeling of not knowing what the fuck is happening; philosophically, it's analogous to the feeling of existential dread. Sorry, I'll end my thread-derailment there.

Have you seen Twin Peaks?

He wasn't a friend, that was what I was attempting to rouse in him because it is only in friendship that a person can begin to experience empathy. — TimeLine

The theme I'm getting here is a savior complex. Based on your anecdotes, you seem to want to save the people you come into contact with who have severe issues. I know that feeling.

I was not able to achieve this because the conditions would not allow it. — TimeLine

Again...that's basically my entire argument here...

As I said, he was caught up way too deep into his own lies that it became a reality to him; to penetrate that required some serious thought, something I could not give. — TimeLine

It didn't require serious thought; it would have required a super-human ability to change the core of someone's lifetime's worth of experiences.

My question here, however, is how I can address that lack of motivation and find ways to stimulate it without being that role model. — TimeLine

I don't think you can. Outside of just exemplifying moral behavior in a passive way. Which is always, eternally, an option to anyone.

The critical developmental stages is cognitive, whereas morality requires reason — TimeLine

What's the difference between "cognitive" and "reason" here?

You can have a perfectly nuclear upbringing and still lack moral fibre. — TimeLine

I am nowhere advocating for a nuclear family as a moral litmus test.

Where does the community get it from? — TimeLine

From itself.

You only mention this idealism because you are still not aware of why individualism itself is ideological, a social construct. — TimeLine

Ok; can you explain it to me? I don't mean that sarcastically; if you're sure that I'm unaware, then surely you can explain to me what I'm missing.

I was the same until I saw Twin Peaks. The primary element in horror as a genre is the unknown. Not gore, terror, disgusting things...manipulate that element of the unknown, and horror becomes a totally different experience. And philosophically, the unknown has a nearly boundless energy all it's own, hence the potency of the unknown in art.

If it had a purpose then it could not be beautiful, because what is beautiful must be beautiful as such with no ulterior motive or interest beyond itself as it is. — Cavacava

So beauty is it's own referent? I disagree. Beauty needs a context in which to obtain its definition.

It seeks a metaphysic of value. — Wayfarer

(Y)

We can discuss it, if you are looking for a full blown theory then no. — Cavacava

What? Why not? I would love a full-blown theory.

I think natural beauty is where all art starts. Our fascination with of what we see around us, what interests us with no purpose — Cavacava

Ah, this must be our departure. Why say that the beauty of a sunset has no purpose?

No, I mean aesthetic metaphysically. The aesthetic of a work is the property that makes it interesting to the observer. Aesthetic as "surface", as you say, is a different thing.

So, that being said, can you expound on this:

[aesthetic] stems from what we see in nature, but that does not limit it, rather nature forms the basis from which our imagination works. — Cavacava

Sorry, I can't say anything "philosophical" here - I am an complete savage when it comes to art. — SophistiCat

Why create such a false dichotomy? :) Given a desert island situation, I'll take a few albums vs. a few philosophy tomes.

So the aesthetic of art is from nature? The beauty/ugliness dichotomy stems from physical nature?

OK, he starts to dream, unaware that he is dreaming, then he sees the clock running backwards and he realizes that he is dreaming, his slow motion realization is that he is dreaming, at which point his face is super-imposed to suggest that he is aware of what is happening in his dream. Then as his dream progresses he loses this awareness of dreaming and the super-imposed image is gone. — Cavacava

I assume you're basing that interpretation off of the clip I posted? That would be a fair interpretation off of just that clip, however, that clip begins in the middle of a long sequence that has a lot of moving parts. i didn't find a youtube clip of the entire scene. The superimposition of Coopers face actually begins minutes before, within the same scene. it (oddly) cuts out once Cooper is reunited with Diane, but then reappears, and then the superimposed face utters its classic line (just you wait! it will be classic soon enough). I would also recommend watching all 18 episodes of the new season; it has some flavors of the original, but overall, the style of the new season is wholly it's own thing. Lynch co-wrote and directed all the episodes, after all, which was not the case for the original. This is pure Lynchian Twin Peaks!

Do you believe Lynch, does he have any right (authorial intent fallacy) or is his interpretation as valid as any other interpretation? — Cavacava

I've made this argument before here, in discussions with you as well as others...no, Lynch doesn't possess some objective truth when it comes to his own work. My concept of the artist being only a fraction of the work itself should be well known to anyone who bothers to read the arts forum here. But, the reason I brought up Lynch's own interpretation of his work is because of the incessant conspiracy theories trying to tie all of the Twin Peaks knots together. In light of that culture of interpretation from the fans, I think this is a perfectly good example of when the artist does have some weight in weighing in and offering a subtle, simple interpretation to help us along. But only after we've grappled with the content on our own terms.

I think Art necessary starts with reality and then transcends it to become what it is, whatever that is, a reflection, a message, a dream... — Cavacava

Why does art need to begin with reality?

And for something totally stylistically different that plays by similar rules:

Satie's work - forget the name - sorry. — gaffo

One of these?

:)

You are likely right that the main idea, as much as Lynch would be that concrete, is life is more like a dream (or that's a refreshingly different way to understand it). — apokrisis

True, I didn't connect it all the way to saying that "life is like a dream". I dug for the interview in which he addressed it, but couldn't find it, I'll keep looking. I'm not sure how I feel about that though; that almost makes it too easy; "We live inside a dream"...it almost becomes an artists statement in that scene. I can't imagine he meant it that way. "We live inside a dream" seems more connected to the finale and the ending, to me. If you've parsed through the various possible layers of what time periods, alternate realities, etc etc that happened in those last two episodes, in an intelligible way...let me know...

So it is not surrealism as shock and surprise, but surrealism as relief and antidote. — apokrisis

Yes, there is a real emotional element of relief in the most surreal scenes. I know exactly what you mean.

Unfortunately, nothing worked because he kept on hiding in these characters, kept on lying and misunderstood everything that I was trying to tell him. In the end, he gave up on me and I was so profoundly dejected at my failure that I became really sick and rather sad for a while. So the methods cannot be articulated in some format, it is a process that over time contributes to form a bond or trust and solely dependent on the intent. I can assure you that I have been successful at applying this in many other contexts, especially young girls. — TimeLine

Unfortunately this more or less underlines what I'm trying to say; of course you weren't able to change this guy; you were in a position of social equality; you were within a friend group. As you said, often when your methods here were successful were with younger women; that's a teachable situation in which that person views you as a role model of some sort. Once again, among equals, the best we can do is exemplify behavior; I can observe the changes over the years in the characters of the guys in my band, for instance, and I know my own influence as the band leader has influenced them; but who am I to say what influence I really had on them? Again, we're social equals, even if I lead the band. I can't try to change anyone's habits or perspectives, all I can do is try to exemplify the lifestyle I think is right (and I fail at that all the time anyway).

Haha, your mum must be awesome. (Y) — TimeLine

I think you missed my sarcasm. :P

I had no (proper) family, no church but they are not the basis that make a person moral or immoral. — TimeLine

Surely one's environment during critical developmental stages determine some aspects of a person's moral framework.

You say the responsibility of individuals is to exhibit exemplary behaviour, but where do they attain any knowledge of what "exemplary behaviour" is? — TimeLine

Through community.

If what you say is true, that a community is made up of autonomous individuals, those that have been manipulated to conform through fear are not a part of this "community" and so, where does your obligations lie? — TimeLine

I'm speaking idealistically here; obviously not all members of a community have individual autonomy. Maybe that concept of community isn't correct; I think an ideal community would be made up of autonomous individuals, but I'm well aware that won't happen given the human condition. At least not in this life. But a community made up of autonomous individuals would not be a community in which manipulation and fear would have any power. SO, what I meant to imply (and didn't) is that, in this imperfect life, individual autonomy is more valuable than community because the virtues of individual autonomy are more realistically achievable than the virtues of a community which does not build itself on manipulation and fear; community is a word with good connotations, but the "heard mentality", for instance, a less sanguine way of putting it, will always be built on manipulation, fear, and a lack of intellectual inquiry.

For instance, studies show that attractive women who put themselves down in front of others only do so because of social-psychology, a way of saving themselves from gossip or disdain because an attractive woman who is actually happy with herself is negatively categorised as dangerous. They don't actually believe it but are unconsciously playing the crowd to avoid conflict. — TimeLine

So what's inauthentic here? Obviously the person is acting a certain way because of insecurity; what's inauthentic about that? There's clearly an authentic motive behind the facade of action. The woman puts herself down out of insecurity; that insecurity is the result of the question of whether she's "beautiful", or if she's "just another pretty face", or whatever. And why are those questions for her? Because she has the same desires that the rest of humanity has: acceptance, love, happiness. The will beneath her actions is as authentic as a physically unattractive person. The insecurity is just expressed differently because of the external circumstances.

Have you watched Dead Man Walking? — TimeLine

I haven't; I'll look it up.

I have often found that men who have domineering mothers tend to be liars. — TimeLine

I pride myself on my honesty. :P

I get that. What I am trying to say is that there are methods to "effect this change" that is different with each individual, but the driving force behind any authentic intent to change is usually for love. — TimeLine

What are the methods? Are you talking about a mentorship type relationship? In romance, or among equals, or from abused to abuser, for instance, I don't think change can be effected through the will. But obviously a relationship that involves teaching of some sort is different.

If you believe in individualism, then yes. If you are communitarian, a utilitarian, or just someone who believes they are a part of a whole rather than an individual (hence, the Aloha - there you go, I remembered now), then you are wrong about responsibility. It becomes a moral duty, in a way, but a very tricky one. — TimeLine

I believe in individualism as well as community. Community is made up of autonomous individuals; again, the responsibility of individuals within a community is to exhibit exemplary behavior, rather than to talk someone into behaving a certain way, manipulate someone's behavior, or otherwise strong-arm someone's behavior. Trust me, I grew up in the Church...I know a lot about this...

If Agustino responds and says it's ok, — T Clark

Nah, he's clearly going to love the attention and soak it all in. ;)

You missed a few things that I said, actually, — TimeLine

Sorry this is four days old, but what exactly?

just working with your flow — TimeLine

Not a good idea >:O

And yes, I did agree that some people can play the victim as a method of gaining power over others, but only after someone apologises authentically. — TimeLine

Surely playing the victim can be done at any time in a situation. On the contrary, it can be used to extract an apology. Is that apology authentic? Authentic in the sense that the person really feels the need to apologize (emotionally) because of manipulation, sure.

where if you continuously and blindly forgive then you are at fault also. — TimeLine

Do you mean using forgiveness as a form of power over someone?

As for the latter, you become somewhat responsible in effecting change, to make them see that repeating the same mistake is wrong, but this is where it can get dangerous and why ultimately it is not our responsibility. — TimeLine

Yes, as I've tried to underline, feeling responsible for "effecting change" in anyone is a slippery slope which leads to either manipulation or just burn-out; total emotional exhaustion. "Effecting change" in oneself is task enough; and if you succeed at that, then your actions, your words, and your way of life become an "effecting change" in themselves in a passive way, without any directed will of yours towards a specific person; responsibility is just example. And if you need evidence of this, look at the opposite: irresponsibility is also example; we learn through observation of actions of those above us. Of course, words are powerful, but they have power within context; there are moments where the right words to someone can make a real difference; that's usually based on the emotional context. But we can't will that someone be emotionally ready for certain words; that's actually the definition of manipulation.

ultimately it is not our responsibility. — TimeLine

And as I'm trying to emphasize here, it's not just "ultimately" not our responsibility, it just plain isn't.

For the record, you have no information regarding my worldview. It's a shame that you feel compelled to denigrate the reputation of the eminent scientists quoted (your reputation is undoubtedly greater than theirs). Are you really that insecure in your beliefs? — Galuchat

More religious appeals. You have no info regarding my worldview either.

I am still awaiting your explanation of information (if you have one), — Galuchat

Reference my responses to MikeL.

nd genuinely hoping that it forms the basis of a worldview which is far superior to the one you suppose folks like me and my boys hold. — Galuchat

Is this sentiment genuine?

So, for clarity, to backtrack: I said to Wayfarer, lets wait for the barrage (presumably of adverse opinions). You volunteered a quip about sharks waiting for blood. I laughed it off. You posted a quote from Archibald without context in which reality is reduced to yes-no questions (if/then); a typical anthropomorphization. The ecstatic language, masked as scientific, was clearly espousing a deeply seated worldview, which I like to call religious, because it gets folks like you all up in arms. The religious impulse never dies, in other words. From there, you posted a few more quotes from your boys about your religious views.

Yes, hilarious >:O Thanks for that!

First of all, the sentence I quoted from you wasn't a complete sentence, so it's possible I mis-interpreted what you meant. It sounded to me like you were talking about victimhood as an expression of power over others. Was that wrong?

Re-read it.