I've thought loads about nihilism and I have decided it is best used as a platform to get whatever your wants and needs are at that time... basically totally changeable if the necessity arises. NOT as a concrete philosophy - this would also be hypocritical as I think it was design for the reason of abolishing that stupid rule in the first place. This makes it more powerful than any other belief system I can think of... cause in practice it could be any and all systems of belief. The widespread use or government use of nihilism as with existentialism is obviously stupid. But on a personal level it would make great leaders.

I think this is what makes it so alluring.
I think this touches on Nietzsche's oversoul. Of course the oversoul would have to be able to fully believe without a trace of doubt that he is completely able to bend his belief by will. And then believe this new belief completely. Although I hate to compare this a movie character I guess in the same way Neo had to completely believe he could do whatever he wanted in the Matrix.

I mainly want to hear what Spirit and BuD02 think about this?

Everytime I see your posts I think Godiva chocolate.
I feel that I should do something bitter/spiteful, for being excluded, but I can't very well knock over an empty cup and stomp out of the room. Instead, I'll just plague you with this superfluous post.

[This message has been edited by Bogey Man (edited 11-03-2002).]

nihilism where to begin. First off I guess I like it because it encourages you to question every thing, as you should. I think nihilism would create great leaders if they were able to stay objective after they became a leader. On the other hand nihilism will never be popular or socially acceptable becasue it questions everthing(mainly Gov., Religion). So I don't think that a nihilist will ever gain political power. Regarding nietzsce's oversoul I agree with your assesment. I think nihilism also includes many refrences to nietzsche's "over man" or "higher man"(depending on your translation). Basiclly the ability to rise above the ordinary(very simpilifed).

govinda I'm curious to know what you think about the differences in political and philosophical nihilism, and of course everybody elses views.

quote:

---

Originally posted by govinda:
I've thought loads about nihilism and I have decided it is best used as a platform to get whatever your wants and needs are at that time... basically totally changeable if the necessity arises. NOT as a concrete philosophy - this would also be hypocritical as I think it was design for the reason of abolishing that stupid rule in the first place.

---

I think its bullshit and literally inconcievable by human minds. If nothing matters, why would anyone bother giving nihilism a name?

[QUOTE] This makes it more powerful than any other belief system I can think of... cause in practice it could be any and all systems of belief. [QUOTE]

I dont think its powerful at all. Maybe individually, but how can you get a group of people to agree on anything when they are convinced there is nothing worth fighting for/agreeing on?

[QUOTE] [B} But on a personal level it would make great leaders. [/B]{QUOTE]

I do not think so. People do not follow anyone without principle, at least not willingly, and a man without followers is too vulnerable to do anything great.

[QUOTE] I think this is what makes it so alluring.
I think this touches on Nietzsche's oversoul. Of course the oversoul would have to be able to fully believe without a trace of doubt that he is completely able to bend his belief by will. And then believe this new belief completely. [QUOTE]

That wouldnt change reality one ounce. People are not Wily Coyote, they fall even when they are unaware of gravity.

I wonder why it didnt actually quote... Oh well.

In my opinion philosophical nihilism is a good thing but when it turns into political nihilsim that's a bad thing. I mean who wants anarchy?

Nihilism sounds like a religon that always changes itself every time something comes up like black people are no longer slaves.(Sorry to discredit the Mormans out there).

only philosophicalnot political and only on a personal level putting this into law or words would be stupid and impossible. Once a nihlist comes into power he would have to appear to follow one belief (become objective) but could in fact stay subjective personally.

Spirit a nihilist leader has the oppurtunity to become a great leader as he would be free to make any political alignments he wants (to best fit the situation) because on a personal level he wouldn't be bound to one set of thinking but possibly all. Basically he is more able to adapt... and that is the reason it wouldn't work past a personal level - how the fuck can you have a government based on the fact there is no rules? Like BuD02 said anarchy.

I do not think so. People do not follow anyone without principle, at least not willingly, and a man without followers is too vulnerable to do anything great.

To everyone else he would have principle... as for a reason for leading the best I can think of is power, but that is just speculation because technically there could be a million reasons - I say he is a nihilist only as a foundation to become whatever it is he wishes to become. I don't believe you could live nihilism completely - just use it to start from.

That wouldnt change reality one ounce. People are not Wily Coyote, they fall even when they are unaware of gravity.

I didn't mean having power over yourself would make you Wily Coyote - just able you to be free or bound to whatever belief you wish.

Oh and I would appreciate anyone else's opinion too.

If youre question was more like, would a guy who refused to murder people not be as good a leader as someone who would, obviously, duh. But a guy without some kind of movitation other than nothing would be a better leader than a nihilist. Like i said, I dont even believe there is a such thing as nihilism- if people could really believe in nothing, it wouldnt have a name. But no, a leader who came close to believing in nothing would not be great. It takes a lot of strength, dedication, passion, and will power to be a great man of history, and something, anything, has to fuel that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nz man:
Nihilism sounds like a religon that always changes itself every time something comes up like black people are no longer slaves.(Sorry to discredit the Mormans out there).

---

Nihilism isn't a religion.

your missing the point dude

Anarchy is good for natural order. Regulated order in society creates limits, allows mass population growth. The earth needs more chaos. It creates balance in the grand ecosystem of Earth. Sure it creates a condition in which "survival of the fittest" comes into play, natrual selection. Which isn't fair going by humanitarian viewpoint, but its humanitarianism that has the world overpopulated, and eventually will cause the destruction of the earth. There are other ways to go about acheiving balance though. Such as limiting birth, but that's very much opposed in this country.

I personally can't think of one time when anarchy has been good for humanity. Revoultion yes, anarchy no. Usually after anarchism the country turns to dictatorship because it's the easiest type of government to form, which form my standpoint is not good for anybody.

What the fuck does what that other kid said have to do with this topic at all?

if i don't belive in anyhting it doesn't mean that i belive in nothing, but in this case i do, because nothing seems to be the obvious answer, none of the above is just a copout for undecisive pricks, and an actaul selection just destroys the meaning of religion chosing, i mean, who wants an actual religion?

oh, and spirit, you didn't do /quote to close.

basically what I am trying to say is in a world full of rules a nihilist is god or at least god-like.
...
from my POV (which is of course the only one that really matters)

fuck a religion that says follow this or that belief because of such and such a God in this life so you can be free in the next and make this life a life of moderation.
fuck a belief system (especially eastern and new age) that says to basically do the same as above without the promise of a god or an afterlife... or not one you'd remember, what the fuck is the allure of reincarnartion if you don't remember anyways? Just do it 'cause it's right!
fuck a set of laws that are based on either or both of the above beliefs... yes you have to follow the law (unless you want to spend most of your life in jail) but you don't have to believe in them - this is where anarchy messes up - it confuse's not following with not believing.
fuck nature - spirit I have already conceded what nature might have had in store for us. What we have become. Still this has no bearing on what I will become. Give me all your... who are you to question nature blah blah blah, but who are you to question me?

I like the world the way it is now. It would be a lot worse for me if it was complete anarchy or if everyone believed in nihilism. The way it is now I feel like I have an advantage.

Whichever way we look at it - when it comes down to the foundation of things we base our ideas on logic... our brain comes to a conclusion with whatever sources it has - of course some brains favor different outcomes more than others... mine says I could care as much as I wanted for someone else's lives but there is no point. It tells me we all have our selfish reasons for doing and believing things and I can forget the needless things that just add more rules and baggage that people follow, because they feel they should, if I want. To me the belief in nothing (as RAOVQ so rightly said) is the only logical answer... so how could I believe otherwise? And who is anyone else to say that is not right for me to believe that? You believe whatever you wish...

And umm that is why I am god



[This message has been edited by govinda (edited 11-09-2002).]

>>>>fuck nature - spirit I have already conceded what nature might have had in store for us. What we have become. Still this has no bearing on what I will become. Give me all your... who are you to question nature blah blah blah, but who are you to question me?<<<<

LoL, sorry Odin.

Just a quick point, Wittgenstein would say that you're both having difficulty with this argument because you're not talking about the same thing. Neither of you have agreed on a definition of Nihilism. So, everything that follows from your exchange becomes defunct.

One attempt to define philosophic nihilism (and its a pretty good attempt) is to say a nihilist believes (yes, believes) that moral assertions (eg Killing is bad) have the capacity of truth or falsehood but that none of them are true. Since there has never been (to my knowledge) a satisfactory and rational break down of morality existing as an objective entity then this makes it appear that nihilism is absolutely correct.

It's just no one is emotionally capable of living this belief. (This last is my opinion).

Philosophic debating is much like professional wrestling. Really.

I think the definition Govinda is going by is Nihilism as Myopic Selfishness.

Vele might just be right?

venefrigus I'm just trying to accuse everyone else of irrational, impossible, and myopic selflessness.

My last post was an attempt at widening the argument (stirring shit) but nobody really made any attacks on my argument and sorry 123tool but what you described is emotionally possible as I am living proof. An easier way to describe it would be that universal beliefs and truths originated from someone and thus you as someone are free to create your own. We seems to have either been born or taught to believe we are owned by our beliefs when it was us who created them... i'm afraid the same applies to our view of the government too.

People automatically associate selfishness with wrong... to everyone who thinks this... um WHY?
Although I would like someone to understand my argument and point out to me how I am wrong... the only flaws I see in my text is that belief of this kind wouldn't work on anything but an individual basis... and umm this makes me god.

[This message has been edited by govinda (edited 11-10-2002).]

"And um this makes me god."

Which would contradict the truth.

Therefore, your argument is incorrect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by govinda:


People automatically associate selfishness with [b]wrong... to everyone who thinks this... um WHY?
Although I would like someone to understand my argument and point out to me how I am wrong... the only flaws I see in my text is that belief of this kind wouldn't work on anything but an individual basis... and umm this makes me god.

B]

---

I don't think personally that their is anything wrong with selfishness. In my opinion everything we do is based on this. Even if we think weare doing it for somebody else I believe our motivations are still for ourself. An example would be somebody giving to charity, they don't give with out feeling. They do it because it makes them feel better about who they are which is selfish. I also agree that nihilism is only practical on an individual basis. Because If all of society were nihilists then the world be be in a constant state of chaos.

If everyone was a nihilist, then it would be constant chaos. Yet, that is the natural order of the universe. Everything is in constant motion and flux. It seems only humans have order and law.

We are all born atheists, anarchists, and nihilists. It is only when we are brainwashed/indoctrinated that we see the world differently. Who is to say which is the right way. Most people fervently believe that their belief system is flawless or at least has merit. Nihilism rejects that in favor of reality. Is doing drugs wrong? Is owning an automatic weapon wrong? Is abortion wrong? Are hate crimes wrong? Is racism wrong?

What I am trying to demonstrate is that most people will have different answers. Some will believe that their own answers are the right moral decisions. Others will think your answers are bs. Nihilism rejects morality as a construct of the human mind rather than as an absolute truth of the cosmos.

Fox, have you studied Wittgenstein?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:
Fox, have you studied Wittgenstein?

---

Read some, yes. Studied, no.

Why do you ask? Did Wittgeinstein speak about reality-tunnels?!

FoxLeonard

In his earlier work he described language as being the map of reality on a one to one object basis. My professor always took his work to mean that we can't have thoughts outside of those defined by our language.

I'm not sure I totally agree. Or totally understand for that matter; The Tractatus is some obscure stuff.

123, of course you can have thoughts outside your language. Take hallucinogens.

123Tool!

Hrrmm...Jokes based on deliberate misunderstanding don�t always work in cyberspace. I used the only part in my earlier post that couldn�t have been Wittgenstein - reality-tunnels - and asked if he had used that. I guess it needed a silly face, to come through as a joke.

I�m not so sure that Wittgeinstein himself understood Tractatus, when he wrote it, and when he read it (if he ever did). But isn�t that part of what he�s saying? We can�t have thoughts outside of (our) language. Yet, he tried to think and write outside of language, or beyond language. Partly the same thing as bkc is trying to, in a neighbouring topic...eh..I�m digressing...

Anyway, what I wrote could of course be taken to mean the same thing, or be used about our habitual language; personal as well as consensus language.

We do not realize what tremendous power the structure of an habitual language has. It is not an exeggaration to say that it enslaves us through the mechanism of semantic reaction, and that the structure wich a language exhibits, and imposes upon us unconciously, is atomatically projected upon the world around us. this semantic power is indeed so unbelievable, that I don�t know any one, even among well-trained scientists, who, after admitting some argument as correct, does not the next minute deny or disregard (usually unconciously) practically every word he had admitted, being carried away again by the old language and his semantic reaction.

No, that was not Wittgenstein.

The menu is not the meal.

FoxLeonard

Harhar, so I've been busted for passing with 51% on my Wittgenstein course...

Usually these "lectures" I went to (they were more like discussions) were extremely difficult to follow. The point about hallucinogens is well taken; I actually argued something similar but I seemed to fail to impress this point of view on my professor. I went to maybe half of these lectures; so I often felt I shouldn't come barging into the class and monopolise the airspace... so I didn't take the time to have him explain himself again... because he'd probably need to explain himself again after that... as I say, the Tractatus as a primary source was near to unintelligible to me; good for you Fox for reading it and developing some opinions about it.

Fox, you may have missed one distinction, however, that Wittgenstein took a very long break from philosophic publishing after the Tractatus and when he came back to the stylus he completely refuted all of the conclusions he had made in it. I mean, this was years later. So actually, (but don't quote Mr 51% ok?) I believe he was saying something like language binds our thoughts, at least initially. BUT, if you know better you know better, I'm no authority.

I am, however, interested to speak to you further about it; you are the first person I have met outside of my campus who has even heard of the guy.

But, have we solved the issues of Nihilism? Have I rudely veered off topic?

123Tool!

Yes, we have somewhat veered off topic. Not the first time, and probably not the last time...

I know that Wittgenstein refuted Tractatus, or tried to. As I said, I wonder if he understood it himself. I don�t understand it, but I still have a feeling that he was closer to the truths (plural) in Tractatus. Then again, I have far from read all he wrote later. I also want to stress what I said in my first reply. I have read him, not studied him.

syndicalist, and you, are both right and wrong about having thoughts outside of language through the use of halucinogens. Initially it can be called thoughts (far) outside of language. In the next step, if you want to make use of it, you�re back to language again. So, you can�t think outside of language about thoughts outside of language...

To do that, you have to be a Shaman, or a Fox...or both...

By the way: Check your e-mail (others do it).

And check the topic "Americas plan to take over the world..." in the Conspiracy community. But bring you glasses, and be prepared for a lot of noice...

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-20-2002).]

Oh, I see what you're saying; but I can have an abstract thought, not tell you about it, and then transcend language this way right? Or do I somehow disqualify myself with typing the above sentence?

Harhar, I went and tracked down that clown of yours, I suspect you have grown up wanting to join the circus right? And so you can't help but like the balloon molesting little hobgoblin?

Harhar, he makes a point, and has revived the post; hats off to his flippant (thats backflippant) ways...

my email hmmm? I'll take a look...

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:
Oh, I see what you're saying; but I can have an abstract thought, not tell you about it, and then transcend language this way right?

---

Well, yes, you can TELL me that you have (had) an abstract thought (experience). But what is the use of that, if you can�t tell me about the specific thought ot its full implications, because you can�t even analyze it in your own thoughts, without getting hampered by the limitations of (your own) language?

There are ways around it, but outside of language, or outside of consensus language, anyway...

quote:

---

Or do I somehow disqualify myself with typing the above sentence?

---

No, but you would probably disqualify (most of) your abstract thought, if you typed it, and I would disqualify more of it in the process of reading.

quote:

---

Harhar, I went and tracked down that clown of yours, I suspect you have grown up wanting to join the circus right? And so you can't help but like the balloon molesting little hobgoblin?

---

I have, since my late teens, been part of "the circus" one way or another. But I still haven�t worked on a real circus. That�s about the only thing left on that list.

quote:

---

Harhar, he makes a point, and has revived the post; hats off to his flippant (thats backflippant) ways...

---

And I hope you also noticed that what he is doing connects to this discussion, and to what I said in my second paragraph above. As well as in a comment to him.

I only wish he would fix that exhaust pipe on his car...

quote:

---

my email hmmm? I'll take a look...

---

Well, did you, or did something go astray in cyberspace?

There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words.

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by govinda:

Bkc I think I know what your saying but you are going about it wrong. Your talking about perception right? and technically a crazy person could see a math truism differently and who are we to say he is wrong... all we have is more people believing otherwise - strength in numbers, and I don't know about everyone else but I don't usually hold much stock in that. The only problem is there is probably someone who firmly believes your ]"all questions have more than one answer"[/ is the silliest thing they have ever heard... basically what I'm trying to say is trying to adopt an idea to everyone by virtue of your own statement would be impossible.


[This message has been edited by govinda (edited 11-16-2002).]

---

In a way this is about perception. A person believes one answer to be true because he looks at it fron a certain point of view. Another person looks from a different point of view and gets a different answer. They are both answers that are not completely right or completely wrong , but have varying degrees of correctness. But the kicker is that there is no 100% correct answer. But our usual way of thinking is that there is a one correct answer, if only we can just find it. The only totally correct answer we will find is that ALL questions have more than one correct answer.

Thanks for the zap Fox, I've only had time to briefly peruse some of the material. Even so, you've already piqued my curiosity... I need some time to digest this meal...

As we say in Nz... goodonyamate...

123Tool!

You�re welcome! Bon Apetit!

FoxLeonard

Hey Fox, quick question for you; why does an abstract thought have to be translated into a language of word or thoughtword in order for it to be significant? Or effective? Is communication really that important? Couldn't the (I envisage something like a picture or a feeling) influence me without my communicating it to others? Or therefore, translating it into words to myself?

I'm curious because I'm not sure...

And I also have to ask if you are the kind of person with the "inner voice". Do you subvocalise when you think about things? Because usually, I don't. I ask this because I'm wondering whether this could be where our assumptions diverge...

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:
Hey Fox, quick question for you;

---

Easy for you to say, it�s me who got to answer...

quote:

---

why does an abstract thought have to be translated into a language of word or thoughtword in order for it to be significant?

---

It doesn�t have to.

quote:

---

Or effective?

---

Now we are closing in on the problem.

quote:

---

Is communication really that important?

---

First of all, we were originally talking about language and Wittgeinstein, and thus about communication. Rather than personal, inner experiences, I mean.

Apart from that; yes it is important for us to share things; to force our pet-beliefs upon eachother and so on.

quote:

---

Couldn't the (I envisage something like a picture or a feeling) influence me without my communicating it to others?

---

Sure it can. But the more special it is, the more eager you will be to share it with others.

Most people are also in the habit of wanting to understand. So chances are, when they have the great experience, they will try to analyze it; using language in the thought process, and limiting the essence of their experience to what their language can define.

One way to avoid this, is alternate states of the mind, such as meditation. Problem is, that if you search the whole town, you wont find one meditation center that allows you to think during meditation. Much less can they teach you to do it.

quote:

---

Or therefore, translating it into words to myself?

---

Ooops! Adressed above, it seems...

quote:

---

And I also have to ask if you are the kind of person with the "inner voice". Do you subvocalise when you think about things?

---

Sometimes when I think in English, as now, otherwise not.

quote:

---

Because usually, I don�t. I ask this because I'm wondering whether this could be where our assumptions diverge...

---

Obvioulsy not.

As much as I�m struggling to find a way to describe it (in english, on top of that) to you, I�m not assuming all the way through. I even hinted at that in a post above.

We stepped away from Wittgenstein, if you didn�t notice...

But, as I said to Loan before strolling over here. My batteries need to be re-charged... so yu will have to forgive me...

Time is three eyes and eight elbows.

FoxLeonard

One assumption I have been making was that we were talking in the context of Wittgenstein the whole time. Thats one assumption I was making; there are a hundred others, of course, which I require to function faster than a corpse caught in a state of perpetual arrest. Our assumptions diverge, Fox, in as many ways as our personalities do.

I stated that my professor was of the opinion Wittgenstein believed that we could not have thoughts outside of those created by a language. I said I wasn't sure I understood. You've been patiently explaining to me how this could be true and doing this in your second (another assumption, maybe its your tenth) language. I'm afraid I still don't understand. And I fear this conversation is becoming painful for you to conduct. But I just can't help myself ask one more question...

What do you think a meditative state of mind is?

Oh, and by the way, I'm slowly catching up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:
One assumption I have been making was that we were talking in the context of Wittgenstein the whole time.

---

We were! It�s just that we slid into an area where I have personal experience and knowledge, rather than just theories. I have to assume about Wittgenstein, but I don�t have to assume about "handling" out-side-of-thought-thoughts.

Still my language is, by definition, "assuming" when I try to explain it in consensus reality. And even more so through cyberspace, where I can�t "act out" parts of it, and/or use music, pictures etc.

quote:

---

Our assumptions diverge, Fox, in as many ways as our personalities do.

---

Couldn�t agree more!

quote:

---

You've been patiently explaining to me how this could be true and doing this in your second (another assumption, maybe its your tenth) language.

---

My second, even if Norwegian and Danish are so close to Swedish that they are, in another sense, my second languages.

quote:

---

I'm afraid I still don't understand.

---

Neither do I, inside of language. But I have a comprehendable, variable thesis in my head, that allows me to be satisified with "not understanding". In a sense I�m trying to make you understand that you can�t understand; as I beleive Wittgeinstein also was aiming for, in part.

quote:

---

And I fear this conversation is becoming painful for you to conduct.

---

No. Not as long as you get something out of it, and as long as I can see you do. As long as we are going somewhere, we are making progress. Both of us, I mean.

quote:

---

What do you think a meditative state of mind is?

---

Most answers to that question are klich�s. Some have become klich�s because they are good definitions.

One such definition is: total piece of mind.

Another is: no flow of the concious; free flow of the sub-concious.

The human being is the highest self-regulating system.

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
Well, yes, you can TELL me that you have (had) an abstract thought (experience). But what is the use of that, if you can�t tell me about the specific thought ot its full implications, because you can�t even analyze it in your own thoughts, without getting hampered by the limitations of (your own) language?

---

Well, here's where I'm at; (I know I'm being cheeky by dredging up stuff from a few posts ago)... I thought we weren't talking about Wittgenstein and hence communication but rather Wittgenstein and hence "language" as it binds thought. The use I see in having an abstract thought is that I had it, it influences me beyond where the mere application of words would, it exists distinct of language or these sentences, it is what it is, not what I struggle to portray to you. I don't need to analyse it using language (or for that matter recall it using language) to be aware of its effect upon my psyche.

I know you know all of this. But I want to show you what I know. And that is that yes, I understand these concepts (more like expreriences) cannot be communicated through language. But I do not see the NECESSARY connection between this fact and my "not being able to hold abstract thoughts in my head". I.e. how is it that Language binds my thought, in all its myriad forms?

I await education as if I deserve it.

Oh yeah, and I reckon a meditative state of mind is the experience of the qualia of approaching an absolute appreciation for "now". I have come to believe this through my own experience...

[This message has been edited by 123Tool (edited 11-22-2002).]

123Tool!

Didn�t you like my klich�s, or what?!

I guess you�re trying to tell me that I have given my answers from the wrongly made assumption, that you haven�t had any experience of "handling" out-side-of-language-thoughts, while I have. If so, you�re correct.

When you mentioned what you had suggested to your professor, about the possibility that hallucinogens could be "usefull", it could of course be taken to mean that you had, and have, personal experience of hallucinogens. But not necessarily so.

After that, your questions to me seemed to come from a "down to earth" (from earth, rather) perspective. From someone who for sure knows that he has useful thoughts/experiences outside of language, but most probably not has a "method" for how to, not only save them, but also "file" them ("understand" them for practical use) without the constrainment of language. In my experience, this applies to "most (down to earth) people", even if I try to avoid generalisations.

So, if you, through meditation and/or hallucinogens, have a "method" to avoid (consensus) language when you think about your outside-of-language-thoughts, you can go back and change all my "yous" to "most people".

In other words, I still believe that (consensus) language limits thought for "most people", and limits their communication even more, not least because they yearn for understanding in its literal sense.


Step out of a triangle, into striped light. turn around, and step BACK into striped light.

FoxLeonard

123Tool!

To somewhat bring the topic back to "life", and in the same time give you a strong case
in point:

Check this, and don�t miss "The End"
www.darc-art.com/index.html

FoxLeonard

I feel these have some relevence too...? interesting conversation by the way.
http://www.alexgrey.com/a-gallery.html

govinda!

Thanks for the link, and for fullfilling my wish, to bring this topic back to life, as I say in my post with the link to darc-art. What I meant was that I hoped for someone else to enter and take part. Seems it worked...

I only took a brief check now on Alex Grey�s work, but it looked very interesting.

Do you mean that he also works "automatically", as Anne Slicer-Darc does. Because that is the connection to my conversation with 123Tool. I�m giving him proof, in a sense, that he is right...

If that wasn�t your reason to choose Alex Grey, I�m curious to know what it was. And feel free to comment on our conversation, or join in. If we had wanted privacy, we could have used e-mail.

FoxLeonard

Forgive me if I missed the point totally but I added Alex Grey because (to me) he is an artist that tries to show the capacity of the mind in a way that can't be explained in words... this is shown better in context with some of his other works - namely a project with the band Tool - where Tool write lyrics explaining the limits of communication they want to transcend, Alex Grey shows where they want to arrive (as this is very hard if not impossible through words)

Here is an exerpt from one of Alex's statements:

I am an intersecting kaleidoscope of Being in a rainbow refractive wave pattern: a corpuscle of light on the ocean...the transparency of my body with the rocks...sometimes the only way to summarize my feelings is to draw--to collapse the frenzy in my limbs enough to make a mark out of profound appreciation for my existence.


Fox I took your 'automatic' to mean without thinking or translating into words for people to understand - just laying things out as you see or think them.

again forgive me if I missed the point


[This message has been edited by govinda (edited 11-24-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by govinda:
Forgive me if I missed the point totally but I added Alex Grey because (to me) he is an artist that tries to show the capacity of the mind in a way that can't be explained in words...

---

As far as I can see, he also succeeds in that. He can�t reach everybody, but he can reach a lot of people. In some of his works there is something that can be called "religious simplicity", or "new-age klich�s". It could therefore also be easily dissmissed as such (by art critics, for example). But if he is a man "on a mission" it is a usefull short-cut to reach as many people as possible. In the lack of a direct language, he tries to bridge the gap with the known symbolic language of religion.

quote:

---

this is shown better in context with some of his other works - namely a project with the band Tool

---

If you haven�t noticed, check the name of the guy I have the conversation with, above!

quote:

---

Fox I took your 'automatic' to mean without thinking or translating into words for people to understand - just laying things out as you see or think them.

---

You got it right!

But in the case of Anne Slicer-Darc, she has no choice but to do it (as I understand her). While Alex Grey has decided to do it, and found/thought out a method. In other words, she is (as far as I know) even more "automatic". Sometimes to the extent that it haunts her and hurts her.

quote:

---

again forgive me if I missed the point

---

You didn�t! You got the point in what I said to you, as well as the essence of the conversation above.


Man prides himself of being the only animal who can modify his nature, yet when he chooses to do so, he is called a phony!

FoxLeonard

Thanks for the links, fox and govinda! I'm sorry I can't do justice to this thread just yet, I'm swamped with work and gf commitments...

I'm swimming through an ocean of knowledge, and it is with a great effort that I dive ever deeper and deeper...

ill admit i didnt read this whole post because it kinda bored me on the first page but i must say that nihilism seems to be the only logical belief system for me. i would consider myself a neo-nihilist meaning i have adapted and changed some parts of the philosophy to fit my worldview.

can you honestly say that there is a more logical and factually supported philosophy?

123Tool!

You�re welcome!

As long as you�re diving, and not sinking...

By the way, your banker wants to talk to you, about the loan...

FoxLeonard

Hi Fox,

If I was sinking, I could just blow bubbles with my eyes open and follow them to the surface... hehe... your "kliches" about the meditative state of mind are good, and you're right, the reason why kliches (why are we spelling this with a 'k'? So as not to use a "kliched" spelling? Oh, thou art an onion in your layers...) become kliches is because it has been true for more people more often than it has not. The reason people don't like them is because it infers a certain glibness on the behalf of the speaker - but no one could accuse you of that Fox...

Govinda! Ahhah, you have uncovered one reason my screen name is what it is; I have followed the band Tool for many years and have especially enjoyed the lyrics of a few of their songs... the band is fascinating to study as they have really made inroads into their personal development... from early days with songs about why one doesn't have to be a vegetarian, to songs with anti religious sentiment, to songs about taking responsiblity for ourselves and our world, to finally approach the unapproachable in their latest album Lateralus, in which, and now I have to thank you, I had found their message confused, less certain and hadn't really understood why. One explanation lies in the complexity and nature of the message they wish to communicate, and that it can not be done purely through language or music. This was something I hadn't thought of directly, so thanks. Another is that they are coming to the limit of their comprehension of their world.

Anyhoo, syphon, how much do you think your thoughts, your assumptions and your values are influenced by your language?

I can't believe they gave me a loan with MY credit rating! The fools! THE FOOLS!

Man prides himself of being the only animal who can modify his nature, yet when he chooses to do so, he is called a phony!

without any good reason as well (that I can see!)

123tool I am a huge fan of Tool too. I thought Laterlus was amazing - it would be interesting to see where they can go from there. Have you seen there latest music video Parabola - this is the one where at the end they use some of Alex Grey's artwork...

Syphon I am at the same conclusion that no other philosophy logically compares to nihilism. It makes sense and can be totally argued on every point (at least im pretty sure it can) - but logically it would be stupid to be a complete nihilist and so like you said a neo-nihilist looks like the best answer.