Love and infatuation are words we use to describe the experience of being flooded with phenylethylamine (PEA) and oxytocin, the chemicals that lock us into pair-bonds for the reproduction process. You say that's not love, that's infatuation. The PEA influx stage can be called love or infatuation, it depends on who you ask. That's a distinction I'm not particularly interested in. Regardless, I would argue "love" (as most people seem to conceive it) does exist, it is solidity of the pair bond ensured by high oxytocin levels after the tapering of PEA during the courtship phase.
The artist still creates their own vision, but rarely are the onlookers seeing exactly what the artist was thinking. It's what lead to the laughable concept known as the Artist's Statement, an explanation for others to share that artist's vision from not being able to accept that other people have different thoughts than his or her own.
More often than not, an artist is paid from how well they sell themselves, which isn't just talent, but also how well they can create hype for their pieces or target a specific audience. The field of art when a price tag is thrown at it tends to involve a lot of pandering.
I fail to see how looking at art and trying to understand it from your own experiences is "work".
As for your not seeing "the lines" as good art while they did is showcasing the difference. Your interpretation of why it was junk had you not see it as good art, yet it kept the others there for a long time. Some eat up the whole "But why did he pick those colors?" "Why lines?" "Why are they spaced like this?" "What was going through his mind when he painted this piece?" "What about the texture choice?"
To them, it's still art. I feel as you do about the line scenario related to the works of Yves Klein, and yet he is still in history textbooks. I mean he's well known for pieces like this.
I think you're actually right on this, but for the wrong reason. I think love, as people tend to experience it today, is an emotion in that it is part of a dualistic world- the opposite being hate. It's all part of a dualistic world that is subject to change. I think you are right, however, in the idea that it's not an emotion, but only in it's truest form, which is unconditional love- unconditional love isn't an emotion bc it's non-dualistic, it requires no qualification and is totally independent of anything- it exists outside duality. Whether you believe in it or not makes no difference, it's like believing in light. To someone who's blind they might believe light doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean it's true. Unconditional love is always available at all times, bc someone at this very moment is experiencing it somewhere. The only thing that makes it appear not real is the judgment of the mind.
"Bear in mind that my brain works like a calculating machine. Each person who makes a presesntation to me introduces into this calculating machine a small wheel of information. There forms a certain picture, or a number on each wheel. I press a button and there flashes into my mind the sum of all this information."
--Adolf Hitler
Here is what is real.
When you want Power, Influence, Manipulation, and Control (PIMAC) over someone, look directly into their LEFT eye (connected to their right brain), and silently and to yourself, say, "I Love You." When you do this the pupils of your eyes will widen and help to PIMAC the target. I have made this work thousands of times with great results. Try it.
by EdvardSorry, but the whole thing seems just an easy way to screw with people's heads and make money. Where's the talent in that. Show me a wall sized canvas of some battle in detail, and at least I'll say: fuck, that's a good painting, I could never do smth like that. The artist deserves to be called an artist.
Great to see you're not entirely retarded. If you swallowed your ego and actually made an effort to learn from me you'd be much better, though. :)
by thesugargirlunder the US constitution everyone has writes, and is afforded these rights under amendments, online AND offline.
Who cares about the US constitution? (Hint: jurists, policeman, and perhaps democrats — and I'm none of these.)
by TheCrowOnTheFence
by EtzelYou can't just say you don't agree with me and then leave it at that. Otherwise your opinion as as much value to me as my neighbour's dog turd. You have to say "I don't agree, because of this and that reasons". Anyone stupid and audacious enough not to agree with me without providing reasons can officially go fuck themselves for wasting my time in DISCUSSION forum. :)
Oh but I can. As you can clearly see, that post was directed at Machiavelli, not you. I was simply politely ending the discussion with him, by pointing out that if I wanted it to go further, I'd have to take it up with you instead. And as I didn't take it up with you, that obviously means that I didn't care to discuss the matter further. (In no small part because I think you're a pompous dimwit.)
As for how much value my opinion has to you, I doubt very much that it would be any different had I responded to you, instead. Everyone's opinion is worth shit to you except your own, which is why you will never learn.
And I also don't believe I've wasted any of your time. For one, you could have simply not read a post that was not directed at you. In that way you wasted your own time. Besides, if you have the time to write overbearing monologues about the amorality of sex toys on a forum for sociopaths, I suspect you have some to spare.
By "Anyone stupid and audacious enough not to agree with me without providing reasons can officially go fuck themselves for wasting my time", I believe what you're actually trying to say is "Anyone stupid and audacious enough not to agree with me can officially go fuck themselves for wasting my time". And that is exactly why I didn't bring it up with you.
Let me teach you something. If I thought my opinion was shitty, I wouldn't have it as my opinion. Everyone who's an expert at a subject thinks the disagreeing opinion of the other is shitty (specially if the other is not an expert himself). That's how life works. Or do you want scientists to start paying attention to MrOmega's ramblings? So I will of course naturally deem intelligent those who agree with me, because I deem myself intelligent. But I guess I should give an example, and let's stick with the "1+1=2" for the sake of simplicity. If I say 1+1=2 and provide reasons as to why I believe so (although I by now deem the opinion of "1+1=2" being commonsensical and obvious, I make an effort to provide arguments so as to guide my readers into seeing the commonsensicalness and obviousness of it more easily) and then you show up without addressing my reasons at all and disagree, I'm going to have a hard time taking you seriously.
So if you go around proclaiming you "don't entirely agree" with an opinion I developed after entire YEARS of experience and study, you better provide arguments or else I have no interest in reading you.
My rage at time was mostly due to some personal events that made me want to murder someone, so my tolerance at the time was pretty much close to zero. And I used this opportunity to vent my anger (feels good). No hard feelings. Besides, if you thought my opinion was that stupid, you'd easily refute it, so by attacking you, I'd get a faster reaction from you. Unfortunately to me (as I kind of expected...) your reaction did not address my definition of love at all.
Besides, if you have the time to write overbearing monologues about the amorality of sex toys on a forum for sociopaths
You hallucinated this. I never wrote any such thing.
by TheCrowOnTheFence
by EtzelHow can just replying with a "I don't agree" NOT be a waste of time for anyone? In this case it's actually not much a waste of time, because when you manage to disagree with me after I explain in EXCRUCIATING DETAIL the non-problem of the word love, it becomes clear you are mentally retarded. Like someone disagreeing with "1+1=2", lol.
So it was not much of a waste of time (it actually SAVES me time), because next time I see a post by TheCrown I'll simply scroll down.
And this proves my point, perfectly. Anyone who disagrees with you is retarded, even before you've heard their reasoning. Tell me, why would I waste my time, debating with someone who's already made up their mind that I'm retarded, before hearing me out?
Because you can learn from the discussion that erupts from such a disagreement. That's good enough reason for me to debate. In this case, you'd learn more from me, of course, because I am at the cutting edge of philosophy (i.e. I have two and half thousand years of ingenious work behind me, so the chances of ME learning from YOU are very dim (and there's no reason for you to feel offended at that, as should go without saying)).
As for how much value my opinion has to you, I doubt very much that it would be any different had I responded to you, instead. Everyone's opinion is worth shit to you except your own, which is why you will never learn.
If you responded to me with arguments, perhaps my opinion of you would not indeed be that much different (in the case of your arguments being retarded), but I would at least deem you less retarded for making an effort to think and make use of your analytic powers.
As for your last sentence: yet the opinions of Heraclitus, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche I consider to be of the highest value. How do you explain that?
Note moreover that I only deem other people's opinions shit when I'm absolutely certain that my opinion is the correct one. I'm not a bigot (as should go without saying, for a philosopher is precisely the complete opposite of a bigot).