Do We Learn To Love Bad Art?


Recommended Posts

It must be only physical, when you are looking at the face of a person you do not know, or know anything about. Everyone knows who Grace Kelly was and has seen her in movies and photos. Ditto for Miley Cyrus and Ayn Rand for that matter. As I said before, if I had never before seen a photo of Rand or of Leni Riefenstahl, I would have believed each to be the other, from photos.

Incidentally you never commented on the female photo strip yet. Mother Teresa is pretty ugly, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 383
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It must be only physical, when you are looking at the face of a person you do not know, or know anything about.

Yes it is.

But it doesn't take long for the truth to reveal itself.

There are "beautiful" people who are ugly,

and "ugly" people who are beautiful.

Incidentally you never commented on the female photo strip yet. Mother Teresa is pretty ugly, no?

In solely physical terms, yes.

But that is not the only criteria for beauty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That implies but does not demonstrate objectivity. And don't forget Grace had grace, it was far from merely physical. There has to be a strong implication of inner beauty and strength. An inner radiance is needed. Character helps a lot, too.

--Brant

Grace had grace.

Well put, Brant.

I'm truly amazed how people could be so incredibly obtuse as to actually regard beauty as ~only~ physical.

I came back on this thread by mistake. I'm not a weak-minded hypocrite, honest (but will my fans ever forgive me? Sob).

--Brant

I'm outta here!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That implies but does not demonstrate objectivity. And don't forget Grace had grace, it was far from merely physical. There has to be a strong implication of inner beauty and strength. An inner radiance is needed. Character helps a lot, too.

--Brant

Grace had grace.

Well put, Brant.

I'm truly amazed how people could be so incredibly obtuse as to actually regard beauty as ~only~ physical.

I came back on this thread by mistake. I'm not a weak-minded hypocrite, honest (but will my fans ever forgive me? Sob).

--Brant

I'm outta here!

This is Hotel California.

You can check out,

but you can never leave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: Are you meaning to sound puritanical in your own views on extra-marital sex, or is that one of your accepting-the-opponent's-premises-to-use-them-against-the-opponent maneuvers?

The latter.

PS: Who are the third and fifth women from the left in the photo strip?

Bonnie Parker and Rosalind Franklin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally you never commented on the female photo strip yet. Mother Teresa is pretty ugly, no?

In solely physical terms, yes.But that is not the only criteria for beauty.

You might be interested in doing some research on the topic "Ghoul of Calcutta."

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Failing the appearance of the Rev. J Neil from the sky, I will give it the old college try on another front.Moralist, you said earlier that "there are only two basic worldviews". I disagree strongly with that statement. Can you describe these two views? and do not answer with "the correct one and the incorrect one" or "the subjective and the objective" or I will for the first time put in an abuse report to Michael!

God, I love how you express yourself! Your wit never fails to crack me up. I'd add a smiley, except I've devolved back into Neanderthal basic posting mode for some odd reason.As to your question, I'll be very clear and direct so as not to trigger the nuclear option. (wink)First off, both of the two basic world views are subjective, as we are totally subjective beings. Each basic world view corresponds to one of the two gender archetypes, so you are already well aware of the political expression for each view.The two basic world views are presently engaged in an ideological civil war for the heart of America. Using Ayn Rand's excellently concise and direct terms (I love her bluntness), the civil war is between the American Capitalist Producers... and the European Liberal Socialist Moochers and their allies the public union Looters who service the Moochers demands at the expense of the Producers.One view is all about earned merit......while the other view is all about unearned entitlement.One view holds each individual personally responsible for the evil they do......while the other blames (unjustly accuses) anything and everything else EXCEPT each individual for the evil they do.One view belongs to men and women who order their own lives without the need of government......while the other belongs to females who need government to be their husband, and to act as a father to their irresponsible delinquent fatherless spawn, and also to equally irresponsible males who need government to be their mommie and to take care of them.There's a face-off going on right now over Obamacare that clearly demonstrates the two basic world views.As a Conservative American man, Ted Cruz represents the view of earned merit.As a feminized Liberal male, Harry Reid represents the view of unearned entitlement.If you have any further questions as a result of reading this, I'll respond to the best of my ability.Greg

The above, combined with the anger and name calling that you indulged in over Miley Cyrus' dirty little dance in contrast to your nonchalantly overlooking Rand's fucking a married man for years, suggests to me that you're very attracted to Cyrus, and turned on by images of her, where you're not turned on by images of Rand. It appears that Cyrus tempts you, which is something that you can't control, and therefore she must be harshly condemned, where Rand does not turn you on, so she escapes your wrath despite having behaved much worse than Cyrus.

Your inner ugliness would therefore be your need to blame the object of your lust for your own weakness.

Of the two world views that you identified, that would put you into the category of "...while the other blames (unjustly accuses) anything and everything else EXCEPT each individual for the evil they do."

At least that's the way it looks from here. I can think of no plausible alternative to explain the double standards being employed in your anger and judgmental attitude toward Cyrus versus your being completely unfazed by Rand's behavior.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of your many complaints... the fact remains that what you subjectively perceive as beauty will always correspond with the reality of what is inside of you. This also holds true for everyone else including me. So the difference between our two views can be attributed to the fact we each live by different moral standards. And regardless of our different views, each of us is getting exactly what we deserve in our lives as the result of how we live.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moralist's dualist yinyang worldview sees the US hopelessly divided not only between red and blue but between men and women. He assigns universal human characteristics , which are uniquely mixed in each individual, to the Good Masculine which he admires, and the Bad Feminine which he doesn't.

Jesus please us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moralist's dualist yinyang worldview sees the US hopelessly divided not only between red and blue but between men and women. He assigns universal human characteristics , which are uniquely mixed in each individual, to the Good Masculine which he admires, and the Bad Feminine which he doesn't.

Jesus please us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eye_of_the_Beholder

Janet Tyler has undergone her eleventh treatment (the maximum number legally allowed) in an attempt to look like everybody else. The details of the treatment are not given, but Tyler is first shown with her head completely bandaged so that her face cannot be seen. She is described as being "not normal" by the nurses and doctor, whose own faces are always in shadows or off-camera.

The outcome of the procedure cannot be known until the bandages are removed. Tyler pleads with the doctor and eventually convinces him to remove the bandages early. After a climactic buildup, the bandages are removed. The reaction of the doctor and nurses is horror and disappointment. The procedure has failed, and her face has undergone "no change—no change at all". The camera pulls back to reveal that she is actually beautiful.

Great Twilight Zone on "beauty and ugliness."

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of your many complaints...


Greg, in a philosophical discussion, when people blow holes in your theory and identify your philosophical capriciousness, inconsistency and irrationality, it comes across as a dishonest attempt at spin for you to label their criticisms as mere "complaints," especially when you're not addressing the substance of their criticisms.

...the fact remains that what you subjectively perceive as beauty will always correspond with the reality of what is inside of you.


Why do you speak of "facts" when declaring that your every opinion and judgment is subjective? Why do you use the terminology of objectivity rather than honestly phrasing your statements in the language of subjectivity? Yet another capricious inconsistency on your part, I suppose. Instead of saying "the fact remains," you should be saying "my subjective opinion remains." You cannot honestly claim to be identifying facts if you believe what you say about all of your judgments being subjective. So why not be honest and stop disguising your subjective opinions in a phony veneer of objectivity?

This also holds true for everyone else including me.


Why must it hold true of everyone? The fact that you are purely subjective doesn't mean that everyone else must be also. It doesn't logically follow. Not only are you subjective, but you're also highly capricious both in your cognitive method and your ethical judgments, where most people here are not. Your personal preference for irrationality is not the default, universal cognitive operating system for all of mankind just because you want it to be and declare it to be.

So the difference between our two views can be attributed to the fact we each live by different moral standards.


How do you know that it's a fact and not a loopy, capricious, nonsense opinion?

And regardless of our different views, each of us is getting exactly what we deserve in our lives as the result of how we live.


Do rape victims get what they deserve? Do they have it coming, in your opinion? Is it a "fact" that women are nasty sluts and teases and "fugly c***s" if they don't cover themselves properly and avoid turning you on?

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moralist's dualist yinyang worldview sees the US hopelessly divided not only between red and blue but between men and women. He assigns universal human characteristics , which are uniquely mixed in each individual, to the Good Masculine which he admires, and the Bad Feminine which he doesn't.

Jesus please us.

Miley Cyrus' dance was masculine in its approach to sexuality -- its unashamed sexual aggressiveness. In effect, it was Miley accepting and practicing the good masculine world view that Greg claims to like. But somehow, instead of liking it, he apparently discovered that he feels threatened by it.

Also, speaking of traditional gender roles and generalizations of them, notice that Greg's world view is quite traditionally womanly in that he's preaching subjectivity, and he's practicing capriciousness in his judgments. His philosophy, judging by his posts here, appears to be something akin to "It's a woman's [and Greg's] prerogative to change her [and his] mind."

It's quite entertaining to watch Greg believe that he's fighting "an ideological civil war for the heart of America" on the side of the masculine capitalist producers while promoting his swishy, girly subjectivism.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

The two basic world views are presently engaged in an ideological civil war for the heart of America. Using Ayn Rand's excellently concise and direct terms (I love her bluntness), the civil war is between the American Capitalist Producers... and the European Liberal Socialist Moochers and their allies the public union Looters who service the Moochers demands at the expense of the Producers.

You've conveniently left out Rand's excellent criticism of mysticism.

One view is all about earned merit...

...while the other view is all about unearned entitlement.

One view holds each individual personally responsible for the evil they do...

...while the other blames (unjustly accuses) anything and everything else EXCEPT each individual for the evil they do.

One view belongs to men and women who order their own lives without the need of government...

...while the other belongs to females who need government to be their husband, and to act as a father to their irresponsible delinquent fatherless spawn, and also to equally irresponsible males who need government to be their mommie and to take care of them.

How feminine must a person be to need a father or mommie who is said to be even bigger and more powerful than government, like, say, God?

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unashamed sexual aggressiveness is certainly most displayed, and most accepted, in men. Yet it has emerged increasingly in women and there is an interesting side note on this from my ruling passion, the world of hockey.

I have been called a "hockey chick" here which is fine. A hockey chick is a female fan and/or player of the game, old or young, characterized by an irrational bias for the home team. A puck bunny however, is a phenomenon with its own subculture and definition in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Sociology has studied it and theses been written on it. They are a groupie subset who pursue hockey players, mainly in the junior and farm-teams, solely for sex. Most of these girls are 15-20 as are the players. Probably this happens in every sport. Some of them may be looking to catch a rising star, but most of them seem to be concerned just with notching up conquests, or hooking up with every guy on a team roster.

I have many thoughts about these girls, but one of them is, it is clear to me that they know their own highest values and pursue them. These boys are their heroes and the only ones worthy of their favours. (The boys do not reciprocate those sentiments, but you knew that).

In one way, it is just teenage girls chasing teenage boys in small cities across the country. The old sweet song, 21st century style.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been called a "hockey chick" here which is fine. A hockey chick is a female fan and/or player of the game, old or young, characterized by an irrational bias for the home team.

There should be an age cutoff for the term "hockey chick." Like 70 or 80.

After which it should be something like "hockey hag" or "ice witch."

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moralist's dualist yinyang worldview sees the US hopelessly divided not only between red and blue but between men and women.

That is not true.

Whenever people try to describe my view from their point of view, it's easy to get it wrong because it is their subconscious aim to describe my view in such a twisted way so as to disqualify it. So the job falls to me to correct these mischaracterizations. But this isn't a complaint as it allows me repeated opportunities to further refine and clarify the description of my view.

The division is NOT between men and women. The division is between men and women... and males and females.

Viktor Frankl said it even better: "THERE ARE ONLY TWO RACES... THE DECENT AND THE INDECENT."

My description is that the US is divided between the Producers and the Parasites.

Or even more clearly, just as Ayn Rand had accurately predicted over a half century ago. The US is divided between the American Capitalist producers, and the European Liberal Socialist moochers and their allies the Liberal government public union looters who service the childish demands of the moochers.

He assigns universal human characteristics , which are uniquely mixed in each individual, to the Good Masculine which he admires, and the Bad Feminine which he doesn't.

You're right, each individual is a unique mixture of traits... but everyone's challenge in life is exactly the same. And that challenge is NOT to indiscriminately act on our every thought and emotion... but to temper our actions by holding true to what is morally right.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of your many complaints...

Greg, in a philosophical discussion, when people blow holes in your theory and identify your philosophical capriciousness, inconsistency and irrationality, it comes across as a dishonest attempt at spin for you to label their criticisms as mere "complaints," especially when you're not addressing the substance of their criticisms.

It's perfectly natural for each of the two views to see the other as being wrong, so it's no surprise that in your own mind you feel that you have disqualified the view which you did not choose. That's HOW you made your initial choice of a view in the first place... by disqualifying the view you did not choose in your own mind.

Now... how I regard your view is just as subjective as how you regard mine, for everyone is a subjective being.

Only the reality of the consequences of our actions has the power to render the final verdict on each of our lives. Reality is rendering the verdict on your life right now simply by you getting exactly what you deserve as the consequences of your own actions. But it's not personal, for everyone is subject to exactly the SAME inexorable moral justice. Reality also renders the verdict on my life just as it does on yours, and everyone else's for that matter.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

How feminine must a person be to need a father or mommie who is said to be even bigger and more powerful than government, like, say, God?

Government as it is today has been created out of the FAILURE of males and females to govern their own behavior. So government is like a god to the failures because they are dependent on it to take care of them by making others pay their bills.

And in stark contrast, men and women have no need to be governed because they govern themselves.

Whereas God existed before people ever did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do your daughters share your view that some adult females are not women, but merely( presumably indecent) females?

One daughter. And the answer is yes. And even more importantly, being a woman herself, she knows the difference between a male and a man, and chose to marry a good and decent and responsible man. (...and I'm getting the fun of being Grandpa!) (wink)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of your many complaints...

Greg, in a philosophical discussion, when people blow holes in your theory and identify your philosophical capriciousness, inconsistency and irrationality, it comes across as a dishonest attempt at spin for you to label their criticisms as mere "complaints," especially when you're not addressing the substance of their criticisms.

I don't see Greg as in the least dishonest, instead as talking from a thoroughly different framework from yours.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knows who Grace Kelly was and has seen her in movies and photos. Ditto for Miley Cyrus and Ayn Rand for that matter.

I'd never heard of Miley Cyrus before, and I bet there are folks (discounting young children) in the US who still have never heard of Ayn Rand.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now