Distinction between actuality and imagination/concepts

[Nilsi]

3 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

He likes Nietzsche and so based his writing style on that, polemical.

Trump also has "taste". He considers his golden hair, orange skin, blue suit and red tie, golden-and-white rooms in his mansion, big signs everywhere to be good taste. You consider your rainbow splatter and electronic music using factory patches to be good taste. Obviously you're a lot better than him at this and other things, but the principle remains the same that trump's falsehoods could have an underlying structuration of truth to it, but it's so false that he doesn't understand how false it is using the basic truths to twist around back on itself.

That's right, I'm a polemicist, but I don't pretend the stuff I write is anything more than a reflection of my subjective state at a given moment - just me scratching my balls when they itch. I’d never go on record spouting some absurd nonsense about discovering the "true" taste, unlocking a "super-truth," or any of the ridiculous bullshit Leo has been peddling for years.

[The Crocodile]

2 minutes ago, Vynce said:

Why are you so dense Bro?

No need to be attacking like this.

He likes Nietzsche and so based his writing style on that, polemical.

[Nilsi]

3 minutes ago, Vynce said:

Why are you so dense Bro?

No need to be attacking like this.

Because this attitude has pissed me off for years, I’ve mostly tried to remain respectful and appreciative of the hospitality. But sometimes, Leo’s delusions just spiral so far out of control that I can’t sit by silently. I want to make sure the message comes through loud and clear because, frankly, no one else seems willing to push back on this nonsense. It’s basically an echo chamber at this point, at least when it comes to calling him out on this behavior.

[The Crocodile]

Just now, Nilsi said:

That's right, I'm a polemicist, but I don't pretend the stuff I write is anything more than a reflection of my subjective state at a given moment - just me scratching my balls when they itch. I’d never go on record spouting some absurd nonsense about discovering the "true" taste, unlocking a "super-truth," or any of the ridiculous bullshit Leo has been peddling for years.

Well, I agree with you about the painting and Leo's music taste. I just don't want to hurt him.

But yes, the devil sometimes speaks through Leo's tongue and his fingertips typing. Where the devil boldly proclaims the exact opposite of the truth. Or takes a partial truth as the whole truth and gets knotted up in its partiality so much that it denies the whole actual nature of things. The painting is like Leo going into a pre-taste state.

[Breakingthewall]

That picture is good taste, and there are no doubt about that. If you can't see it, it's because you have a sophisticated taste without soul.

[The Crocodile]

Just now, Breakingthewall said:

That picture is good taste, and there are no doubt about that. If you can't see it, it's because you have a sophisticated taste without soul.

Nope, that picture destroys the soul. Watch your assumptions.

[Breakingthewall]

2 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

Nope, that picture destroys the soul. Watch your assumptions.

Let's assume that there are different souls, different sensibilities 

[The Crocodile]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Let's assume that there are different souls, different sensibilities 

Leo's creaming his jeans over some rainbow puke splatter and then projecting some taste and intelligence into it that's not even there.

That painting is like Trump taste or if someone's soul resonates with Sadhguru, or if they think their soul does. If their soul is working with that level for a bit but they mistakenly think that it's universal and higher and reflects some open cumulative equanimous balance, when it's just horrible.

Edited Sunday at 09:24 PM by The Crocodile

[Aaron p]

 

30 minutes ago, Vynce said:

Why are you so dense Bro?

No need to be attacking like this.

 

yeah bro dont attack the grand master like that.

Leo (jokes aside), i think i represent a notable percentage of people here in saying that a video or series on taste or masterful appreciation of any area of life would go down a treat.

This is especially considering the fact that, after one becomes extremely materialistically successful and even enlightened...there has to be something for the mind to continue doing to occupy itself. Just like your appreciation and taste for african artifacts and nature, I'd like to learn how to be a person with taste, and character. 

my observation of art (painted, drawn, manufactured, natural, social, philosophical and other.) is that it is very similar to existence (obviously beauty being a component within metaphysics). Art has no objective "point", and neither does existence. Art is created for pure pleasure, so is existence. Art is made with the design that *you* as the observer develop your connection to it to give both you and it a sense of purpose, the same could be said of existence. Reality and art have many similarities and areas of synonymous overlap. could be a cool video

Edited Sunday at 09:26 PM by Aaron p

[The Crocodile]

Yeah, being against beauty is one of the most pernicious facets of The Devil today.

[cle103]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You should spend a lot time contemplating: What is taste? The more consciousness you apply to it the better your taste will get.

Thank you, will do!

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, The Crocodile said:

Leo's creaming his jeans over some rainbow puke splatter and then projecting some taste and intelligence into it that's not even there.

That painting is like Trump taste or if someone's soul resonates with Sadhguru, or if they think their soul does. If their soul is working with that level for a bit but they mistakenly think that it's universal and higher and reflects some open cumulative equanimous balance, when it's just horrible.

I liked that picture, what to say? Maybe I'm like trump. Maybe trump is quite good at the end, who knows? Anyway, I wouldn't put that paint in my house, but when I saw it it transmitted me clarity and beauty 

[The Crocodile]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I liked that picture, what to say? Maybe I'm like trump. Maybe trump is quite good at the end, who knows? Anyway, I wouldn't put that paint in my house, but when I saw it it transmitted me clarity and beauty 

I would get more clarity and beauty looking at a turd dried up on the sidewalk.

The painting was ug-i-ly.

The mistake is thinking that because it gives any sensation at all, or that it has a unifying sensation that summates or takes you out of the world means that it's good. It's bad.

Bricks and drywall and trees and streetlights are infinitely more beautiful.

Whoever made that painting is like a demon creating a black hole of nasty, cloying, puke ugliness in a world that should already be more beautiful.

Edited Sunday at 09:31 PM by The Crocodile

[Miguel1]

41 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

No, what I said went completely over your head.

I know the games you’re playing - trying to claim that taste is some universal feature of consciousness or whatever, and pretending you’ve somehow magically cleansed yourself of all human influences to apprehend taste in its purest form, yada yada yada.

My point is, no - you haven’t. You’ve managed to delude yourself, and this isn’t the first time. You’re doing it with philosophy, you’re doing it with politics, and now you’re doing it with art.

You’re basically a walking, talking embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect - a person so convinced they’ve unlocked some absolute perspective on everything that they’ve blinded themselves to reality. Honestly, you’re much closer to Trump than to whatever it is you think you are.

Dude, calm down.

Keep your dense ego in check. It unnecessarily often runs amok.

[James123]

LoL. Where is love????

[Miguel1]

Keep in mind that 50% of the community disagrees with him on various topics, especially spirituality.

[Breakingthewall]

8 hours ago, The Crocodile said:

I would get more clarity and beauty looking at a turd dried up on the sidewalk.

The painting was ug-i-ly.

The mistake is thinking that because it gives any sensation at all, or that it has a unifying sensation that summates or takes you out of the world means that it's good. It's bad.

Bricks and drywall and trees and streetlights are infinitely more beautiful.

Whoever made that painting is like a demon creating a black hole of nasty, cloying, puke ugliness in a world that should already be more beautiful.

8 hours ago, The Crocodile said:

 

8 hours ago, The Crocodile said:

 

You are obviously a prisoner of your human bias, it prevents you from seeing clearly. If it weren't so, you would see Donald Trump as a perfect manifestation of infinity, and the beauty of his orange face and yellow hair would shine like the most precious flower in the cosmos. So everything you say is biased. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder

[The Crocodile]

8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

You are obviously a prisoner of your human bias, it prevents you from seeing clearly. If it weren't so, you would see Donald Trump as a perfect manifestation of infinity, and the beauty of his orange face and yellow hair would shine like the most precious flower in the cosmos. So everything you say is biased.

Again, watch your assumptions. There is no contradiction between any of the true things I said and donald being a manifestation of infinity.

Quote

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder

No, beauty-sense is subjective. The thing Beauty is not.

[Breakingthewall]

50 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

No, beauty-sense is subjective. The thing Beauty is not.

Impossible paradox, if beauty sense is subjective, the thing is not beautiful or ugly in an absolute sense, it's depending of the observer, the beauty is in the observer not in the object. 

The question would be: why I perceive beauty in something and not in other thing? Is more beautiful a butterfly than a worm? Why? 

Edited 22 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[The Crocodile]

7 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Impossible paradox, if beauty sense is subjective, the thing is not beautiful or ugly in an absolute sense, it's depending of the observer, the beauty is in the observer not in the object. 

The question would be: why I perceive beauty in something and not in other thing? Is more beautiful a butterfly than a worm? Why? 

The sense of what's true is subjective, the Truth is not.