Do you have a coherent ideology?

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Can you describe the great war or struggle that built the pyramids?

Do you think that those pyraminds have built themselves? I wonder how many slaves have died in the process. What is it if not struggle?

It is also true that competition can be healthy, but science does not work on competition alone. Advancement in technology and space exploration does not have to be military. The only reason that things happened because of military is because there have been a few humans who felt the need to be aggressive during the last 1500 years.

Most people function on competition and there is nothing wrong with it. It is a function of an ego which is something most of us identify with. Scientific centres around the globe compete with one another. Unfortunately another functions of an ego are sense of superiority, suspicion, greed and separation and these are perfect channels for any kind of agression. So I think if we want more harmonious agression free world we need to sublimise ego or even replace it with something more embracing and illuminig - psychic self.
Agression isnt somethin exclusive to few individuals but everybody posses it to certain degree. Just like an ego on human level agression is something quite necessary on animal level and it was inherited from there by human nature but there is no reason why these couldnt be worked out in the process of "conscious" evolution.

Exploration is just not fighting other humans. There is a lot of struggle against nature and unknown forces at work as well. It would seem to me that only focusing on each other, gets us so far. War seems to only be a cultural producer at it's best, but a human set back at it's worst.

There are different impulses for exploration but I think it can be summed up as form of expansion and most often than not it involves strugle and sometimes even loss of life.
We need to focus on each other. Its essential but the question is what is it that the other human beings represent for us? Means to satisfy our egos or our enlarged selves?
At this point of human evolution war is still necessary. Its the clash of dark unsacrificing egos and their hunger for superiority which forces us to solve our problems through taking life.
If detached war is just another form of strugle which can bring both the worst and the best from people to the fore but the aspiring elements in mankind make us abhor it.

Are humans lazy by nature, or lazy because no one has offered them the right incentive. If humans are lazy by nature and just gave into their nature, you would be correct that they would have died out ages ago. Are you saying that war and oppression are the only incentives to live?

War and opression are the results and expession of our present state of mind/evolution. More loving, courageous, self-giving mankind means less act of violance it will commit and tolerate.

There are plenty of oppressed people who live and struggle day to day. They do the same things over and over and are not lazy. Would it be the oppression that keeps them from their full potential or their laziness?

Usually its the combination of factors but the best is to start with oneself. Help from others is usually essential too but if one isnt willing to fight for himself nobody can help...

If they started fighting and killing each other, would they advance in technology? There are technologies that may come from a military use first, but not all of them have.

Good example are australian mamals which due to the lack of predators are actually comparably less developed then others...

 

[Angst]

The struggling artist is largely a myth that's upheld by a very few examplary individuals.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The struggling artist is largely a myth that's upheld by a very few examplary individuals.

How many artist are rich? But actually I was thinking of something like artits in communist Czechoslovakia - moral struggle. It can take the hell out of you...

 

[Borachio]

I simply stopped caring, honestly.

Is that good? Probably not. Is that intellectually lazy? Definitely.

Am I happier now focusing on the people nearest and dearest to me? You bet your ass I am.

Hey! Mr Stranger! I wondered what had happened to you. How are you? How's your weight programme going?

 

[kochman]

The struggling artist is largely a myth that's upheld by a very few examplary individuals.

You're saying that most artists are financially well off?

 

[Phrossack]

I have two separate ideologies. One applies to improving society as it is today, same as anyone else. It's the ideology you see me express.

The other applies to how I'd like society to be, but since I know few would go along with it I'd rather have it be a separate society with voluntary membership. I keep it to myself.

 

[Angst]

First off, if you are going to make the empirically problematic argument that artistic adversity somehows produces "better" artistic results, you have to qualify "good" art in order for your argument to make any sense.

And secondly, the problem of compensation for artistic is a problem existing regardless of "quality".

I study art. Most of the myths of adversity are rather caricatured, false or wrongly emphasized due to commercial interests. The suffering heroic artist producing deeply touching products is a very evocative trope and he is very prevalent in the media due to being easily "sold", both commercially and culturally; he makes for a much better story.

I'm certain you are able to bombard me with counterexamples. I'm saying beforehand I'm not going to bother. I am intimate enough with my own sources; the wide majority of examples I've encountered support it and you can take my word for it or not.

Anyways, seriously, in order for your argument to make any sense: When is art good.

 

[kochman]

Ok, because most artists I know have to do other jobs to make ends meet and can't devote themselves to art, even in the commercial sense.

It's funny that you won't back up what you are saying, because I think you can't... artists are typically not wealthy in my experience.

True artists, that make good quality and don't "sell out" to commercial interests, especially.

Should an artist have to sell out? I would argue, yes, if that's what it takes to make ends meet. I don't get paid to do X, Y, or Z, and I have to offer my time to the man to get paid. It means I can't spend all my time in the manner of my choosing, but that's life.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

To a degree that is life, to a degree that is our society.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The other applies to how I'd like society to be, but since I know few would go along with it I'd rather have it be a separate society with voluntary membership. I keep it to myself.

Don't do that. I at least am always curious about radical ideas.

 

[Phrossack]

Don't do that. I at least am always curious about radical ideas.

CFC is a place where if you raise your head, a sniper takes it off. You learn to stay low unless you're part of the ruling cliques.

 

[Borachio]

You've said something similar before. Piquing my curiosity. And you're doing it again.

And who are the ruling cliques?

 

[Phrossack]

You've said something similar before. Piquing my curiosity. And you're doing it again.

And who are the ruling cliques?

I'd PM you if I could, but you have it turned off.

 

[Borachio]

Oh. Sorry about that. I've had too much abuse through that. Never mind then.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Hey! Mr Stranger! I wondered what had happened to you. How are you? How's your weight programme going?

Just a lot busier, and my weight is still dropping but it's yo-yoing a bit and not going down as fast as I hoped.

I tried to PM this to you but you can't get PMs? Anyhow, I'm not "back" really. I'll never be a strong "regular" again I don't think, but I'm looking at Beyond Earth stuff and pop in to OT once in a while.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

First off, if you are going to make the empirically problematic argument that artistic adversity somehows produces "better" artistic results, you have to qualify "good" art in order for your argument to make any sense.

I would clumsy phrase it more like: there is a possibility that under adverse condition artist who doesnt succumb to it or doesnt become corrupt in some way have more possibility to create genuine piece of art simply becouse he is forced to channel or use up "all his energy" for it. Or that he must bring some yet hidden potential to the fore. In no way I am saying that its the rule or I am trying to romanticize the thing. Sometimes even to go through sufficiently hard times and then create your best art qualifies as well as one could say that "without that experience I wouldnt be what I am and couldnt do what I do".

Anyways, seriously, in order for your argument to make any sense: When is art good.

When it is inspirative.

 

[Traitorfish]

CFC is a place where if you raise your head, a sniper takes it off. You learn to stay low unless you're part of the ruling cliques.

It's cliques now, plural? We're living in the decline and fall, sure enough.

 

[Phrossack]

It's cliques now, plural? We're living in the decline and fall, sure enough.

Ah. A typo. You and your pack are still in power, rest assured.

 

[Traitorfish]

Wait, I'm in The Clique?

Jesus Christ, but this rabbit hole goes deep.

 

[Phrossack]

Wait, I'm in The Clique?

You mean you haven't noticed?