Well, I think that love is a description of how we relate. If you relate with love to your family in the same way that you relate to the blues, then I would say yes. I can see how that would be an excitement of the heart, noble action, patient, kind, etc. If the blues makes you feel good the way your family makes you feel good, then you are missing half the equation. Love is active and relational.
Beauty, I think, does not require action or direct relation but can be a strictly internal experience, a contemplation of the object in a way that brings it into the subjective realm. But beauty also inspires creation of the beautiful by self. A more indirect relation. On Jul 15, 7:30 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hah Hah! Man that happens to me quite a lot here. > > You have the general gist of what I was saying though. Really I'm > trying to pin down what we mean when we say love. > > Is love for the family the same as love for the blues? > > I mean I can certianly say 'man I love the blues' and not many people > would not understand what I mean when I say it, is it love though or > am I simply missusing the word? > > On 15 July, 12:25, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I just can't seem to follow your logic. I understand that it is > > linear - love for family = love for blues= love for violence. I think > > that love is more dimensional, and those would not equate. I > > especially question "love" for violence, and think it is probably > > confusing love with some other emotion or compulsion. Ultimately, the > > sage loves all of life and love is all there is. From that point of > > view, the same may be said of the beautiful. But upon closer > > examination, we delineate. > > > On Jul 15, 6:17 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Well now Molly, I do not belive I offered a Straw man at all there? > > > > My comparison is there to try and pin down what we mean when we say > > > love. I offered my love for my family as the base and said that if it > > > could be said that my feelings for my family are the same as my > > > feelings for the blues, then it can be said that I love the blues. > > > > Okay sorta strawmanish I admit but only if it can be shown that my > > > feelings for the blues are not like my feelings for my family. > > > > I fail to see how my abohorance for violence means I cannot compare > > > love and hate though? > > > > On 10 July, 22:01, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Your pondering, you made up a fantasy situation to base a comparison > > > > that cannot therefore be real. Straw man argument. If you do not > > > > "love" violence, you cannot compare the two. > > > > > On Jul 10, 9:53 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I think I have only one word my dearest Molly that can sum up my > > > > > thoughts on this post of your. > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > On 10 July, 14:32, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Then, I guess you are a straw man off to see the wizard... > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 9:17 am, "[email protected]" > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > There is point to be made there I think Molly. Perhaps along with > > > > > > > what is evil we may have to try to sort out the qeustion of what > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > Love. > > > > > > > > I can say with fear of contridiction that I love my wife and my > > > > > > > children and my parents and my siblings. what of my love for the > > > > > > > blues though? > > > > > > > > Can it be said to be love? If it can then if I declare that my > > > > > > > feelings for the blues are exaclty the same as my feelings about > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > involved in violence, then I guess we can also call that love and > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > deviant compulsion? > > > > > > > > Note here that I do not love violence, in fact the opposite is > > > > > > > true I > > > > > > > quite abhor it. > > > > > > > > On 10 July, 13:50, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is it really love in those cases, Lee, or something more along > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > lines of deviant compulsion? Both examples would certainly fall > > > > > > > > outside of the "love is patient, love is kind..." definition. > > > > > > > > > I think that love and beauty have much in common, as they move > > > > > > > > us in > > > > > > > > spirit, or to higher consciousness. > > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 5:12 am, "[email protected]" > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Surly any type of love is a beautiful thing? Umm unless it is > > > > > > > > > peadophilic love, or love of violence. Okay okay scracth > > > > > > > > > that one, > > > > > > > > > bad Idea. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah Dipu what do you mean? > > > > > > > > > > On 10 July, 00:15, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > International communication can be very difficult. Can you > > > > > > > > > > please > > > > > > > > > > explain how your reply to Molly's post is relevant?? > > > > > > > > > > > You are replying to a post that poses pertinent wording > > > > > > > > > > about beauty > > > > > > > > > > and concept but which excludes any reference to love. > > > > > > > > > > > So what do you mean by "any type of love"?? > > > > > > > > > > > Please explain. > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2:16 pm, dipu banerjee <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > any type of love > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/10/09, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Boring beauty. Quiet a concept. Can beauty be boring? > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 9:03 am, archytas <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein and others drew relativity from obscure > > > > > > > > > > > > > experiments to glean > > > > > > > > > > > > > the size of molecules and the movement of pollen > > > > > > > > > > > > > grains in solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty tends to fit with experiment and eventual > > > > > > > > > > > > > communication beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > > the almost non-verbal beholder's eye. It may well > > > > > > > > > > > > > bore most people > > > > > > > > > > > > > and end up being taught in school chemistry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8 July, 20:23, Molly Brogan > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps another case of beauty being in the eye of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the beholder. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Music of a particular artist may require relativity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of taste. Music > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as an art form, absolutely beautiful. There are a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hell of alot of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people who found Jackson's work beautiful, as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evidenced in hundreds of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thousands, if not millions of people all over the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > world dancing and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singing his music after he died. How many people > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in your lifetime > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could evoke such a global response, opinion aside. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 3:57 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian really, the Caravaggio comparison is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pertinent but only in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of that era and Jackson in this era. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Equally they crossed > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > line, creating a frenzy of mind boggling > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spectacle. I must say that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your comment "Michael Jackson produced a lot of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > popular PRODUCT, but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > very little art." is indeed a consequence of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tunnel vision. Of > > > > > > > > > > > > course > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if you can produce evidence of another artist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that issued such > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > extraordinary talent preceding that of Jackson, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I, as well as others, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would concede to your view. I personally have no > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interest, never > > > > > > > > > > > > had, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the Jackson attraction. I am only motivated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by your lack of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > recognition of the innovation, regardless of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > underlying product > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value, of such motivation in artistic influence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as well as the perks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > within the industry (for the sharks). Art is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something of a misnomer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in that people will and are paying thousands of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dollars for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contemporary "Graffiti" art, which for me as an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > artist styled in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Renaissance period art view as pure "garbage". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in that sense, > > > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > view of Micheal Jackson as less than an art form > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is reflective of > > > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lack of understanding what "art" is all about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 2:19 am, Ian Pollard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2009/7/7 frantheman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Behind all the weirdness (perhaps even > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perversion) and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the disgusting commercial hype surrounding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > his death, that was > > > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael Jackson was at his best. There have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been other similar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > artistic wonders throughout history - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Caravaggio comes to mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you just compare Michael Jackson to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Caravaggio? :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whilst I think there is much artistic merit in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > music, I think it is > > > > > > > > > > > > almost > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always missing from the mainstream. Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jackson produced a lot > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > popular PRODUCT, but very little art. He also > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understood, for a > > > > > > > > > > > > time, how to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > market that product as good as anyone. This was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made remarkably > > > > > > > > > > > > easier by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the team of people around him. The album > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Thriller', whilst a good > > > > > > > > > > > > album, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initially looked to have only been a minor hit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for him. The first > > > > > > > > > > > > single, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'The Girl Is Mine', did okay, but didn't set > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the world on fire. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > over the next three years Jackson marketed the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hell out of that > > > > > > > > > > > > album. He > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bled it dry, releasing nine songs from it. And > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of course, that > > > > > > > > > > > > $500,000 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > video (which he did not choreograph, by the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way) was a stroke of > > > > > > > > > > > > marketing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > genius. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
