so you may be feeling more along the lines of pleasure or appreciation than love.
On Jul 15, 8:37 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Ahh yes I see. Is it always true that love is relational though I > wonder? > > If I declare that I love to go fishing, easpecilly in the night as I > love nowt more than the sight of the morning sun rising and lighting > up the mist on the river before burning it off, I think it is a most > beuatiful sight. > > I can't see much relation in that. Okay sure I am relating to the > sight that gives me so much pleasure, but it cannot really relate back > to me huh? > > On 15 July, 13:20, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
