Neil wrote:
> So you're u-turning, slightly, and reconsidering that art, or at least
> artistic expression, is pretty essential to the human species?
Agreed that my original statement was not what I intended it to be.
>
>
> > > I suspect the lack of creative culture and stimulus may have reasonably
> > > serious psychological affects on the rest of the world.
> >
> > No doubt. I fully agree. But I'm not suggesting that. I'm talking
> about
> > situations were it is no longer about the art, but about the money.
>
> If not money, then something else. In essence money is just another symptom
> of what we crave. There are few people that simply like money, intrinsically
> - by that I mean simply spend adoring hours, gazing lovingly at stacks of
> cash.
Then you may not know many millionaires. I know some that will hound you for a
penny. No they don't physically fondle the money, but they do almost the same
thing by constantly checking their investments and bank accounts.
These people live below their means (that's their right, of course) and would
rather know that they are accumulating more and more money then having a really
expensive home or car. I know several people who fit that description.
> It's the need that money fulfills, what it provides, and the underlying
> reason as to why humans want such things.
>
> Surely that being "right" is a subjective call. Is somebody a better person
> for being a lowly paid worker with a vocation, or for being hugely
> successful without copious talent (again normally a very subjective
> measure)? Do are actions, intrinsically, define us - or are they merely
> suggestive, but not necessarily conclusive.
There are certain values that society set as to what is wrong and right. In
order to be tried in court you have to "know the difference between "right and
wrong ". Just were the definitions and complete list of every act of what is
wrong and what is right is must be hidden because I have never seen a copy of it
(LOL).
> That's one of the problems I have with some religions. The concept that
> automatically you are a better person, *simply* because you have faith in
> some all-powerful deity, regardless of how you morally live your life,
> troubles me.
Neil!!! I keep telling you that we ARE on the same page. If we were to count
our differences compared to our agreements, the ratio would be 1 to a million.
We are basically on the exact same page.
"Equally the converse that merely your actions define us, too."
Here I do believe that we should be judged by our actions. Actions that are
commonly accepted by society. NOT BY ANY RELIGION!
It is important not to confuse being "religious" with being "observant". The
people that you described above are not really religious, merely observant.
Being religious is a moral thing as defined by our entire society. I'm not
going to give any examples here. But if anyone doesn't know what many of them
are, they have a problem.
> The fundamentals of faith pretty much require belief without proof - blind
> acceptance, if you will. However, when questioned, some people with faith
> explain this by saying they have had some degree of spiritual "proof" if you
> will. Surely, then, this is some degree of compromised faith, as they have
> had (what they believe) to be some form of corroboration.
>
> Personally, I feel that this is not evidence of moral form, or being
> "right", and I wouldn't want to subscribe to a belief that required me to
> unquestioningly accept something, with no tangible proof - surely that would
> be some sign of ego, and lack of purity in the motives of the belief system
> or entity you choose to worship.
>
> Way of the tack, and topic, anyway - but fundamentally what I'm saying is
> that the whole "right" and "wrong" thing is often quite pretentious. And I'm
> not trying to upset anyones' religious views - merely commentating on how
> some belief systems cover their tracks, fill in the blanks, cover their
> asses, or perhaps benignly establish their concepts.
>
> I guess ultimately what I'm saying is that I don't believe that humans,
> essentially, need a religion, conditioning, or laws, for use to ultimately
> judge what is "wrong" or "right" - I personally believe it is something
> quite elemental in us. Not necessarily requiring great bounds of
> intelligence - but quite simple rationale - the decision on whether
> something is "right" or "wrong" I think can be easily addressed by the
> introspective question of whether we'd like the same action or activity to
> be done by others, or to us.
>
> Society almost caters for this by our laws, by defining what is acceptable,
> or so believed by the majority (or at least the majority of the voting
> populace).
>
>
> Quite. But some people would argue that the extended life expectancy that we
> see in many developed nations, is progress. I'm not condemning it, but to a
> certain degree, the concept of older and older people, living under constant
> care and needing everything doing for them, as they get into truly old age,
> does make me wonder if this is "quality" of life. I'm only saying this when
> considering some of my personal relatives and they conditions they now live
> under - I honestly wonder if this is "quality" for them, and something they
> are happy to sustain, or whether it's almost a case of conscience and
> endurement.
>
> I would argue that it's us, as individuals. I couldn't give a huh over what
> society thinks I should believe is beautiful or ugly.
>
Yes. But you are in the minority here. Just like me and beer or sports. Most
people place great importance (I'm not saying this is right or good, just a
fact) on "beauty". Our society considers fat ugly. Do you realize how much
money people spend each year trying not to be fat.
Not because it is unhealthy (which it may be in certain cases) but because it is
"ugly".
> Why should there be?
I didn't say that there should be. Only stated a fact.
>
> I would argue that individuals make that decision. Those that accept
> societies decisions on this are merely mindless sheep (no offence to sheep!
> ;-) )
Again, the majority of the people are influenced by what is supposed t be
"good". If you are saying that we have developed a society of mindless sheep,
you may be stating a fact.
> Says who? Who should have the right to make this call? To decide what traits
> people should display or exhibit, in order to be successful?
>
But unfortunately there are the "someones" that "have" that right. I wonder how
many people have been put to death or spent their entire lives in jail that were
not guilty of the crime that they were convicted of??
Who has the right to do this to them? And if they are guilty, who gave them the
right to do what they did??
> The law have notihg to do with what is right.
> I don't think I like that idea of what people "should" be like, to have
> anything.
But isn't that the way it often is in the real world? No. That doesn't make it
right. But then as you asked before what is right??
> Quite. Doesn't mean he doesn't deserve what he gets, necessarily - or that
> we are entitled to make that call, or that he doesn't work hard at what he
> does - this is no particular comment on that actor - I know nothing, really,
> about his success or work ethic.
Who cares about any of this!! He gets to make it with Catherine Zeta-Jones!!!
And he's my age!! LOL
> > Then there is the "casting couch". I wonder how people (both male as
> well as
> > female) got their big break by.......well you know.
>
> Indeed - but they chose to be actors - they could have chosen another
> profession.
So you are saying that if you choose to be an actor, you have to degrade
yourself to get work?? I really don't think that is what you meant to say. In
order to be given the opportunity to act you also have to be a prostitute?? You
can't mean what you said.
> And of course, if you had - or for that matter do - make it, you'd promote
> the use of minidisc for your chart-topping and incredibly successful music!
> (just thought I'd throw in at least one remotely on-topic comment! ;-))
Neil, if it were up to me, the mini disc would have made it bigger (in the US)
then the compact cassette. You would be able to find as many prerecorded titles
in "record" stores as you do CDs.
Blanks would be fifty cents each for decent ones. A good portable recorder
would sell for under $100 and a player as low as $25.0
>
> Larry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
