b3ta.com board

Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 7898488 (Thread)

Just thinking about stuff.

Nothing wrong with thinking.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:05, archived)

I agree.

"Knowing" is often a barrier to experiencing though. I'm clear which I'd rather do :)

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:07, archived)

ALSO:

www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=916964

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:27, archived)

Hee.

Good.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:32, archived)

Seriously though

an analogy which occurs to me is of young children standing around in a playground, heatedly discussing the definition of fun. I'd rather just play.
That's not to say that I'm anti-intellectual, or non-intellectual, but the idea of categorization, which is really what's being discussed here, is not really that interesting to me personally, particuarly since it all comes down to nothing more than personal opinion, however forcably that opinion is expressed, or however conventionally 'correct' it is currently considered.

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:39, archived)

Definitions are unimportant

but things need explaining. In the case of art I see a dodging of an explanation.
I'm also interested in what fun is, by the way, because that's also difficult to explain -
meaningfully, fruitfully difficult, not just intractable.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:44, archived)

Brilliant.

Great. That's the point. And when we say that we accept everything with an open mind and don't reject out of hand. That sounds like what you're saying and it sounds like we're arguing from the same precept. But, to return to the point, that's not cubism.

(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:44, archived)

YES.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:48, archived)

NO.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:53, archived)

I AM ONE POSITIVE MOTHERFUCKER.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:55, archived)

WE'RE OFF THE PAGE.

I AM SO ENGORGED RIGHT NOW.

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:56, archived)

WHOA

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 6:00, archived)

Oh my God

I'm a big fan of Eno's music but I'm afraid both he and the author of the piece have misunderstood Duchamp. such is art

(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:41, archived)

You do not have access to Duchamp's thoughts.

Thus, all you can possibly be expressing are your own opinions, or someone else's. The fact that you do so in such a condescending way is not particularly endearing.

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:43, archived)

Duchamp

did not publicly explain his work but that does not mean that the consensus is incorrect.

(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:46, archived)

Neither does it mean that it is correct.

I repeat, all you're expressing is your own, or someone else's, opinions.

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:48, archived)

BTW

I'm sorry if I've sounded condesending in my posts. I've not intended that at all and I'd rather people read my posts with the voice of an interested informed nobody.

(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:49, archived)

Well, even if Duchamp was speaking

he'd still only be expressing Duchamp's opinions about what Duchamp thinks. Still prone to errors.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:47, archived)

Haha

that's just your opinion :)

(

mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:48, archived)

Without sarcasm

You may be a genius. (I'm going to bed. Merry Christmas)

(The_Judderman, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 5:51, archived)

Goodnight

it's nice that an interested informed nobody thinks I'm a possible genius. I think.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 6:00, archived)

Cya, merry xmas.

Come play again soon.

(

Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Wed 26 Dec 2007, 6:11, archived)