God Is Art, Influence, And Feelings

I suppose if you don't understand the scientific method then this might seem like a clever example, but here is how I would do it:

Hypothesis : I will not give you my phone number within 1 day of you asking for it.

Test : Observe whether I give you my phone number within 1 day of you asking for it.

Observations : I did not give you my phone number within 1 day of you asking for it.

Conclussions: Hypothesis is correct, I did not give you my phone number.

If you need to expand this to include any number of days, simply repeat the procedure for any n days.


Ps, yes those are canvases with paint on them. Guerr, don't forget he's defined God to mean Beauty, so under his definitions, he's just provided the worlds most knockdown argument for the existence of god.

Later today, I'm going to define Exercise as "eating a bag of chips to my face while I watch 3 hours of tv". It's gonna be one hell of a workout, woo!

Man, this philosophy and reality stuff is easy. I don't know why people get so worked up over words, they can just mean whatever you want!

 

This seems to fit, perhaps, into phenomenology. I'm sure you could make a position for such----it is a very broad school of philosophy, with many people creating their own versions of it.

 

I cant imagine that you would have the foresight to limit the duration of this possibility to 1 day, and still remain unaware that you've made a grave mistake in underestimating the possibilities that reside within all days.

Especially when one of the literal reoccurring themes of this thread is how inspiration can come from anywhere.....

What you seem to be in support of is your reluctance to change. Which is ironic since you claim to have an acquaintance with the scientific method.

If you're attempting to sound facetious, I can assure you that your humor is welcome here and that I draw inspiration from it. Take a picture of yourself doing those things and post it in this thread with the caption "Exercise", and like the other 4 pictures, along with their captions, it will lay bare an appeal to intuition.

guerillabedlam called it pareidolia, and as far as I can tell, that phenomena is an appeal to intuition also.

Whats the difference between that and aesthetics?

 

Phenomenology is a school of philosophy started by Edmund Husserl. It had a big influence on existentialism---Husserl is like the 'other' father of existentialism (Kierkegaard being the first father). It is a study of experience and consciousness (not to be confused with phenomenalism which holds that we cannot understand reality as it is, only the phenomena that we percieve of reality). Heidegger, a student of Husserl, passed on the idea that art, literature, and so forth reflect deeper cultural meanings, as if the artists, poets, composers, and so forth, are able to glean such meaning directly out of the collective unconscious.

Phenomenology, as I said, has grown very broad, and a lot phenomenologists have their own definition of the philosophy. But a lot of the phenomenological writings today deal with motifs, themes, and the deeper meanings to popular culture, movies, art, literature, etc.

 

Oh yes----I should add that Husserl tried to reduce consciousness to its pure experience.

 

I don't know what the "collective unconscious" could be referencing in my own words, but even demonstrations are open to interpretation.

Some people will remain to see paint on a canvas, rather than a starry night.

Neither of them are wrong, and neither of them are right. (couldn't resist the urge to rhyme those two sentences)

 

god, or a god, is something that may or may not exist.

everything anyone claims or believes to know about it, is just as much a human invented fantasy as a unicorn or that flyind spagetti thing.
and that includes every book ever written about it, and every word ever mentioned in regard to it.

now i'm inspired to feel there is something big, friendly and invisible, entirely by my own personal experiences.

these do not however, inspire me to pretend to know if it even has a name, let alone its email address and personal telephone number.

they also, and somewhat more to the point, do not obligate any thing that exists, to conform to anything anyone thinks they know about it.

 

While I agree with this wholeheartedly, I'd like to reiterate that human invented fantasy is a very significant aspect of reality.

I believe the act of creation is heroic, and creating fantasies is no exception.

I looked up the definition

Fantasy: the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.

I don't believe anything is impossible, and I believe Probability is a word we use to draw upon our knowledge of what has been consistent in the past, so that we can apply it to a future that we don't know anything about. Probability is anticipation......Hope.

Reading this from Google definitions is excruciating.....Its as if we shouldn't have hope for a reality which is imaginative.....Shame on them.

 

i'm not saying its a less valid fantasy. and i'm rather fond of them myself.
what gets tedious, is of course when people try to insist only one fantasy and only one kind of fantasy can be allowed to exist.
i don't know about heroic, more then other kinds of writing, but it is natural. the very distinction between sapience and sentience, if there even actually is one, is creativity itself.

 

Its tedious to you and very simple to them because you have chosen to bare the load called the curse of knowledge. Its a cognitive bias.

You realize that The Starry Night contains no beauty in and of itself, because you know that beauty is an opinion, which is a thought that exists within an observers head.....In other words, you realize beauty is an abstract concept that invokes feelings and whatnot.

Now, we both know that feelings are not rational.

and as Mr.Writer illustrated earlier, anything can come from things that inspire feelings.....Beauty for example.

Ok now try and follow very closely.

Danger is the possibility of suffering harm or injury.
Valor (which is synonymous with bravery and heroism) is great courage in the face of danger.

Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, anything and everything has the potential to inspire feelings.
It is possible the feeling will cause harm or injury. Whether that means flying into a fit of rage and hurting someone, or experiencing painful emotions.

Creativity is an act of heroism because when you create something, you create the possibility that someone will be inspired, even if its only yourself.....


I really feel like I'm starting to sound like word salad so I will sum it up instead of trying to spoon-feed, and just get back to me if I'm not making any sense.

People insist only one fantasy and only one kind of fantasy can be allowed to exist because they are not heroic enough in their own narrative to vanquish the protagonist from someone else's narrative.

They meet a shepherd and in awe of his majesty, they become sheep.

 

I know that art exists because I've seen it.
I know that feelings exist because I've experienced them.
I know that influence exists because I've seen people who have influenced others, and others have acknowledged that they have been influenced by others.

I don't know that God exists, because I have never seen, felt, tasted, heard, smelled or otherwise experienced it.

You are free to take your favorite things in life and claim that they're God, but I'm pretty sure they're not necessarily the same thing.

 

Calling anything God isn't exactly what I'm doing. My aim is to get you to reevaluate your intuitive perspective.

It would be easy for me to deny what you have seen, heard, tasted, ect...Because I have not necessarily experienced the things that you have.

Suppose your favorite snack is peanut butter, which is something I am incapable of deriving pleasure from eating, and find it disgusting. Wouldnt the joys of peanut butter be something I am incapable of experiencing?

 

The problem with intuition is that it can be delusional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_intuition

I don't accept that the reason I don't know God is because my intuition is somehow not as advanced as that of the people who do accept it. If anything, I'm less likely to misinterpret spiritual experiences BECAUSE I refuse to accept that I know for sure why these things have happened or what popular concept is most likely responsible.

And subjective experiences have nothing to do with the God that exists in religious scripture-- if God is supposed to be subjective, then he/she/it has none of the authority it is supposed to have. How can something that only exists for certain people be the omnipotent force that various religions describe? Of course now you might argue that it's all the same thing expressing itself in different ways-- but again, how do you know that this is truly how things are instead of your own need to have easy explanations convincing you to accept it as 'intuited' fact? Why do you feel the need to jump to such conclusions? Why do certain people have such a low tolerance for the inexplicable or the ambiguous that they NEED to come up with an explanation for everything?

And if you're talking about a 'version' of God that isn't bound to any scripture or religion, then why are you even calling it God? Why are you assuming that whatever spiritual experiences you have MUST be connected to the same object or force or presence or concept? The answer is: because it's easier and more convenient to simply assume that all inexplicable or unknown things must belong to something that we can understand or relate to on some level. It's a way of managing our experiences that also dulls or confuses their impact... ascribing them to God is a way of dismissing them, and it's lazy and dishonest.

 

It's not that your intuition is not advanced enough. It's that there is no proof that you actually feel things, or experience anything subjectively at all.

You believe to have made a distinction between your belief in your ability to feel and someone else's belief in God but you really haven't.

Each of you are affirming an account of an event that is open to interpretation.

 

you can call it "the curse of knowledge", but it is a bald faced lie to do so. no. knowledge has nothing to do with it.

god is strangeness. aggressiveness is evil.

books and writing, were a great invention, but none of them are any exception to just being the result of people stringing words together.

like billions of monkeys with typewriters, or even cats, playing with a ball of string.

the "word of god" is written by bark worms, on the inside of the bark of trees.

you can see it when you peal off a piece of it.

but its written in a language no human can read.