Is the basis of all happiness resting upon the ability to be understood? If so I believe socialism and capitalism both fail that notion, doubly when anyone appears to understand it better than the original minds creating it. From any given word we can ascribe multiple aspects of feeling into it, psychology behind it, and romanticism wrought behind our ego driven mass mania in the spirit of true individualism. Nowhere is this more true than in "politics" Politics is not some world governing itself, it is made of men who govern themselves. So why is it so hard to look around and not see chaos? Please pause and take into consideration these words. Aesthetically our minds are drawn to chaos. And it is a matter our perceptions that brings order, not a matter of us placing a physical action upon the chaos in order to control it. But understanding its order by noticing the behaviors we consider chaos. The term ceases to exist such as all terms holistically when they are run through to their end processes. After all possibilities are played out by our initial assumptions we feel the reason for this chaos is evolution. The evolution of feelings, the evolution of mind, the evolution of society as is begins to understand itself as opposed to individually understanding ourselves. Still there are individuals in power who do not understand themselves. They understand society from a psychodynamic stance and insist their ego upon it to stamp their names into history. They say they will create something better by making more assumptions which limit control. That way I will have mine and live in my world. Still there are those souls who do the opposite, they hide away from the chaotic natures in stoic fashion and see the world without chaos. Why should they not? They do not live in it. Only those who do not understand themselves live in chaos. These Nihilistic individuals are not only aspects of providing boundaries for the sake of an individual, but cowering in fear over the pointlessness of change. They too seek to control by making simple assumptions, but assumptions do not control. In fact the very point of assuming something is to experiment with it. Grant access to it. Belong as a product of our own thoughts. Then destroy our thoughts in utter chaos envisioning the finale. Find the error of our thoughts and become it. This is true in the scientific world as we posture new ways around problems old and new. I am no fan of science. Far too many basic experiments which grant only further questioning and requisitioning. Much like the military who kills men with their weapons, science kills them with their ideology and ego. They say we are the men able to be objective inductively through the experiment and deductively after! And this is most certainly wrong. Not because the epistemology of the process fails, but by very laws which say this process must fail in order to work. There must always be an unknown effect to the evolution of laws. Otherwise we begin to experiment more and think less. Create a society driving the pace of the worlds future without the fear and ridicule facing the political men. So they balance this option by ridiculing others and the cycle takes on linguistic and personal accounts rather than logical formulations of collective collaborative knowledge and learning. There is one thing I can say about the government which they are reasonable beyond reasonable in these efforts to obtain knowledge. They have done for society what college can not provide for anyone. Free information. Which means any person as a citizen can bother people at the white house by calling and asking for a background check on their neighbor. I say why not just talk to them? Have the rules of law and deduction become so corrupt a necessity the only way we can know a person is to see them upon paper as opposed to using our own minds in connection with theirs? If all men suffer why must we control them to suffer more? Is that our way of saying we have broken you down to who you really are? We have stripped you of your power, while still maintaining your rights? Scofff!!! Real power is something inherent. Some evil which binds a powerful person to accomplish great things. A force driving ridicule often opaque with ease of understanding yet deeper than the deepest well. It is a vat of pure will which creates an individual capable of making any other person share his mind. Feel the same. And wish to create the same. Which brings us ultimately to happiness. What person would not be happy in chaos creating themselves not as laws or assumptions, but having their mind itself respected as art? But how do you find that? I tell you it is reproducible. Should I repeat? Intelligence is reproducible through the experience of love. Someone else's reverse engineered as hate as we trifle with a tiny mind and the drive it gives not only that person individually, but the drive it renders in someone more compassionate than most. Is altruism Really so selfish to forget the original drives of individuals as it selfishly plunders under ego at a loss for words as well as actions? Or is that just the nature of intelligence? Can it be said that when we are not happy we are not intelligent? Does Sadness leave our thoughts in the past to such as a degree we fail to find a way out of irreducibly complex ideas? Has the chaos gotten us so afraid we have created more? Or have we lost the true spark of art and creativity with our psychological functions? The timeliness of those without cars and watches to pervade their thoughts and shadow their desires. Change their drives under a forgetful remorse.
I'm a musician. (Not a full-time career musician but I do perform professionally.) Much happiness comes from hearing or playing music. Perhaps you'll say, "You're understanding the music," and as a musician perhaps I am. But the music does not understand me, so I am not being understood. After a creation has been around for a few generations, if it's any good, then there are bound to be quite a few people who understand it better than its creators. You can't really understand something fully, even if you created it, without seeing it in action in the real world. How do you think Marx and Engels would have felt if they'd lived long enough to see Stalin and Mao in action? Chaos is not absolute. There is also order everywhere. Some people have a positive outlook on life and choose to see the order. Others, like yourself, are pessimists and prefer to see the chaos. That's an interesting, provocative assertion. But this is a place of science so before anyone is obliged to treat that assertion with respect, you have to present some evidence to support it. I don't see any in this post, so in accordance with the scientific method, your assertion defaults to FALSE until you provide said evidence. Yes, a few--and only a few because people who don't understand themselves can't possibly understand others, and people who don't understand people don't last very long in leadership positions. They may use that understanding to serve their people or they may use it to rob and cheat their people, but they have to have the understanding. In any case, there is a much larger percentage of the people out of power who don't understand themselves. Posting stupid crap like that is hardly the way to become a colleague of the members of a science discussion board. Why are you on SciForums instead of one of the zillions of websites devoted to religion and other stupid crap? Science is a slow process. We have to make sure we haven't overlooked anything. Yet despite its slowness its successes are legion. Once again: evidence please! Science has reduced infant mortality from 80% 125 years ago to less than 1% in the developed world. The majority of the people reading this discussion would not even be here without science. Not only does science not kill people, it actually saves their lives. Furthermore, it improves the lives immeasurably of all those parents who don't have to spend their lives in serial grief over the deaths of most of their children. If you ever have the chance to visit an old cemetery that is no longer in use, notice how most of the graves are tiny. What an inconsolably sad world that was, and we have science to thank for relegating it to the past. I'm sure you're going to bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that was a couple of hundred thousand people--once, in all history! Science saves that many lives about every three months. I can tell that you are not acquainted with any actual scientists. You have no idea how they work or what drives them. What are you, about nineteen? You talk like a university sophomore. I was one of those in 1961. I thought I knew it all. I suffer less with every passing year. My life is immeasurably more pleasant, fulfilling, and supportive of my fellow humans than it was fifty years ago when I was your age (assuming you actually are 19). Sorry, you lost me completely. Way too much woo-woo. * * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * * My final comment: I don't find this to be even remotely related to linguistics. I will probably move it to the Philosophy subforum. I can't understand what those people are talking about either, so you'll be in good company. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! --Fraggle Rocker, Moderator Oh BTW, I'm going to let your spelling error stand, so people can tell exactly how smart you are. There is no Y in happiness, and you can read that any way you want. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But at least it gives me a chance to make this post at least a tiny bit relevant to linguistics.
This is the most interesting point you have reached into art here. We can say others understand a degree of style, but is it the man which creates the style? Does the art not exist already just to be stumbled upon? Was it already there waiting to be unlocked and understood and this reason alone makes us feel it. Does it's tone mimic the emotions of the creator or does the music carry emotions original aspect of feeling which were transferred into human behaviors as a control of our society? Does music calm the croud or is it the man? Do both contribute to feeling indivisibly? Do you think I am here without experience in my own methods? Is wisdom inherent or is it derived from experience? At some point does experience need no justification of it's effects when derived only from all the causes? the same as Aristotle or Socrates after our own confusion of their cognitive mannerisms. I might wander aimlessly with sternness but I am not pessimistic. If I was would I have such resound of simple and intense understandings. is the scientific method not flawed? Were the individuals who created it objective thinkers or experimentalists? Perhaps the fault is that today we have individuals who fail to see both sides of the fence and hide it behind their inability to communicate? few like ourselves hold too much physical antipathy for the aspects of power and control. Wish not to be corrupt yet fail to realize corruption happens before one gains power not after. can I not insult myself openly without being questioned? Can I not question myself without being questioned? today it is a slow process run by politicians living in their own realms of unimaginative finale. They seek not what comes next holistically. But that is an argument for another time. we can look at the small graces all day and find success, but where is the large scale? What is I we can do better to make science less slow less about personal understanding and specifications and more about the art of nature, the unknown placed within a sphere of understanding what comes next. The mentality of all great men desires this for their own understanding and their own interpretations, but first collaborative efforts have to be changed. what drives them is hunger for their own name. The reason college professors write books and have children pay for them. Then hire a person to teach their own materials. That is not true scholarship nor is it apprenticeship. pretending is for those who believe they understand their own methods fully. Just think of it as subconscious jargon of the hypnotic sense. Designed to lure you to sleep with rhetoric. The reason this is linguistic possibly... Or a life experience in the making. The words do not make sense now, but they will I assure you. movies are nice to watch and even more fun to reference subconsciously.
If not, then where does it come from? Except for some of the most basic rhythms such as the march and the most basic harmonic intervals such as the octave, a musical style is not something that occurs in nature. In fact they are often perceived as unnatural when they debut. Much of the Euro-American audience was horrified by the syncopation of ragtime and early jazz, to the point that bands had to have an alternative repertoire ready if they discovered that their audience was not ready for modern music. Many people beyond adolescence felt the same way when rock'n'roll debuted, with its even more heavily syncopated rhythm. The incredibly complex syncopation of contemporary rock would have baffled even us teenagers in 1957. Both ragtime and rock'n'roll were created by humans. Sure, they both incorporated motifs that already existed, simply combined in new ways. But that is the definition of creativity. Unless you're God (in which case you don't exist because you're imaginary Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!), the true definition of "creativity" is "combining things that already exist in new ways." We don't always (or even usually) create the things themselves, but rather the relationships among them. Absolutely not. You don't seem to have much respect for your species if you're willing to so casually dismiss our myriad fabulous artworks in several different media (music, dance, painting, sculpture, poetry, theater, etc.) as mere stumbling! Please tell me where Andalusian modality was hiding when someone stumbled on it. Or the haiku, the foxtrot, magical realism or pointillism. Even something as utterly stooopid as Gangnam Style was invented by a human. You're just doggedly racing down a blind alley. None of this makes a bit of sense. Who says the purpose of music is to calm a crowd? My band tries very hard to get them on their feet dancing. Each of us is born with quite a bit of synaptic programming or we wouldn't be able to eat. So surely some of the thought patterns that will ultimately combine to comprise "wisdom" are inherent, although not the same in everyone. But I (and many others) say that the bulk of what we feel personally and observe in others as "wisdom" is acquired from both teaching and experience. It is not flawed, but that doesn't mean that it can't be improved. It does not deliver wrong answers, and that's what would countt as "flaws." I don't know when the scientific method as it's now defined arose, but it seems that it's been stable for at least a century. I don't even know which principle is the most recent. If I didn't know any better I would nominate either Occam's Razor or the Rule of Laplace, since scientific research could certainly be performed without them, just less efficiently. However, both of those were established fairly early in the half-century during which science was developed and stabilized. William of Ockham died in 1347, Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1827. Huh? A good scientist has to be both! As the Head Linguist around here I constantly complain that most scientists are absolutely terrible communicators, especially with laymen. But they manage to communicate with each other since they tend to have the same strengths and weaknesses. And as I say, they can indeed see both sides of the objectivity/experiment "fence." That's a prerequisite for becoming a real scientist rather than a precocious lab assistant. Just ask my wife: I was born without the enzyme to digest sarcasm. You may be alone in your impatience. As I said, the reason science is slow is that we have to be thorough and careful. The more complicated the hypothesis, the longer it takes to test it and peer-review it.
I know an artist who would disagree with you. http://www.lorrainechristie.com/home.html She uses many styles through even a single piece of art. And her man has your book. From what I have seen and read she never fully sees the end of a piece before beginning it. Mixes the paints and textures all around and adds colors that seem odd at first. Her inspiration is a picture in which the light reflects oddly off some stairs in a way not many artists could render in highlights. All she wants is for someone to stop for a moment and "feel". Which makes me think of how far we have come and how close we all are now to all creating our own art. This woman could teach art to students just by them seeing a painting and create her own competition by showing other artists the way. I didn't say put them to sleep. I mean teach them to dance in rhythm which despite the pace still has a sense of calm. Much like the syncopated rhythm you allude i would consider found in Incubus songs namely Echo. I learned to play it and the strange sounds do come from a guitar. Pinch harmonics (= Possibly why you and I would get along so well and still have the ability to view things differently. I really do respect that indeed. I don't quite have that reserve or patience with understanding and communication. But speaking to you is helping (= Doubtful. There are some here I feel are catching up to certain contemplative and communicative abilities thanks to the subconscious hypnotic workings of both sarcastic and reserved individuals who speak nearly the same languages.
i dont get it what made u think that??? is it of urselves???? of course not and u dont have any shame to talk about being understood and happiness while u r not involved so what made u say that??? a lie invented like so many others while abusing an absolute living right that u enjoy calling the self, as if it means anything i dont get it how the whole internet is empested by same gorous of lies what is to understand???? it is objective facts, is that anyone??? of course not who understand???? conscious, is conscious a living??? no, conscious is always about smthg else now if objective facts must b understood bc they concern too many stuffs existence in same truth, do freedom need to b understood??? no, understand is all to objective facts since any is absolutely wat do freedom need or enjoy???? freedom by the vastitude of else superiority and the presence of infinite others, wat is more precious then freedom being true ??? nothing wether nothing or free
