DominO123 Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 (edited) Armen, this is my last answer, obviously this discussion goes nowhere, and it is not because it is usual in this forum that people don't try to understand what others says, you must do the same. I have tried to understand what point you have tried to raise, and right now I am under the impression that you are answering to only contradict me. Your example with the girl has again nothing to do with what I raised. That girl is perceived by my 5 senses, and the majority of people will agree that that girl is there, if I take a picture of her with my digital camera, the CCDs will detect her. The same goes with the painting. There is an object, and there is the interpretation, while Sasuns example was about a concept vs its interpretation. While one is the interpretation of something physical, the other is the interpretation of something methaphysical. While the majority will agree with the presence of that girl, the color of her dress etc. everyone will have a different interpretation of the concepts such as god etc, its presence, its position in time and space etc. While I try to distinguish the subjective vs objective, you are pushing the subject on the feelings direction. They may see the colors but their interpretation of abstract art is a faith that something is realy beautiful whereas I don't find it either beautiful, or great, or energizing, or powerful... Doesn't change the fact that the knowledge such as “colors” can be shared. Any persons studying paintings will be able to more or less come to the same conclusion as to the style used, the type of color mixtures, the way colors were mixed, the medium used. This is the entire point. And this is again why I said Sasun comparison was wrong. For one to be ignorant, that person should lack of a knowledge. If I were to say to a bunch of people to study “God” like I will ask to study a painting... everyone will come up with a knowledge different one from the other, based on societies beliefs or newagian conceptions. If I tell to people to meditate, some will claim feeling god, others will tell feeling emptiness, others will tell feeling energy etc. By saying all of this, I would just add, that I do not reject the existence of a god, but just point out that you can not compare a knowledge of a god with a knowledge about a painting. If I take the painting and ask those same people to study it, they will tell the colors used, medium... most will agree on it... so now I can clearly stat that those having studied it accumulated a knowledge, and that those that did not study it and don't know the painting, do not have that knowledge. But, here is the whole point. How do you “study” god? Meditating? Why? Praying? Why? Reading the Bible? Why? Etc. The object of study is a concept itself. Well, you can represent music in time but you can't really and fully represent sculpture and painting in time. So? That makes sculpture and painting more abstract? Also, music is representable in space by being loud or not loud. Meaning how it fills the space. The more loud it is the more space it fills. You're pulling my legs here Armen. “Time” is much much more abstract than space, and you know it. A spacial representation is enough for you to know of the forms, the colors, the shapes, the textures etc. Time itself is so abstract that it is represented by movement. Can you see time without seeing any movements? A cube is a form, it has a representation in space, everyone will agree that a cube has 6 same sized faces. Now, what is As representation compared to C in music? Can you see and represent that? If I paint a tree, I know this is a tree, if I listen to a symphony by Mozart, the “melodies” in it, what are they? It is a pure creation without any existing representation of something we know of. And that's what is abstract art. The less representation there is of something existing or represented in reality, more it is abstract. Making of music the most abstract art of all. I don't know of any kind of births signing any of Beethoven's sonatas, symphonies, but I know what kind of trees are represented in som paintings. Edited February 2, 2005 by QueBeceR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Anoushik, we are all ignorant, I am ignorant, you are ignorant, Armen is ignorant, OK? When I think you don't know something, I say you are ignorant on that. You think I don't know something, and you can as well say I am ignorant. Essentially all arguments are about that, we all disagree on stuff, and we think our opponents are ignorant on this or that even though we don't use the word "ignorant" to characterize them so. Do you see my point? Calling one ignorant is not the same as riduculing or humiliating. It is a way of disagreeing and being sure that you are right and your opponent is wrong. And this is usually the case when two people argue. The reason you argue with someone is because you think you are right while your opponent is wrong. And being wrong on something means being ignorant, not knowing the subject matter. This is what I don't agree with Sasun. You think you are ignorant, fine, but I don't think I am ignorant. I have always differentiated between a creator and God. I agree, human beings might never know whether a creator exists or not. I think most likely a creator exists since I am here, alive, typing this very sentence. Something must have created me (this world in which I was born). But I doubt that creator has a conscious. It might have had a conscious in the beginning but something might have happened, for looking at this world I think it's very doubtful that a conscious creator (God) exists. I'll never be able to just be happy with my own happiness. Yes, I am happy with my life and am grateful for that, but I'll always share other people's misery. I simply can't look past the great unfairness that exists in this world, for I think had I the ability to ignore other people's pains then I would be able to say that yes, God exists. On the other hand, I will never call you an idiot because I think you are ignorant. That's the difference. Consider a religious person who spends his life time mainly on worship of God. And consider someone who doesn't care about God at all, and he calls the first person an idiot and riducules his religion. This is the case that I protest. This second person has no idea at all what he is talking about, or what he is ridiculing. He is an ignorant person, but he is also unethical and malicious. If the religious person called an atheist an idiot and riduculed him, it would be the same unethical and malicious behavior. I am not saying it is any better. I think this happens when the non-religious people see that even when a person spent his lifetime worshipping God nothing good came out of it. You might say how do I know? I am not in that religious person's shoes. That's true, I'm not. But I'd expect that religous person to do some good to another human being and humanity in general, otherwise what's the point? But in most cases the truly religious are so caught up in their worshipping God that they forget that they live in this world with the rest of human beings, and forgot to look at other people's problems and offer a hand to help them out. Now consider someone who likes rabiz music and is mocking you because you like to play piano or laughs at you when you say you admire piano music. Tell me please would you call this person ignorant or no? And would you not protest because he is mocking you for something he has no idea about? This is not a hypothetical scenario, I have seen this type of a behavior many times in Armenia when a rabiz person is mocking a meek person carrying a violin on his way to a music school, or some other similar scenario. Yes, I understand. (I'd like to comment more but some family members are getting very impatient with me. I'd like to express more what I think regarding this later in the evening.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 The term agnostic seems to fit better to your beliefs Anoushik. One you call yourself an agnostic, you'll have the chance to not be a member of a religion anymore. Oh and the door of Fadixianism is always open for you. Oups, I mean, the doors of Quebecerianism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Your example with the girl has again nothing to do with what I raised. That girl is perceived by my 5 senses, and the majority of people will agree that that girl is there, if I take a picture of her with my digital camera, the CCDs will detect her. The same goes with the painting. There is an object, and there is the interpretation, while Sasuns example was about a concept vs its interpretation. While one is the interpretation of something physical, the other is the interpretation of something methaphysical. While the majority will agree with the presence of that girl, the color of her dress etc. everyone will have a different interpretation of the concepts such as god etc, its presence, its position in time and space etc. You're saying it has "nothing to do", while at the same time you're using it as a point of contrast to prove your point. So it has something to do. All of your examples are relative. Here and in all other places of your post. It is all relative. The fact that the pbjects are physical does not change the fact that their interpretations are methaphysical. Believe me, a big majority of people will think that the "beauty" or "power" of an abstract painting are methaphyisical. Doesn't change the fact that the knowledge such as “colors” can be shared. Any persons studying paintings will be able to more or less come to the same conclusion as to the style used, the type of color mixtures, the way colors were mixed, the medium used. I disagree. Less emotional people with less inclination towards abstract cognitive thinking will never understand the "beauty" of an abstract painting no matter how long they study it. By saying all of this, I would just add, that I do not reject the existence of a god, but just point out that you can not compare a knowledge of a god with a knowledge about a painting. I can compare a knowledge to another knowledge even if the sources are different. But, here is the whole point. How do you “study” god? Meditating? Why? Praying? Why? Reading the Bible? Why? Etc. The object of study is a concept itself. You are practically doing it every day and yet you ask this question as if you don't know. You're pulling my legs here Armen. “Time” is much much more abstract than space, and you know it. A spacial representation is enough for you to know of the forms, the colors, the shapes, the textures etc. Time itself is so abstract that it is represented by movement. Can you see time without seeing any movements? A cube is a form, it has a representation in space, everyone will agree that a cube has 6 same sized faces. Now, what is As representation compared to C in music? Can you see and represent that? If I paint a tree, I know this is a tree, if I listen to a symphony by Mozart, the “melodies” in it, what are they? It is a pure creation without any existing representation of something we know of. And that's what is abstract art. The less representation there is of something existing or represented in reality, more it is abstract. Making of music the most abstract art of all. I don't know of any kind of births signing any of Beethoven's sonatas, symphonies, but I know what kind of trees are represented in som paintings. style_images/master/snapback.png You have measure for space and measures for time. Both are measurable. If we consider that we don't know where the universe ends, space becomes much more abstract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 (edited) Armen, as I said, I won't answer, no offense meant, just that we are not talking about the same things, and I tried to be as clear as possible, what I may have added would only be repetition. Edited February 2, 2005 by QueBeceR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 We are talking about the same thing. However, something physical is always more valid for you. And something methaphysical that come from a physical source is also more valid than a intangiable product of a methaphysical source. This is our difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 We are talking about the same thing. However, something physical is always more valid for you. And something methaphysical that come from a physical source is also more valid than a intangiable product of a methaphysical source. This is our difference. style_images/master/snapback.png I never raised the question of validity,(this would be against my multiverse proposition) but just raised the weakness of Sasuns proposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Sorry, can I get back to this abstract business of music? How exactly do you define abstract and abstract art? If I take the broadest definition of abstract: that which is not concrete, then the only thing in the arts that is abstract is the fact that each one of us reacts differently to an art piece. Abstract Art, on the other hand, as far as I know is a movement in art, in which the artist is free from conventions. Abstract Music is an extension of Abstract Art. But non-abstract music is about as logical and concrete as cutting a pie into four equal pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Abstract art is art that is not figuartive. It is not really an artistic movement. If it is not the artists intention to depict a thing then the work is abstract. Some very old, pre-abstract works, are considered precursors to abstract because, though they are figurative works, they deemphasize the subject matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 (edited) Sorry, can I get back to this abstract business of music? How exactly do you define abstract and abstract art? If I take the broadest definition of abstract: that which is not concrete, then the only thing in the arts that is abstract is the fact that each one of us reacts differently to an art piece. Abstract Art, on the other hand, as far as I know is a movement in art, in which the artist is free from conventions. Abstract Music is an extension of Abstract Art. But non-abstract music is about as logical and concrete as cutting a pie into four equal pieces. style_images/master/snapback.png Music is abstract, there are no non-abstract music. The term "abstract music" has no much real value. Edited February 3, 2005 by QueBeceR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Abstract art is art that is not figuartive. It is not really an artistic movement. If it is not the artists intention to depict a thing then the work is abstract. Some very old, pre-abstract works, are considered precursors to abstract because, though they are figurative works, they deemphasize the subject matter. style_images/master/snapback.png Here I agree with you. Now Nairi, try to incorporate this definition to music, and tell me how a music can not be abstract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Domino, music can be represented (on paper, e.g.). Unless you extend your definition to all things we hear, including noise, sounds, speech, etc., then I'll say okay, that's your way of viewing things. I have always considered anything that you can sense with any one of your 5 senses as being concrete. Maybe I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Music is abstract, there are no non-abstract music. The term "abstract music" has no much real value. style_images/master/snapback.png Very interesting discussion Armen and Domino. I enjoyed reading it. I agree Domino (oops, I mean Quebecer ) music is abstract. I just looked up the definition for abstract music and its synonym is absolute music. From my music history class absolute music means music that is for the music's sake (since throughout the history of Western Art Music words played an important role in music, music was essentially in the background. Ex. Church music, later cantatas, oratorios, then operas.) In absolute music or abstract music there is only music (symphony, sonata) nothing else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 The term agnostic seems to fit better to your beliefs Anoushik. One you call yourself an agnostic, you'll have the chance to not be a member of a religion anymore. Oh and the door of Fadixianism is always open for you. Oups, I mean, the doors of Quebecerianism. style_images/master/snapback.png (I'm not trying to change the ongoing discussion of what's abstract, ect. but couldn't help answering.) I'm an atheist. If you very very much want me to say this a bit differently then fine, I'll say I'm an agnostic atheist. That's all. There is no room for Fadixianism, sorry And no, atheism is not a religion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 (I'm not trying to change the ongoing discussion of what's abstract, ect. but couldn't help answering.) I'm an atheist. If you very very much want me to say this a bit differently then fine, I'll say I'm an agnostic atheist. That's all. There is no room for Fadixianism, sorry And no, atheism is not a religion style_images/master/snapback.png Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 There is no such thing as an agnostic atheist. An atheist denies and an agnostic neither denies nor accepts. They are mutually exclusive. And atheism, in my opinion, is illogical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 This is what I don't agree with Sasun. You think you are ignorant, fine, but I don't think I am ignorant. I have always differentiated between a creator and God. I agree, human beings might never know whether a creator exists or not. I think most likely a creator exists since I am here, alive, typing this very sentence. Something must have created me (this world in which I was born). But I doubt that creator has a conscious. It might have had a conscious in the beginning but something might have happened, for looking at this world I think it's very doubtful that a conscious creator (God) exists. I'll never be able to just be happy with my own happiness. Yes, I am happy with my life and am grateful for that, but I'll always share other people's misery. I simply can't look past the great unfairness that exists in this world, for I think had I the ability to ignore other people's pains then I would be able to say that yes, God exists. Let's have a common understanding. I understand ignorance as the opposite of knowledge. If you know something then you are not ignorant, if you don't know then you are ignorant. Knowledge and ignorance are mutually exclusive. If you know something for 25%, that would mean you are ignorant 75%. Do you agree with this definition? Also, doubt is not knowledge, it still falls in the category of ignorance. In your above post you are expressing doubt. If I were you I would regard myself ignorant as long as I don't know for sure. Maybe not 100% ignorant but still 99% ignorant. In general, we are all ignorant because we don't know everything, but we may know some things. I am sure you are not ignorant about how to play piano, because you have spent some time training yourself, and you have become proficient. Since there are various levels of advancement and various styles of playing a piano and no objective standards it would be hard to measure your knowledge of piano performance in percentages. However, let's say if you get a diploma with A+ let's consider you are knowledgable of piano performance 100%, meaning you are not ignorant. I have never learned to play piano, maybe I have thought of learning to play piano and fancied myself with the idea that I can play really good piano. Maybe I have a fantasy that I am a great piano player, I just don't have the time to play. But objectively speaking, if that was the case I would be quite an ignorant person. Knowledge does not come easily, one has to make an effort. I have never made any effort (unless fantasizing could be considered work) to learn piano, so how could I be knowledgable? I am ignorant, that's a fact no matter how much I try to convince of the opposite. Now about knowledge on God. I am using the word "knowledge" being fully aware of it, not "opinion". What you are expressing is an opinion and doubt. You have not made any effort to really understand God, yet you would like to claim that you are not ignorant. You express doubt and you think you are not ignorant. It doesn't work that way I am convinced that you are quite ignorant on the subject of God and related, simply because you don't know, and you don't deny that you don't know Compare yourself to someone who instead of debating in forums is really craving to know God. And if you think you know more than such a person then you are mistaken. Knowing God does not have to do with reading many books or leading philosophical debates. It is more about a certain type of metaphysical intimacy where one becomes closer to God, therefore knows more than others who do not make such effort. I think this happens when the non-religious people see that even when a person spent his lifetime worshipping God nothing good came out of it. You might say how do I know? I am not in that religious person's shoes. That's true, I'm not. But I'd expect that religous person to do some good to another human being and humanity in general, otherwise what's the point? But in most cases the truly religious are so caught up in their worshipping God that they forget that they live in this world with the rest of human beings, and forgot to look at other people's problems and offer a hand to help them out. Nothing good comes out of it? Can you give examples? I understand that it is subjective and relative as to what is good and what is not. Such people are usually peaceful, friendly, loving and compassionate. That implies that they are inclined to do good, and they do good whenever they can. If they fail to pour millions of dollars towards poor people it is because they don't have any money. But they do good in other ways, they inspire and teach their fellow human beings with positive messages, messages of peace and love, serve as good examples of leading and unselfish life, etc. These are very good ways of helping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 I agree Domino (oops, I mean Quebecer ) music is abstract. I just looked up the definition for abstract music and its synonym is absolute music. From my music history class absolute music means music that is for the music's sake (since throughout the history of Western Art Music words played an important role in music, music was essentially in the background. Ex. Church music, later cantatas, oratorios, then operas.) In absolute music or abstract music there is only music (symphony, sonata) nothing else. style_images/master/snapback.png Wait. Is music abstract, or is there abstract music? As far as I'm concerned these are two separate things. I don't deny the existence of abstract music, as something artistic. I just (still) think that that which we can hear is concrete, and therefore music itself, like noise, is not abstract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 There is no such thing as an agnostic atheist. An atheist denies and an agnostic neither denies nor accepts. They are mutually exclusive. And atheism, in my opinion, is illogical. style_images/master/snapback.png I should remember to always be very specific Dusken, by agnostic atheist I mean I don't believe in God but I don't deny the existence of a creator. By God I mean a being that has a conscious. I don't think this creator (if it's alive) has a conscious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 There is no such thing as an agnostic atheist. An atheist denies and an agnostic neither denies nor accepts. They are mutually exclusive. And atheism, in my opinion, is illogical. style_images/master/snapback.png WOW! I agree with you here again, and even with the illogical part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Religious people, pound-for-pound, are not more compassionate, friendly, loving and peaceful than those who are not religious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 I should remember to always be very specific Dusken, by agnostic atheist I mean I don't believe in God but I don't deny the existence of a creator. By God I mean a being that has a conscious. I don't think this creator (if it's alive) has a conscious. style_images/master/snapback.png Anoushik, give it up, you're not an atheist. You are an I don't know about a creator, but a rejector of the conception of a God present in monotheistic texts. You're more closer to being an agnostic. Admit it, accept your agnosticism, and leave the atheistic religion. If you accept it, you could claim to not have a religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 WOW! I agree with you here again, and even with the illogical part. style_images/master/snapback.png Agree? I'll change that. Atheism is illogical for the same reason religious beliefs are illogical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Agree? I'll change that. Atheism is illogical for the same reason religious beliefs are illogical. style_images/master/snapback.png I agree here again. Oh boy, whom would believe I would agree 3 times with you today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Alright. Atheism is not a religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.