Just To Share...

[Anoushik]

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?

style_images/master/snapback.png

Yes.

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...

Whatever doubt I might have has to do with a possibility that a creator exists. I don't doubt about the existence of God.

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

Again, I don't doubt the existence of God. There is no God. No such being exists. I might not know whether someone or something is sitting up there somewhere and looking at us (not literally of course) but that being is not God.

 

Sasun, I want you to tell me how you perceive God. Is He a conscious being? Is He good? Is He doing His best to not forgot us? Is He trying to care for us? Are we of any value to Him? Even if He cares for us does He have the ability to help us in need? Or is it His wish to abandon us and see how we'll get along without Him?

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.

Everybody at some point in their life has craved to know God. I know I have. But I realized that I'm just fooling myself in this make-belief saga that humans have created (not trying to be rude). Why did I realize that there is no God? Because if God wanted us to reach for Him there wouldn't be any need for a medium (like a priest, psychic, rabbi, guru, etc.) Everyone would have equal opportunity to meet Him. In our day and age people in developed countries have come to realize that all human beings are born equal yet we don't seem to be equal in the eyes of God.

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.

Most peaceful, friendly, loving and compassionate people I have met are not very religious; and some of them are either atheists or don't care at all about religion and God, therefore they have no opinions. True, I have also met atheists who could qualify to be the most heartless, egoist humans in this world. With most "religious" people I find them to be selfish and unable to put themselves in other humans' shoes. I put "religious" in quotations because that's how they identify themselves. And indeed, how many religious people are there today? How many who pray and meditate every day? How about in the past? Didn't religion play a big part in everyone's daily life? What good did it bring? What good does it bring having all these religious people today who have a passion to know God? Most of these "religious" people want to know God so badly that they preoccupy themselves with getting to know God and in the process become blind to the sufferings of their neighbors. In the process of getting to know God they lose their humanity, for they have to train themselves at looking at the world with an otherwordly perspective. The daily, worldly concerns are not theirs anymore.

[Sasun]

Whatever doubt I might have has to do with a possibility that a creator exists. I don't doubt about the existence of God.

 

Again, I don't doubt the existence of God. There is no God. No such being exists. I might not know whether someone or something is sitting up there somewhere and looking at us (not literally of course) but that being is not God.

It is somehow strange that you make a distinction between a creator and God.

Sasun, I want you to tell me how you perceive God.

I will try to give you an idea.

There are some basic things that all believers in God agree about. God is Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Eternal, Immortal, Infinite. I perceive God as having all thease qualities at the same time. If somebody says, OK, maybe God exists but maybe He is not very intelligent then I will disagree, because by definition God is omniscient so He can't be unintelligent. An unintelligent God does not exist the way I perceive it, and hat is actually what the major religions say. We would be talking about different things.

In addition, God is loving, caring and compassionate. Even the fact alone that we were given a life and free choice speaks of generousity. It could be otherwise, we might have been created without free will as dumb animals.

About creation, I understand creation differently than ordinary way of creating as in take some materials put them together and create something else. We are a projection of God, not a creation. God would like to manifest himself in many different ways, and all those ways combined are called creation, but it is in fact a projection. God is immaterial and is projecting Himself as the material world that we are in. Imagine that the world is God's body, we are all part of it.

 

I will give briev answers to your questions, because first of all I don't know everything, and second of all the questions you are asking cannot be answered comprehensively without writing many volumes even with my limited knowledge.

 

-Is He a conscious being?

-Yes, by definition.

 

-Is He good?

-Yes, he is good, but he does not compel us to believe that, there are many hints in life to suggest that God is good. It also depends on how you define goodness. I consider giving life and freedom among many other things good.

 

-Is He doing His best to not forgot us?

-His intelligence can be described as super-intelligence where things are not forgotten, it is perfect intelligence.

 

-Is He trying to care for us?

-God sustains the universe. If He didn't care we would simply vanish.

 

-Are we of any value to Him?

-Of course, we are part and parcel of God.

 

-Even if He cares for us does He have the ability to help us in need?

-By definition God is omnipotent, so he has the ability to do anything you name. God always helps us. Everytime you breathe air that is God's help to live on (Remember, by definition everything that exists is God's creation/projection). Every time you eat food remember who created that food. Sometimes the help maybe expressed as an education, for your own good, though you may not enjoy it. That can be a difficult challenge in your life, but after that you learn more and actually may appreciate the lesson.

 

-Or is it His wish to abandon us and see how we'll get along without Him?

-God is omnipresent by definition, which means God is everywhere. He cannot be absent in any given spot in the universe.

 

Why did I realize that there is no God? Because if God wanted us to reach for Him there wouldn't be any need for a medium (like a priest, psychic, rabbi, guru, etc.)

But who said there is a need for medium? Everyone can reach God without a medium. But if there is a medium wise people will make use of it. Reaching God is not an easy task, it may take a very long time and very hard work without any help. If you wish help is offered, if not then you can go alone. Even with a medium you still have to work hard. Medium is like a guide in your path to God. Of course, you can try to walk alone, but a guide knows the road so he will show you the optimal path if you ask him. But he will not carry you, you still have to do the walking yourself, and he will help you along (I am assuming that the guide is a real one and not a charlatan).

Everyone would have equal opportunity to meet Him.

Everyone has an equal opportunity, but if you don't use your opportunity and others are using you will lag behind and it will look like you don't have an equal opportunity.

In our day and age people in developed countries have come to realize that all human beings are born equal yet we don't seem to be equal in the eyes of God.

It only seems so. We are all equal in the eyes of God, things that I can do you can also do, but you may not want to do. That is not inequality, that is your choice.

Most of these "religious" people want to know God so badly that they preoccupy themselves with getting to know God and in the process become blind to the sufferings of their neighbors. In the process of getting to know God they lose their humanity, for they have to train themselves at looking at the world with an otherwordly perspective. The daily, worldly concerns are not theirs anymore.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Not everyone who calls himself religious practices his religion. It is very easy to call oneself religious. Most peope who belong to organized religions are ceremonial, they don't really practice anything else than meaningless religious ceremenies.

I would like some specific examples of how by craving for God people loose their humanity.

[Sasun]

I just realized that we have gone off-topic now.

[Sasun]

Anoushik, if you think God does not exist why do you waste your time talking about it?

[Anoushik]

I won't anymore I realize we perceive this world quite differently and we'll never understand each other when the question is God. The only reason this discussion started was because I don't like to be called ignorant without any specific reason that nothing supports.

[Armen]

I never raised the question of validity,(this would be against my multiverse proposition) but just raised the weakness of Sasuns proposition.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Well, I proved that Sasun's proposition was a very strong one, meaning he may very well compare the absurdity of so-called "power" or "beauty" of an abstract painting to the persived absurdity of the concept of God. The fact that you don't want to compare them for the sake of your argumentation does not change anything. I compared them so they are comparable. The concept of a beautiful abstract painting is as much an intangiable absurdity as the concept of God.

Edited February 3, 2005 by Armen

[nairi]

Me too, I have searched on google today just to see if something called abstract music existed. That is not logical, because music itself is abstract. It is like saying Dark is dark.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I still feel that my inquiry was left unanswered. Domino, do you believe that everything that we cannot perceive with our eyes to be abstract? Are touch, smell, taste and hearing also abstract? In other words, is the life of a blind person abstract by definition?

 

No philosophy here please. I've heard the "there's no truth out there; everything is abstract" blah blah. This is purely about whether something is concrete (hence clearly perceivable) or not. The thing I'm hitting on right now is a keyboard. I can see it, feel it, hear it and potentially even smell and taste it. It's concrete. How is sound (extended to noise, music, speech etc.) not concrete?

[DominO123]

Well, I proved that Sasun's proposition was a very strong one, meaning he may very well compare the absurdity of so-called "power" or "beauty" of an abstract painting to the persived absurdity of the concept of God. The fact that you don't want to compare them for the sake of your argumentation does not change anything. I compared them so they are comparable. The concept of a beautiful abstract painting is as much an intangiable absurdity as the concept of God.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

That you did that is only your interpretation of things, and this itself is an evidences of what I have been saying, because this thing sparked with the subject of god, while there was no disagreement about colors used in an abstract painting.

[Armen]

That you did that is only your interpretation of things, and this itself is an evidences of what I have been saying, because this thing sparked with the subject of god, while there was no disagreement about colors used in an abstract painting.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I am comparing the results and you're saying that the sources are different. Who cares if the sources are different in nature? Does this make the results incomparable? No.

[DominO123]

I still feel that my inquiry was left unanswered. Domino, do you believe that everything that we cannot perceive with our eyes to be abstract? Are touch, smell, taste and hearing also abstract? In other words, is the life of a blind person abstract by definition?

 

No philosophy here please. I've heard the "there's no truth out there; everything is abstract" blah blah. This is purely about whether something is concrete (hence clearly perceivable) or not. The thing I'm hitting on right now is a keyboard. I can see it, feel it, hear it and potentially even smell and taste it. It's concrete. How is sound (extended to noise, music, speech etc.) not concrete?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Nairi, abstract means something that has no representation with object in reality. A bird singing, is a birrd singing, if I record it, it is not really abstract music, because this singing has a representation with reality, the bird that sing it exist, and it is its voice, that exist as a birds voice.

 

Someone speaking, that speaking is done with his voice, and when you hear the voice in question, you know that this voice is the voice of this someone, so hearing that persons voice is not really abstract.

 

Smelling a perfume that you know the odor of, this odor has a representation in reality, it is the smell of the parfum in question.

 

Now suppose that the person that speak, now decide to reproduce a melody with his mouth, without any lyrics, and that you ignore hive voice but concentrate on the melody itself. What is the representation of this melody in reality, what is it?

 

Of course, you can answer me by saying that a Beethoven pieces could be compared with someones act of speaking. No! The can not, you listen to an English speaking person during a conference that many that understand English assist. Everyone will be able(if they have the knowledge and intelligence) to understand most of what the speaker says, this understanding will be not much subjective, because each words have more or less clear definitions and representations.

 

But now, you decide to do the same thing with music and assist to a concert dedicated to Beethoven. Can you say the same thing? Can you say that A has any representation in reality compared to C that the majority will agree on? Of course not.

 

Now about the smell, it is true that a smell is very abstract as well, but not as much as music. It would be as much, if one day someone compose a masterpieces with smells, not parfum, but something that move in time like music is about, each second a new combinaison of smell etc. Now maybe we could speak about a smelling composition which could be very abstract, because the melodies composed with those smells will have no representation in reality.

Edited February 3, 2005 by QueBeceR

[DominO123]

I am comparing the results and you're saying that the sources are different. Who cares if the sources are different in nature? Does this make the results incomparable? No.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

The results are not similar, in one cases, there can be a shared knowledge that nearly everyone could agree, in the other cases none. So, no one can talk of ignorance(lack of knowledge) in this cases.

 

Oh, and stop pushing me there, I said I won't discuss about this.

[Armen]

The results are not similar, in one cases, there can be a shared knowledge that nearly everyone could agree, in the other cases none. So, no one can talk of ignorance(lack of knowledge) in this cases.

 

Oh, and stop pushing me there, I said I won't discuss about this.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Shared knowledge that nearly eveyone could agree?! That is highly and entirely questionable. You can't share you knowledge about that so-called "beauty" with a vast majority of humankind. Colors (the source) does not matter at all here.

 

I am not pushing you, I am just defeting your argument.

[nairi]

But Domino, and here is where I'm still not convinced, music can be represented (e.g. on paper), and therefore can also be reproduced by someone else. Just like speech, intonation and melody can be represented. Someone who is familiar with music notes will recognize an A when it's played, on any instrument, including a voice! The reason why I'm not convinced is because I still believe that anything that can be perceived by one or more of the 5 senses is by definition not abstract. Abstract is only that which cannot be perceived (and thus also not be represented).

[DominO123]

Shared knowledge that nearly eveyone could agree?! That is highly and entirely questionable. You can't share you knowledge about that so-called "beauty" with a vast majority of humankind. Colors (the source) does not matter at all here.

 

I am not pushing you, I am just defeting your argument.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Again, again, and again, Armen, stop doing that on purposes, you are twisting everything just because you can't admit you were wrong.

 

Lets repeat, for the last time, and this time it is REALLY the last time.

 

Nearly everyone could agree that the red used in the painting IS RED, that the blue used in the painting IS BLUE, that the green used in the painting IS GREEN... that the medium used in the painting IS ACRYLIC... and a spectral analysis of the RED indicates that the RED is in fact RED.

 

This IS knowledge, stop twisting things, and would someone for the sake of objectivity come here and admit that.

 

Nearly everyone listening to a piano pieces would admit that the instrument played IS PIANO, that what he is seing and touching IS PIANO!!! Everyone knowing Beethoven Pathetic Sonanta, will recognise it and agree it IS that Sonata that is being played! This IS knowledge.

 

Say what ever you want, this won't change that those knowledges EVERYONE can agree on. The feeling IS personal, but the feeling itself IS NOT knowledge, the knowledge of feeling is knowledge, but not the feeling itself. You can not say that this feeling of yours is your knowledge of the painting. The knowledge may and will modify your feeling of the painting, but the feeling is NOT knowledge.

 

You can not take your feeling and directly give it to another person, and say, here is my knowledge. You want an evidence for that? The evidence is here open for you in this THREAD! If feeling could be knowledge, art probably WON'T EXIST! And PLEASE, think about that before answering. Art is about transfering your feeling, your being in an object, the process of creativity is about that. The visual representation, musical, or any other art form... is the "exteriorisation" of something very personal, but once the masterpieces is compleated, this become an object to be shared, and this object CAN be shared. But the feeling itself can never be shared as a knowledge.

 

Let give you an example, someone is crying, you look at that person and know that that person doesn't feel well.

 

How did you knew that? Did that person directly transfered you his/her feeling? NO! You know it, because of his/her expression, he/she is expressing his/her sentiment by using his/her body. The visual expression representing someones being in that moment, IS ART. This is what art is all about, the process of creation is only the phenomenology and a consequences of that.

 

What this has to do with God? Well, god itself, the concept, can not be transfered as an object, you can represent it by using art, but this art is not "god" just like your feeling as an antity of itself can never be transfered. Don't forget feeling itself is NOT knowledge. God can not pass the stade of being more than something metaphysical in nature, in the same domain as feelings, and is very different depending to the believer you interview.

 

So, while a masterpieces is the reflection of the artist on the moment of creation, "God" is like a feeling that everyone can have in him/her. In one cases, it is the feeling of one artist, in the other hand, it is the feeling of a group of people.

 

Now, suppose that we conduct an experiment, and ask many to paint their feeling about god, everyone will paint a different representation. One may use blue as the most present color in the painting, another will use green, another will use red etc. (influenced as well by the society he/she lives in). Now, it is time for each painter to exchange their knowledge of that feeling that is god. Will they have anything other than feelins to share?

 

This god itself could be represented by artistic expression, but just like feelings it is not knowledge. There are no knowledge of god that everyone can agree upon. No red, blue or anything tangible that you could say, here this red is gods dress, and those glasses are his... While the painting is the art pieces, the painting is NOT god.

 

So no! Sasuns comparaison doesn't work.

And this time, I really close the discussion, because I am really convinced that when you see my post, the first thing you think about is to answer it and show me wrong. Just like your twisting about how time isn't more abstract than space.

[DominO123]

But Domino, and here is where I'm still not convinced, music can be represented (e.g. on paper), and therefore can also be reproduced by someone else. Just like speech, intonation and melody can be represented. Someone who is familiar with music notes will recognize an A when it's played, on any instrument, including a voice! The reason why I'm not convinced is because I still believe that anything that can be perceived by one or more of the 5 senses is by definition not abstract. Abstract is only that which cannot be perceived (and thus also not be represented).

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

No, they can't, a partition doesn't contain words or anything which can be represented in reality. A melody is not blue, green, it is not a cube, a tree or anything that can be represented in reality. A melody is not a birds singing.

 

A speech contains words which represent reality. When I say tree, it allude to something

an object.

[Arvestaked]

I stopped paying attention to this thread so I don't know the argument. However, Nairi, abstraction in art is a form of art. It is art that is not figurative in its presentation. That does not mean that the expectation is that abstract art is somehow a form of art that can only be imagined. It is comparing apples and oranges. The problem is in what Domino said: that music is abstract, preventing there from being abstract music. This is not the way to look at it. There is no abstract music because there is no equivalent of figurative music. Music is music. You two are referring to different meanings of the word "abstract." Abstraction in the realm of artistic expression is not the same as abstraction in the realm of intangible concepts. Words can have different meanings.

[DominO123]

I stopped paying attention to this thread so I don't know the argument. However, Nairi, abstraction in art is a form of art. It is art that is not figurative in its presentation. That does not mean that the expectation is that abstract art is somehow a form of art that can only be imagined. It is comparing apples and oranges. The problem is in what Domino said: that music is abstract, preventing there from being abstract music. This is not the way to look at it. There is no abstract music because there is no equivalent of figurative music. Music is music. You two are referring to different meanings of the word "abstract." Abstraction in the realm of artistic expression is not the same as abstraction in the realm of intangible concepts. Words can have different meanings.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I think there are some sort of music that can be the equivalent of figurative. Like some new age music, mixing sea's noises, births singing etc.

[Sasun]

I won't anymore I realize we perceive this world quite differently and we'll never understand each other when the question is God. The only reason this discussion started was because I don't like to be called ignorant without any specific reason that nothing supports.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Anoushik, after some thinking, I think you are not ignorant

Edited February 3, 2005 by Sasun

[Arvestaked]

I think there are some sort of music that can be the equivalent of figurative. Like some new age music, mixing sea's noises, births singing etc.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

You can argue it. I do not agree. And I also do not care enough to discuss it. Nothing could be more useless and lackluster.

[DominO123]

You can argue it. I do not agree. And I also do not care enough to discuss it. Nothing could be more useless and lackluster.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Me think you lack sense of humour.

[nairi]

You two are referring to different meanings of the word "abstract." Abstraction in the realm of artistic expression is not the same as abstraction in the realm of intangible concepts.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I realize this and that is why from the beginning I separated the two.

 

As for music, if figurative means representing a real life object, image or otherwise, then there is music that is figurative. I'm sure Anoushik can say more about this.

 

Abstract music, like abstract art, as was already said, is a genre in music and art. It's just a label that has to be given by some.

[Arvestaked]

Abstract art is not a genre. It is a form of art that, itself, has genres.

 

The abstract music that was linked to is a genre.

 

As for there being figurative music, I disagree. But who cares?

[Armen]

Lets repeat, for the last time, and this time it is REALLY the last time.

You can say "last time" as much as you want. It will not make your argument stronger.

Nearly everyone could agree that the red used in the painting IS RED, that the blue used in the painting IS BLUE, that the green used in the painting IS GREEN... that the medium used in the painting IS ACRYLIC... and a spectral analysis of the RED indicates that the RED is in fact RED.

You said one hundered times that you can share you knowlegde about colors with neraly everyone. I can also share my knowldge of God with Sasun for example and lot of other people. In contrast, you can't share your knowledge about the "beauty" of an abstract painting with me and lot of other people (just and handful if we consider all humankind).

This IS knowledge, stop twisting things, and would someone for the sake of objectivity come here and admit that.

Well, I didn't say colors is not knowledge. I say "the beauty" that you see is not a knowledge.

There are no knowledge of god that everyone can agree upon. No red, blue or anything tangible that you could say, here this red is gods dress, and those glasses are his... While the painting is the art pieces, the painting is NOT god.

There is no knowledge of an abstract painting that everyone can agree on no matter how tangiable the colors are. So "the beauty" is as much a concept as the God and may very well be compared. That is what Sasun compared.

So no! Sasuns comparaison doesn't work.

And this time, I really close the discussion, because I am really convinced that when you see my post, the first thing you think about is to answer it and show me wrong. Just like your twisting about how time isn't more abstract than space.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I didn't say time is not more abstract. I said space is also abstract to a certain degree. I have no intention to stop the discussion if you feel like you're content you're free to stop any time.

[nairi]

Abstract art is not a genre. It is a form of art that, itself, has genres.

 

It's a genre with subgenres.

 

As for there being figurative music, I disagree. But who cares?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

No one

[Anoushik]

I also think that this discussion has to do with two different definitions of the word abstract. I agree with Domino's definition of music being abstract in general because we can't taste it, see it, touch it, etc. we just hear the music and try to make sense of it individually. A certain passage of harmonic change in music has a different meaning for me than for another listener sitting close by. Everyone is free to interpret the music differently.

 

As for music, if figurative means representing a real life object, image or otherwise, then there is music that is figurative. I'm sure Anoushik can say more about this.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Yes, in a different sense of abstract music can be described as being abstract music or absolute music versus program music. During the 19th century composers started writing music that was based on a story, describing characters, places and events in their music without having people on the stage act out the parts, speak, or sing. Berlioz's "Symphonie Fantastique" is an example of that. Most of Schumann's piano compositions are program music. They are collections of small pieces that depict mythological figures (ex. Carnival, Papillons). Johannes Brahms, another 19th century composer, didn't like the idea of program music and felt that music should only be for the music's sake. He is considered a neo-classical composer because he went back to write absolute music in the tradition of Beethoven and Haydn, Classical period composers.