A Foaming of the Mouth

[Layne]

Or at least so you may take what I am about to say.

Kolek's topic on the Lord of the Rings has set me a thinking.

I like literature and music that happens for no particular reason. I like things that wander, and get where they're going without particularly intend to. I like stories that have no end, and no beginning. I like songs that aren't about anything. [I really like Sigur Ros, whose songs are probably about something, but as they sing in Icelandic, I can only guess what it's about, which is much the same as it having no meaning at all].

I like stories that have no purpose. A good example, then, of a story that I rather dislike, is Animal Farm. I don't like being told what to think, and no one I've discovered dominates his audience more ruthlessly than Eric the George. Indeed he rules his readers just as sternly as Stalin ruled the Soviet Union - a most delightful irony. The thing is, stories and songs that have no end, no beginning, and no discernible meaning either, give the reader or listener a lot of credit. They leave as much as possible to the imagination.

They rather remind me of the Universe, which has invisible ends, and indivisible moments. I dislike forms of literature that that try to divide those moments, and to see those ends. You could say, I like stuff that happens. I like to watch things, listen to things, and to roll ideas across the floor. I don't like to be told what to watch for, what to listen to, and least of all, which ideas I should roll and in which dang direction.

I dislike literature or music in which everything must happen for a reason, in which all things are the beginning of some end, and in which everything is purposefully explained. Especially when the purpose of the story becomes more important than the story itself. I start to read something like that, and I think to myself, 'well now, here's a guy telling me what to believe, as if I don't know.'

Thanks buddy, I'll be working it out for myself. If I agree with you, we'll be friends, ey, and if not, I'll Rochambeau you for it?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, that if Art imitates Life, and Life has no meaning - other than what you make for yourself - then Art should have no meaning - other than what you make for yourself. Life has no beginning and no end, so Art should have no beginning and no end. Events in one's Life happen for no reason that can readily be discerned, and so should it be with Art. So it's a poor artist that tries to write a story with a meaning, in which all things happen for a reason.

Having said that, Art in which everything is dominated by purpose, can be rather comforting, inmuch the same way that telling someone who's just lost their [whichever] 'Everything happens for a reason' can be very comforting. It's what religions are built on.

But the Reason will always be hidden from us. I imagine a life in which everything happens for a reason. I see all those reasons mutiplying ahead if me - I see exactly which mountain I'll climb next, wnad which river I'll cross on the other side of that. I see my entire life - yet to be lived - fading into the hazy distance, much as it would do if I had already lived. Half remembered, half guessed, they're just about the same to me.

I already see my reasoned life stretching out ahead of me then, much as if I had already lived it. Indeed I have already lived it - my past is as much a figment of my imagination as my future. So if I have already lived my life, why am I still here? If I've already caught that train, and been to the end of the destination, then it makes little difference if I actually put my actual body on the actual train and go to the actual destination - I may as well catch the train with my teeth.

So I like things that have no purpose but to be. And I dislike things that would try to defile that purpose. Literature with a point would be a prime example of that, politics and finance are also good examples. Meaningless fictions I call them, but rather pompously proclaimed and vigorously defended for all that. Religion was, it seems, supposed to be something like what I'm describing, but people just can't seem to help going from putting their own meaning into things, to attempting to push said meaning onto others.

Of course, by my own standards this has been a fairly trashy publication, but hey, you know, you make of it what you will.

[- human]

I'm in a rush and can't type much, but I want to say I like your perspective on art and life. And I know what you mean about stories without a beginning and an end, they just feel more... true to the universe.

[Layne]

Thank you : I hope you will write more when you have time.

Of course, it's not really my idea of Life, the Universe or Everything... it's derivative and hackneyed, and on such grounds, completely invalid. I piss all over everything I've said.

[Langmann]

I really don't know what you are saying, but I love "Animal Farm". My favorite line "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Therefore be careful mentioning Religion as it is a hot topic and one we generally agreed to refrain from around this place.

[Layne]

Here's an idea that I'm fond of rolling, and I could say it's lost me a few girlfriends...

I am asked to think logically, as we all are at some point. Alright, says I, what, logically, is the first step?

[Archdukechocula]

Here's an idea that I'm fond of rolling, and I could say it's lost me a few girlfriends...

I am asked to think logically, as we all are at some point. Alright, says I, what, logically, is the first step?

Obviously there isn't. All reasoning rests upon a set of first principles that one either accepts or rejects. It is the lynch pin of tautological argument. The nature of those first principles will always have varying degrees of acceptance from person to person. Nihilism is certainly one stance to take in response to that, but it is one equally fraught with it's own ideological problems. For one, the assertion that nothing has meaning is still an assertion, and rather problematically, it's an assertion that is negative, and thus that cannot really be tested.

I think, along similar lines, you sort of conflate two different concepts in your analysis of literature. When you compare literature with a theme or argument to a dictatorship (or at least that is how I interpret your "Eric the George is like Stalin" comment), you essentially are saying that the voicing of an argument is the same as the violent coercion of a person. I would say that this is a completely ludicrous comparison. When I read a book, I judge the novel on its own merits. At no point am I denied my decision making. At no point am I forced into agreement with the authors premise. Rather, the author makes a case, and I evaluate the worthiness of that case on the merits of the argument itself.

By contrast, in a dictatorship, someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to do, or not to do certain things under threat of punishment or death. To compare the two is just a radical confusion of argument and coercion. The two are not at all the same. If you believed they were, then you must also fairly consider yourself a dictator, because you stated your viewpoint in this thread, and make no mistake, you have asserted an absolute notion of reality just as much as any novel I've ever read. You've made a concrete judgment about the moral nature of the universe and presented it in written form. Does this make you a dictator of words? I should think not. After all, there is nothing stopping me from disagreeing with you, and indeed there are no consequences to be had for me doing so.

I start to read something like that, and I think to myself, 'well now, here's a guy telling me what to believe, as if I don't know.'

Well, I think it is more fair to say "Here is someone telling me what they think[/i]," which is of course what you are doing. I really don't see why that should be upsetting. Obviously you have opinions on the world when you start reading, but are you really so set in your opinions that you think no one has anything worth saying that might challenge your perception? What if you are wrong? What if someone actually has a persuasive argument that thought of things that never occurred to you? Would you prefer to deny yourself exposure to such ideas simply because they challenge your opinion? There are many many brilliant people who have written brilliant things that have come to very unique conclusions about the world. I am of the opinion that it is worth experiencing their visions, because invariably, they have thought of at least something worth considering. The alternative is a blind conviction to your own ideas to the exclusion of all
others. That has a lot more in common with a dictatorship or an extremist religion than an author printing his ideas.

[Layne]

It's not upsetting : it merely does not interest me. I'd rather work it out for myself. Orwell was laying down a parody of the Stalinist dictatorship. His caricature was perfectly drawn in that it brooked no more discussion than it's subject. The book asks the same question that Cheka asks you when they put a gun in your face. Take it or leave it.

All that changes is what is to be taken, and what left. You might say that the scale also changes, but that is a matter of perception.

I don't discard Orwell because he challenges my opinion : I discard him because he doesn't. I agree with him. What he says his true, fair, obvious, and never more clearly stated. I say that I prefer stories that remain applicable, which Orwell's do not. I prefer stories that I can go on thinking about endlessly.

Someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to do something... but if you value your principle over your life, then the dictator cannot force you to do anything, other than to die, and that only by physical force. The line between argument and coercion is much finer than you might think. I have met many people who can't abide the notion that they may be wrong, and take any sleight as hard or worse than they might take a kick in the randos. To such people, raising a hand is voicing an opinion, but arguing is coercion. To them fists are words, and words are fists. Most of the people like I've met who are like that, are wife beaters.

My ideas are neither blind nor convicted, they are constantly open to review. I am constantly challenging myself, and so, of course, just about never making my mind up. Even as I write, I am unsure of what I am saying, but I feel the need to throw it out there. And so to open it to review.

Just consider this : at no point are you forced to agree with a gun.

[Mr_styrofoam]

Just consider this : at no point are you forced to agree with a gun

Well you could argue the contrary by assuming that MOST people would choose life over every one of their principles. Unless they're crazy.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, that if Art imitates Life, and Life has no meaning - other than what you make for yourself - then Art should have no meaning - other than what you make for yourself

Like chocula was saying, I think the point of "Art" (i suppose we can oversimplify) is to offer differing opinions on a subject. How boring would it be if all Art had no meaning, just a meandering of ideas? Sure it might be interesting to read a FEW pieces of literature like that, where you use the author's work to open up some different perspectives and create your own ideas, but how could you not tire of such "Art?" Eventually you'd want to hear someone else's concrete ideas on something. There will always be something you won't think of that someone else will.

If you hadn't read Animal Farm, you might not have started this topic; you gain just as much by disagreeing with him than if you had made any other decision about the novel. If it had been a "pointless" piece of work, and just left you to imagine what human-like animals might have done if they had inherited a farm, then there's no telling what you might have imagined. While that could be a good thing, you also probably wouldn't have thought of the same thing that Orwell had.

Point: While the ability to allow your imagination to create its own "Art" is something to relish, you cannot discard the "Art" that others have created; it offers insights that further your knowledge and opinions, which you might have otherwise missed.

[Rork]

Just consider this : at no point are you forced to agree with a gun

Well you could argue the contrary by assuming that MOST people would choose life over every one of their principles. Unless they're crazy.

But that begs the question - were they principles at all? While some principles are perhaps less important than others, if you fail to stand up for at least something you may as well be dead.

[Archdukechocula]

Someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to do something... but if you value your principle over your life, then the dictator cannot force you to do anything, other than to die, and that only by physical force. The line between argument and coercion is much finer than you might think. I have met many people who can't abide the notion that they may be wrong, and take any sleight as hard or worse than they might take a kick in the randos. To such people, raising a hand is voicing an opinion, but arguing is coercion. To them fists are words, and words are fists. Most of the people like I've met who are like that, are wife beaters.

I would say that those people aren't very clear thinkers. While some people may die for their principles, the choice presented is binary, and thus limiting in a way that thinking and discussion are not. You either live and do what you are ordered, or die in defiance. The presentation of that scenario narrows your entire existence into a forced binary. A discussion or argument does nothing of the sort. At its worst, it is two people loudly exchanging heated opinions, which can be analyzed, incorporated, discarded or altered in whatever ways you desire. You can always find a point of comparison between any two things, but that does not make them the same, or even very similar.

On a further note, one can violently coerce people into two choices in which either choice violate their principles. The Nazis sometimes went into Jewish villages in various places when rampaging through Eastern Europe and Russia, picked a random person, and then forced them to decide between whether the Nazis should kill their family, or everyone else in their village. If they make no choice, everyone dies. For most people, you can't experience something like that and maintain your principles, because no matter what you do, the actions are horrendous, and in deep violating of your principles. To argue that things like this are somehow analogous to argumentation, which is merely an abstract exchange of information in which your options of response are essentially limitless, just doesn't hold much water.

Just consider this : at no point are you forced to agree with a gun.

A gun is just a tool. At no point am I agreeing or disagreeing with it. I am either implementing the orders of the guy with the gun, or objecting to them and suffering consequences. The gun is merely the tool that makes the coercion possible. More generally, it is violence that is the tool. The agency is what is important here.

it merely does not interest me. I'd rather work it out for myself

Of what value is it to reserve such discovery to the powers of your own intellect, especially when you can be certain that there are other people out there who have thought of things you haven't, and probably never will? Obviously this is an option available to you, but why not extend this to all things in life? Why ever learn anything from anyone else? Why not be willfully ignorant of all knowledge not of your own making? To me, the answer is pretty obvious. There is value and utility in the insights of others, especially when I consider how many people have thought very deeply about so many issues with an intellect that far surpasses my own. Often, their reasoning is clearer, their conclusions more accurate, and their insights more compelling. To simply deny that just so I can think about things on my own seems actively harmful. What value do you think you derive by insisting upon your own thoughts in isolation? And I say that as an honest question, I don't intend to be snarky or derisive, because it is interesting to me that you would make that choice.

[- human]

Well I should be studying... shouldn't we all! It's about as close to non-busy as I get these days, so I'll throw in some more thoughts.

Anyhow, back to art and purpose.

I understand the way you feel about somebody trying to send you a message, but strangely enough, I think it's for a very different reason. When I read books & research articles, as I read them, I find myself easily swayed by the message. I'm fundamentally agreeable. (keep in mind that this is only for good books & articles; a decent education has taught me how to be critical of bad research & newspaper articles, and I can usually smell bullsh!t when I read it.) It's only after I read something, digest it fully, and get to talk about it that I'm able to distance myself and assess it critically, and make my decision on my opinion. I think it's a weakness of mine, but it sure makes reading interesting! Anyhow, once I actually GET to the point where I can objectively look at something like animal farm, I sometimes have a bitter feeling of.... violation? ("GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!")Almost as if I was temporarily convinced by something against my own will, or without my consent. You've got to hand it to writers like Orwell, it's definitely a unique ability. I commend your natural resistance to it all... I really need to digest good books mentally before I can pick them apart.

I've thought more about books with no beginning and end. Although they feel more "true" like I said, they give me a VERY different experience in comparison to more normal books (with a beginning and an end). But this isn't to say that the latter option is inferior.

I think that while the former (no end) is more spiritual and universal, giving me an light, englightened feeling, books with an end feel more true to human existence. Our lives are a series of beginnings and endings, from relationships to chapters of our personalities to physical life and death itself. Books like this have the potential to really speak to human life, and I think have more powerful messages.

Different feelings.

[Layne]

Arguments can be violent.

Wifebeaters can think clearly, all too clearly sometimes... binary thought sure speeds up some processes, but indeed, it confuses many more.

I make my choice because I am merely interested in what I can do. I don't say that those who seek the advice of others are better than me, or that I am better than them, or that either is more likely to succeed. I simply prefer and enjoy to work things out for myself. I generally only enjoy the advice or input of others where it forms a part of social networking, i.e. I ask someone what they think because I see them bursting to tell it.

As an art form, I see hard fact or judged opinion as an unwanted intruder - these things are amply found in the real world, in books of history or craft, in the things people yell at me from across the street, whatever. What I seek in literature and art, is something that is all my own, and nothing to do with anyone else's opinion. If I want something to do with someone else's opinion, well, that can be found absolutely everywhere else.

Of what value is all that, then? None, other than its value to me, which goes up to eleven, but at the minute is set to about four. I'm having a sort of 'reason-to-live' crisis at the moment, you see. I see it's of little value to you, but then, this is my world and not for sale or rent anyhow. It doesn't bore me, generally. Occasionally I lack the heart to go on, but that's not out of boredom as such. More out of nihilism, which would naturally lead to inactivity and then boredom. Then boredom turns to sadness, sadness to rage, rage to action, action brings me back to the top of the cycle - happiness. You get something done, you feel good, proud, okay. Then you take another look and wonder if it was all really worth it. Back down again. There doesn't seem to be any way of stopping the wheel turning, but perhaps it's best not to.

Interesting notion about the beginnings and endings. All those beginnings are endings, and middles as well. Like in the Lord of the Rings, when Sam is talking about the story of Beren and the Great Jewel, and he suddenly realises that he's in the same story himself, in Sam's words "Don't the great stories never end?" No, they just go on. I wonder then, if what I think is the end of my story, is really the end? I know it's for sure the beginning of another, and the middle of yet another - perhaps that would be my son's story, or my brother's. But will there be more to say of me than " and then he died and was buried in the centre of the sun." And then he - ?

[- human]

I generally only enjoy the advice or input of others where it forms a part of social networking, i.e. I ask someone what they think because I see them bursting to tell it.

This I can relate to.

As an art form, I see hard fact or judged opinion as an unwanted intruder - these things are amply found in the real world, in books of history or craft, in the things people yell at me from across the street, whatever. What I seek in literature and art, is something that is all my own, and nothing to do with anyone else's opinion. If I want something to do with someone else's opinion, well, that can be found absolutely everywhere else.

Luckily for you, I think there's plenty of art out there offering just what you want. I hope you aren't having trouble finding it!

There doesn't seem to be any way of stopping the wheel turning, but perhaps it's best not to.

I think you`re right. Part biology, part psychology, part something else. Unfortunately the hardest one to get stuck on is Happiness - and transition throughout these kinds of cycles sure beats stagnating on boredom or sadness. Transition can get tiring, though.

[Lazarus]

Arnold, after, glancing through your first and follow up posts I can only think of one suggestion for you...find the children's video tape of Sherry Lewis and Lambchop on which they sing "the song that does not end", by the time they've gotten to the fade you may well prefer death to such a song that has no apparent meaning, no beginning, no end, no purpose other than to provide background noise. All joking aside, I can understand your desire to not have your entertainment dictate your thoughts, but I suppose that's why you have your own imagination and with a little practice, the ability to create your own music/literature/art. But is the music (replace with other appropriate medium as necesary) that's in your head really of your own creation or is it simply a long lost memory resurfacing ?

[Crazyhorse]

There are many great points made here, however I wanted to add a few points of my own. In the end you always have a choice, even if you have been narrowed down to two by the structure of the event. You and you alone make the final choice. Art is hard to put into this catagory as it is all opion, I find very little art that goes against my principles (yes I am sure there is some no need for you to run out and find it).

Next I had a question which I think goes along with this discussion. What is more important agency (human choice) or Structure (the way the system is set up ex social, goverment). Both have effects on your end choice but which actually guides the choice if either?

-crazyhorse

[Layne]

To continue what Rork said - yes, an undefended principle is not much of a principle really, and ought to be demoted to the status of a notion.

I asked the question about the gun, as it seemed to me that the only difference between the argument and the coercion was the gun. The essence of the question was, the gun is not a double six. You can always refuse to agree with a gunman. The consequences may perhaps not be desirable, but then, sometimes you get a surprise.

Many times in history, the first time a would be bully draws a gun or sword, the guy he points it at says, get bent, I'm not selling, and the bully never gains the courage to do it again. And sometimes, the bully gets a while string of lucky breaks, and ends up in command of whole armies of bullies. And when you've got a whole army of bullies, it's much more difficult to say 'step back', because there's a much greater likelihood that someone in that crowd will have the rocks - or the cowardice, as the case may be - to pull the trigger.

I think I've got a bad case of subjunctivitis.

[Archdukechocula]

I asked the question about the gun, as it seemed to me that the only difference between the argument and the coercion was the gun. The essence of the question was, the gun is not a double six.

No, the difference is the intent of the person. A person wielding a gun intends to coerce you into doing something. A person in an argument intends to persuade you of something. A person who is arguing with me who has a gun is not the same as a person who is pointing a gun at me and forcing me to do something. The former is still using persuasion. Once you threaten violence, it is not an argument. It is coercion. The distinction is clear as day. You can attempt to muddy the waters through the use of sloppy conflation, but the fundamental distinction remains the same.

Talking about principles is a distraction from the core distinction. The violation of a principle is part of what makes the scenario violating, but it is not the central problem. An argument can never force anyone to do something against their will. No matter how loud they yell, their argument is still subject to my independent scrutiny, and my choice of responses is still fully in my command. Coercion can force me to do things against my will. A guy with a gun can force me to do something I don't want to or otherwise would not do (be it dig a ditch, or die at his hands). Anyone with violent intentions and the power to enforce them can do the same. The gun is incidental. What matters is that coercion forces me to do something contrary to my will. This dilemma is not present in an argument. Thus the two are entirely distinct things, especially when you consider the centrality of will in any system of morality or ethics.

Similarly, you conflate the intentions and means of the arguer and the person who is coercive. You seem to assume, without reason or evidence, that anyone who engages in argumentation would, in fact, force you to adopt their beliefs given the opportunity. This is simply an untrue generalization. It is perfectly possible to argue a point in the hopes of persuading someone to adopt your positions without ever wanting such views to be forced upon a person. I, for one, would never want anyone to unwillingly adopt my opinions on an issue, and would never force a person to believe what I believe even in a consequence free scenario, but I will readily argue a point until I feel one or the other of us has made a convincing case, or that the argument is futile.

Additionally, there is no reason an arguer cannot change their opinion, and it is perfectly possible to be interested in the viewpoints of an opponent in an argument while still stating your own case. I may aggressively state a case, but if I am presented with a superior argument, I try and be open to the ideas of my opponent and am willing to change my position. By contrast, a person using coercion has no interest in the opinions of their subject, and instead intends to force them to abandon their will in order to pursue the desires of the coercive party. Someone using coercion has already abandoned the possibility that the other party may be right, and has chosen irrevocable actions in lieu of consideration and debate.

[Layne]

Then it's all in the definition? Many times people will go into an argument with no intention of being persuaded of anything, and full intent of doing all the persuading. [I did say I'd lost a few girlfriends]. Not me, I like to learn, but if you go into that sort of argument expecting only to learn, you can also expect to lose. But as Buddhists say, you only lose if you forget the lesson.

I make no generalizations, and intent no distractions. You take some of the things I say as generalisations, but what I try to do is draw a picture of a situation. It does not imply that things are always as I say they are. And if I distract you, then I apologise, it's but a product of a distracted mind that unrelated notions will come out at the same time.

Having said all that, sometimes you have really good arguments, where both/all parties are just, as I say, rolling ideas across the floor. There is a family of Halflings I know who do just that, and I visit them often. always good times!

Anyways, I admit that my defintions are loose, that's because I'm poetic by nature, and as such would wilfully shy away from carefully drawn definitions. Mostly.

Yet it's funny how right refracts when it travels through a prism.

[Archdukechocula]

Then it's all in the definition? Many times people will go into an argument with no intention of being persuaded of anything, and full intent of doing all the persuading. [I did say I'd lost a few girlfriends]. Not me, I like to learn, but if you go into that sort of argument expecting only to learn, you can also expect to lose. But as Buddhists say, you only lose if you forget the lesson.

People certainly can go into an argument with no intention of listening to their opponent. The point remains, though, that a person can engage in an argument and still be open to different ideas, which makes an argument qualitatively different from coercion. With coercion, there is a point of no return in which you have impinged upon the will of another in a way that cannot be undone, no matter how much you later regret it. With an argument, the option of revising your opinions will forever remain open, without undue consequence.

In short, while the intent of some who argue can be the same as those who coerce, it is not always so, and since the difference between the two means are radically different from a moral perspective, conflating the two is misleading. Just as though many people who drive red cars may drive recklessly, it does not make all people who drive red cars reckless drivers. People who drive red cars are a distinct category from people who drive recklessly, even if the two may sometimes overlap, and thus it would not be fair to universally judge all people in red cars simply because some members of that group are reckless. The fact that two categories can have overlap does not make those two categories the same thing.

I make no generalizations, and intent no distractions. You take some of the things I say as generalisations, but what I try to do is draw a picture of a situation. It does not imply that things are always as I say they are. And if I distract you, then I apologise, it's but a product of a distracted mind that unrelated notions will come out at the same time.

No, I didn't mean you distract me. I meant the argument relating to principles was a distraction from the core problem of the argument.