When Mitt Romney becomes president.... *FLUX THREAD!*

[Dunderhead]

I don't care if Kant obliterates my sense of morality (once again we''re leaning too heavily on a single term anyhow) ..... Where's Kant today??? What's the latest from him?? ....... I can respect and admire his work but am free to create my own philosophy to live by as well....

The critical philosophy is regulative not constitutive, it doesn't tell you what philosophy is right, only which ones are wrong. It sets limits on what types of judgements you're permitted to make and what types of things you're able to know.
You can just dismiss philosophical arguments as being irrelevant, or say that "oh yeah, he's dead, who cares about him.", but it doesn't really do you any good. Philosophy is the study of concepts, concepts are nothing but pure reason, pure form, philosophy is the study of our consciousness of all knowledge, the structure of ideas themselves. Logic is the ability to analyze concepts and make judgements about them, understanding how precisely you're allowed to do that is vital and isn't something that should ever be dismissed.

I hear Democrats paying lipservice constantly to empiricism, reason, science, and pragmatism, but it never seems to amount to much more than that.

[Dunderhead]

Boy, if that's you getting started, I can't wait to see the terribly nuanced argument you bring to bear on this discussion. I like the tactic you are using though - as if you have some really great point to undermine the post-colonial argument but you are so indignant to the concept you can't even bring yourself to talk about it. What a showy and splashy and ultimately meaningless act of empty posturing. Why don't you actually respond to a point instead of hiding your non-answer behind a curtain of smugness?

If your seriously interested in the topic I'd recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Defending-West-Critique-Edward-Orientalism/dp/1591024846/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1351317670&sr=8-3&keywords=orientalism

I devote most of my research towards developing a critique of narratology and more generally structuralism, I'm mostly interested in dissecting the types of errors theorists make interpreting literature, their hermeneutic irresponsibility. It's a very complicated topic, I don't know if you're actually interested in discussing theory and want to hear my specific philosophical arguments, or if my posts just upset you and caused you to attack me on any ground you were able to find. I could transcribe some things for you, but that's a lot of work and I don't get the impression that you're actually interested in that level of discussion.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

But, Fishmonk, you don't seem to grasp the complete lack of humanity that radiates from your posts. To be frank, you come off as some alien creature who has come to earth to study the human race and who has them down cold, and who understands and stands back and judges every single nuance but alas, is not human therefore understands nothing. The desperate need you demonstrate to quantify every expression into some paradigm that someone else has conceived is absolutely pathetic. There is little that seperates you from the most reduiculous religious zealot. And your smug belief that only you have even the most rudimentary grasp on philosophy is merely laughable rather than insulting. You are the definition of a scoundral. An intellectually and emotionally bankrupt sociopath who can dictate and discuss every componant of an engine but who has no idea what purpose the machine serves or how it's imperfections might be improved upon. Kant himself would pat you on the head and suggest you get out more often...

[Dunderhead]

 Don't be mad, we're all friends here. If you're getting that upset you should take breather I think. No hard feelings Erik.

[halblaineisgood]

Do you walk around cursing everyone for not being as smart as you are, TRBB?

My response is more of a rolling of the eyes at the sheep being led off to slaughter.

So you consider the human element of such things, then...

They make their own decisions. They can deal with the consequences.

You missed mine and Rab's point. The people I know had no choice, insomuch as they saw it. To turn around and say 'MURDERERS' is missing some nuance from the guys I knew who joined because they couldn't or wouldn't get housing benefits, couldn't stay with their parents, no chance of higher education (not necessarily self-inflicted), saw a life of mediocrity manning a till in an ASDA...

Nah. Sheep. Murderous swine. f*** them, amirite.

The 'ignorant' are people too, but your quasi-intellectual viewpoint does not allow for that possibility. It's all black and white to you.

I'm pretty sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, that no one forced them to make the decisions they made. Of course they're people...I'm not disputing that. What would be more honorable is if people enlisted in the military because they were actually trying to defend their country and not fight geopolitical wars for oil.

Life forced them to make that decision. The same thing that forced you to make every sh*tty decision you've ever made. I don't doubt for a second that they wouldn't have wanted to have the opportunity I had as a white middle class dude, but the difference between you and me is that I don't look down on them for having to make that awful decision due to forces outside of their control.

Agreed again.

Hell, I was one pen-stroke away from signing up for the Navy when I was in High School - I had nothing better to do and I felt like following in my father's footsteps. I wasn't a "murderer" - I just wanted to travel, I wanted to feel important in the eyes of my society and family...back then I didn't realize that the military was a vast machine that created wars for itself to fight. I never questioned any of that because I was never taught to really think for myself back then. Thus, I don't blame others for joining.

@The Real Beach Boy: I recommend you read 'Free Will' by Sam Harris. He makes a great case about how free will doesn't exist, and how any decision we have made has been controlled solely by our brain chemistry and external forces. And thus I really don't blame anyone for the "decisions" they have made...thus I don't throw around the term "murderer" too often, in regards to US soldiers.

I've been ruminating on free will for the past two hours. It's very important to me. So important that I take it for granted. Without it, my mind would detour into a vicious circle of infinite regress.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Don't be mad, we're all friends here. If you're getting that upset you should take breather I think. No hard feelings Erik.

Well, I appreciate that, Fishmonk and I eally should, yes, perhaps take a break.

It's just annoying when all we get from you are either lectures on philosophy or smack downs about our (my) lack of understanding of philosophy when we (I) disagree with you. It is virtually impossible to get a room full of very different people from disparate backgrounds/educations to hold basically the same identical grasp on philosophy or to sympathize/agree with this particular philosopher or that one. Therefore, there is nowhere to go with you in a discussion when this is the case. Does that make sense?

Or is this what we're going for? 

http://youtu.be/ta1KfRX06kA

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Kant pretty much obliterates the entire sense of morality that your leaning on, and you have to deal with that.

As he does your own, since for Kant, it is as rational beings that people are able to think as social beings, and not just as isolated individuals with their one-sided desires and goals. For him, it is the faculty of reason that most plausibly connects human beings with each other, and which turns a merely natural society of competing individuals into a human community with common ground.

Not so. There's nothing particularly Kantian about Welfare. In Schiller's Aesthetic Education state action is explicitly dismissed as a means of realizing the ultimate potential of humanity first of all. Second of all, participating in mandatory welfare programs isn't really very ethical as they rely entirely on force as arbitrator. You cannot compel people to behave morally, that's a purely anti-Kantian notion. Being forced to contribute to welfare funds does not make you ethical, doing anything because you're compelled to and for that reason alone is actually unethical. Supporting Welfare and leaning on emotional appeals to guilt others into supporting it politically does not entitle you to some moral superiority.

In that case, you haven't fully read or understood Kant. Kant clearly argues that "For reasons of state...the government is therefore authorized to constrain the wealthy to provide the means of sustenance to those who are unable to provide even for their most necessary natural needs. The wealthy have acquired an obligation to the commonwealth, since they owe their existence to an act of submitting to its protection and care, which they need in order to live. On this obligation the state now bases its right to contibute what is theirs to maintaining their fellow citizens. This can be done either by imposing a tax on the property or commerce of citizens, or by establishing funds and using the interest from them not for the needs of the state (for it is rich) but for the needs of the people" (Metaphysics of Morals 6:326).

I have one request for you: stop lying and stop pretending. You are actively deluding people on this board (not just in this case), and what remains to be seen is if you're doing it consciously or not. You ask me in a subsequent post if I want to talk to you about theory. The answer is no. It is a large part of my job to both understand and talk about theory and I do so under the pretense that the person I am talking to is intellectually honest. I don't believe you are. And I certainly don't take very serious your feigned indignation at my inability to treat respectfully your passing pot shots at post-colonial theory. Nor do I expect much from a nuanced argument that, when boiled down, simply consists of you calling people crybabies in typical colonial fashion. There are many different concepts out there that are worthy of engagement. You have presented none for me.

[Dunderhead]

Kant pretty much obliterates the entire sense of morality that your leaning on, and you have to deal with that.

As he does your own, since for Kant, it is as rational beings that people are able to think as social beings, and not just as isolated individuals with their one-sided desires and goals. For him, it is the faculty of reason that most plausibly connects human beings with each other, and which turns a merely natural society of competing individuals into a human community with common ground.

Not so. There's nothing particularly Kantian about Welfare. In Schiller's Aesthetic Education state action is explicitly dismissed as a means of realizing the ultimate potential of humanity first of all. Second of all, participating in mandatory welfare programs isn't really very ethical as they rely entirely on force as arbitrator. You cannot compel people to behave morally, that's a purely anti-Kantian notion. Being forced to contribute to welfare funds does not make you ethical, doing anything because you're compelled to and for that reason alone is actually unethical. Supporting Welfare and leaning on emotional appeals to guilt others into supporting it politically does not entitle you to some moral superiority.

In that case, you haven't fully read or understood Kant. Kant clearly argues that "For reasons of state...the government is therefore authorized to constrain the wealthy to provide the means of sustenance to those who are unable to provide even for their most necessary natural needs. The wealthy have acquired an obligation to the commonwealth, since they owe their existence to an act of submitting to its protection and care, which they need in order to live. On this obligation the state now bases its right to contibute what is theirs to maintaining their fellow citizens. This can be done either by imposing a tax on the property or commerce of citizens, or by establishing funds and using the interest from them not for the needs of the state (for it is rich) but for the needs of the people" (Metaphysics of Morals 6:326).

I have one request for you: stop lying and stop pretending. You are actively deluding people on this board (not just in this case), and what remains to be seen is if you're doing it consciously or not. You ask me in a subsequent post if I want to talk to you about theory. The answer is no. It is a large part of my job to both understand and talk about theory and I do so under the pretense that the person I am talking to is intellectually honest. I don't believe you are. And I certainly don't take very serious your feigned indignation at my inability to treat respectfully your passing pot shots at post-colonial theory. Nor do I expect much from a nuanced argument that, when boiled down, simply consists of you calling people crybabies in typical colonial fashion. There are many different concepts out there that are worthy of engagement. You have presented none for me.

I believe you as little as your believe me.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Kant pretty much obliterates the entire sense of morality that your leaning on, and you have to deal with that.

As he does your own, since for Kant, it is as rational beings that people are able to think as social beings, and not just as isolated individuals with their one-sided desires and goals. For him, it is the faculty of reason that most plausibly connects human beings with each other, and which turns a merely natural society of competing individuals into a human community with common ground.

Not so. There's nothing particularly Kantian about Welfare. In Schiller's Aesthetic Education state action is explicitly dismissed as a means of realizing the ultimate potential of humanity first of all. Second of all, participating in mandatory welfare programs isn't really very ethical as they rely entirely on force as arbitrator. You cannot compel people to behave morally, that's a purely anti-Kantian notion. Being forced to contribute to welfare funds does not make you ethical, doing anything because you're compelled to and for that reason alone is actually unethical. Supporting Welfare and leaning on emotional appeals to guilt others into supporting it politically does not entitle you to some moral superiority.

In that case, you haven't fully read or understood Kant. Kant clearly argues that "For reasons of state...the government is therefore authorized to constrain the wealthy to provide the means of sustenance to those who are unable to provide even for their most necessary natural needs. The wealthy have acquired an obligation to the commonwealth, since they owe their existence to an act of submitting to its protection and care, which they need in order to live. On this obligation the state now bases its right to contibute what is theirs to maintaining their fellow citizens. This can be done either by imposing a tax on the property or commerce of citizens, or by establishing funds and using the interest from them not for the needs of the state (for it is rich) but for the needs of the people" (Metaphysics of Morals 6:326).

I have one request for you: stop lying and stop pretending. You are actively deluding people on this board (not just in this case), and what remains to be seen is if you're doing it consciously or not. You ask me in a subsequent post if I want to talk to you about theory. The answer is no. It is a large part of my job to both understand and talk about theory and I do so under the pretense that the person I am talking to is intellectually honest. I don't believe you are. And I certainly don't take very serious your feigned indignation at my inability to treat respectfully your passing pot shots at post-colonial theory. Nor do I expect much from a nuanced argument that, when boiled down, simply consists of you calling people crybabies in typical colonial fashion. There are many different concepts out there that are worthy of engagement. You have presented none for me.

I believe you as little as your believe me.

Good for you. In my case, though, I've used Kant's own words to demonstrate that the point of view you were attributing to Kant was flat out false - this is particularly crucial given that you have been using your pretend knowledge of Kant to try and demonize someone else's conception of morality. This particular case is not one of me not believing you - it's a case of knowing you are wrong since Kant's own words entirely undermine the very claims you were making about Kant and thus knowing your pretense of acting as if you're right is nauseating. And keep in mind that I gave you an out by first posting an explanation of Kant's discussion on the matter and you chose to respond by saying "Not so" and then followed it up with a bunch of twaddle when you could have easily conceded. But it was more important to try to re-shape someone else's beliefs so that they were more akin to your own, despite what they actually have said. You employed the same dishonesty before in your discussion on what capitalism really is. So you can not "believe me" as much as you want. In my case, I simply demonstrated that what you are saying is wrong. This nonsense about believing me is just more of the usual white noise that I've come to expect from you and is typical of people who hold similar opinions.

[hypehat]

Those are the types I have absof***inglutely ZERO respect for. I may be a gun rights advocate but I don't go nuts about wanting to kill people or "f*** sh*t up", as it were.

Agreed, but that shouldn't turn you around and denounce everyone who joins the military as a flagwaving thug. There are nuances you are unwilling to appreciate.


To whoever thought i was being at all serious (or indeed, sober) with my 'jizzstained copies of Fountainhead' schtick, I cannot believe you could ever read a post like that seriously. I was joking. And, whining on the loneliness of a internet libertarian is supposed to garner sympathy? Try being British on this thread 

[Jason]

Those are the types I have absof***inglutely ZERO respect for. I may be a gun rights advocate but I don't go nuts about wanting to kill people or "f*** sh*t up", as it were.

Agreed, but that shouldn't turn you around and denounce everyone who joins the military as a flagwaving thug. There are nuances you are unwilling to appreciate.


To whoever thought i was being at all serious (or indeed, sober) with my 'jizzstained copies of Fountainhead' schtick, I cannot believe you could ever read a post like that seriously. I was joking. And, whining on the loneliness of a internet libertarian is supposed to garner sympathy? Try being British on this thread 

Maybe so. I'm not much worried about it. It is what it is. They joined the military. I didn't. Nobody's perfect. We did what we could with what we had.

[Dunderhead]

Good for you. In my case, though, I've used Kant's own words to demonstrate that the point of view you were attributing to Kant was flat out false - this is particularly crucial given that you have been using your pretend knowledge of Kant to try and demonize someone else's conception of morality. This particular case is not one of me not believing you - it's a case of knowing you are wrong since Kant's own words entirely undermine the very claims you were making about Kant and thus knowing your pretense of acting as if you're right is nauseating. And keep in mind that I gave you an out by first posting an explanation of Kant's discussion on the matter and you chose to respond by saying "Not so" and then followed it up with a bunch of twaddle when you could have easily conceded. But it was more important to try to re-shape someone else's beliefs so that they were more akin to your own, despite what they actually have said. You employed the same dishonesty before in your discussion on what capitalism really is. So you can not "believe me" as much as you want. In my case, I simply demonstrated that what you are saying is wrong. This nonsense about believing me is just more of the usual white noise that I've come to expect from you and is typical of people who hold similar opinions.

I think we both know that you're the one being dishonest, I won't pretend to have read Metaphysics or Morals, I haven't, and I seriously doubt you have either. What, did you google "kant taxes"? That's what I did, and that passage wasn't difficult to find, reading that information though, you left out a lot. Metaphysics of Morals is a fairly obscure work, one that he wrote after several major challenges made by the Jena circle in particular, and also during the period when he was most concerned with finding some sort of transcendental deduction of the fundamental properties of matter. 
To act like that quote can be used so decisively is ridiculous, and hypocritical to boot. I've recommended books, I quoted Schiller, but that was meaningless to you, but this highly disputed quote in a minor, late period work is somehow definitive? Schiller, on the other hand, does have some very decisive criticisms to make against Critical and Theory and postmodern art:

"Only impotence and perversity have recourse to false and necessitous appearance, and individual men as well as entire peoples who either 'help' forward reality by means of appearance or appearance by means of reality - the tendency is to do both things together - reveal at the same time their moral worthlessness of their aesthetic incapacity."

"Though need may drive Man into society, and Reason implant social principles in him, Beauty alone can confer on him a social character."

"Hence we see crude taste first seizing on what is new and startling, gaudy, fantastic and bizarre, what is violent and wild, and avoiding nothing so much as simplicity and quiet. It fashions grotesque shapes, loves swift transitions, exuberant forms, striking contrasts, glaring shades, and pathetic songs. "

"Ought we perhaps to look for this action [improving men] from the state? That is not possible; for the State, as it is now constituted, has brought about the evil, and the State, as Reason conceives it in idea, instead of being able to establish this better humanity, must first be established by it."

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I think we both know that you're the one being dishonest,

And cue a whole bunch of speculative nonsense. When I accused you of dishonesty, I could at least demonstrate it, not make a whole bunch of groundless assumptions about googling. I can't believe that after proven charges of intellectual dishonesty, you should respond with even more dishonesty - not only because of your unfounded accusations but also your absurd claims that Metaphysics of Morals "is a fairly obscure work", which would be true if this were 1950. In reality, Metaphysics of Morals is considered now and has been for a significantly long time as a major philosophical work and I'd like to see you try to get away with calling it minor and obscure in a philosophy department meeting without it resulting in gales of laughter. I'd like to believe otherwise - that this is more bluster to try and save face. Since the book contains passages that prove your claims about Kant to be unfounded then it must be "fairly obscure" and the material within it should not be considered "decisive", no matter that it aligns and complements crucial Kant concepts such as the Categorical Imperative. Please, don't let me get in the way of your dishonest revisionism. This is, after all, only an internet site. You sure did quote Schiller and if you seriously expect me to believe that Schiller knew Kant better than Kant himself then...well, wait, you're not actually serious, are you? This is just a game to you which is why you can completely ignore the things people say, under the guise that it is said "in a minor, late period work" in pathetic attempts to saddle them with your own viewpoints.

I won't pretend to have read Metaphysics or Morals, I haven't,

And of course, you don't have to. But perhaps you can take that into account the next time you hypocritically chastize others views on the grounds that they haven't read Kant.

Schiller, on the other hand, does have some very decisive criticisms to make against Critical and Theory and postmodern art

How can a guy who died at the beginning of the 19th century make a decisive critique of an artistic movement that wouldn't begin for roughly another 150 years? Hey, remember Plato's scathing review of Stanley Kubrick's later works? And furthermore, what does any of this (those quotes in particular) have to do with what we're talking about?

[Dunderhead]

Man, you're really insecure aren't you. Have fun with that I guess.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Man, you're really insecure aren't you. Have fun with that I guess.

Now you result to personal shots. This is really shameful.

I think I am off again for a while.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Man, you're really insecure aren't you. Have fun with that I guess.

C'mon man, all you can do is either go on droning lectures or name call.... Practice what you preach a little and try and have a discussion.... What good are all your "studies" if all you can do is behave like every other moron out there who is beneath you?

[hypehat]

Man, you're really insecure aren't you. Have fun with that I guess.

C'mon man, all you can do is either go on droning lectures or name call.... Practice what you preach a little and try and have a discussion.... What good are all your "studies" if all you can do is behave like every other moron out there who is beneath you?

+1

[Dunderhead]

Man, you're really insecure aren't you. Have fun with that I guess.

C'mon man, all you can do is either go on droning lectures or name call.... Practice what you preach a little and try and have a discussion.... What good are all your "studies" if all you can do is behave like every other moron out there who is beneath you?

  Sometimes it's just not worth it. I like having discussions here, I think overall on this board I'm a pretty relaxed poster, I'm understanding, I hear people out, I stand up for other members when they're being bullied, and I always take time to give people props and agree with them when they post arguments I agree with. You'll be much happier on the internet if you don't get too caught up in the drama, I'm confident enough in myself where I can just step away from the computer when someone is getting on my nerves. I don't really feel obligated to prove myself to any of you. I think that's something both you and hypehat should try and do a little more. You're welcome to get on my case, it's not like I don't deserve it at least a little bit, but:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14227.msg331758.html#msg331758

seriously? I could have written a lot back to that erik and taken it really personally, but truth is, I like myself as a person, and I don't really care whether or not you have the same perception of me as I do of myself. Neither you nor hypehat have sparkling records in this thread as far as I'm concerned.

Would it make you feel better if I spent all night typing up everything I know about German classical literature and philosophy in order to prove to you that I've read the books I've read and know the things that I know? I doubt it would change anything at all, it would all be meaningless to you because you have no background or interest in it, you'd spend a few seconds skimming it and then post "who cares, all those people are dead and none of it matters today".

There's just no point in it. People see the world in different ways, it's not just about the language we use, or the terminology we use, it goes beyond that. "An idea without an intuition behind it is empty".

[hypehat]

I'm understanding, I hear people out, I stand up for other members when they're being bullied, and I always take time to give people props and agree with them when they post arguments I agree with.

Man, you're really insecure aren't you. Have fun with that I guess.

 

[Dunderhead]

I'm understanding, I hear people out, I stand up for other members when they're being bullied, and I always take time to give people props and agree with them when they post arguments I agree with.

Man, you're really insecure aren't you. Have fun with that I guess.

 

 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Man, you're really insecure aren't you. Have fun with that I guess.

C'mon man, all you can do is either go on droning lectures or name call.... Practice what you preach a little and try and have a discussion.... What good are all your "studies" if all you can do is behave like every other moron out there who is beneath you?

  Sometimes it's just not worth it. I like having discussions here, I think overall on this board I'm a pretty relaxed poster, I'm understanding, I hear people out, I stand up for other members when they're being bullied, and I always take time to give people props and agree with them when they post arguments I agree with. You'll be much happier on the internet if you don't get too caught up in the drama, I'm confident enough in myself where I can just step away from the computer when someone is getting on my nerves. I don't really feel obligated to prove myself to any of you. I think that's something both you and hypehat should try and do a little more. You're welcome to get on my case, it's not like I don't deserve it at least a little bit, but:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14227.msg331758.html#msg331758

seriously? I could have written a lot back to that erik and taken it really personally, but truth is, I like myself as a person, and I don't really care whether or not you have the same perception of me as I do of myself. Neither you nor hypehat have sparkling records in this thread as far as I'm concerned.

Would it make you feel better if I spent all night typing up everything I know about German classical literature and philosophy in order to prove to you that I've read the books I've read and know the things that I know? I doubt it would change anything at all, it would all be meaningless to you because you have no background or interest in it, you'd spend a few seconds skimming it and then post "who cares, all those people are dead and none of it matters today".

There's just no point in it. People see the world in different ways, it's not just about the language we use, or the terminology we use, it goes beyond that. "An idea without an intuition behind it is empty".

Well, you're making massive assumptions here. I've probably read less philosophy than you but I've probably read much more than you when it comes to other topics/genres, but who cares. And I never said that so and so is dead so who cares what they wrote.... But when you try and dismantle someone else's sense of right and wrong (or morality as you call it) by using people like Kant and their writings as proof that I am wrong, I just have to call foul on that and if you don't see the ridiculousness of your point of view, then maybe it's me who should suggest you take a break. And then when someone as equally educated as you are (or more so seemingly) actually attempts to engage you in discourse on your "expert" topic, you resort to name calling.... So, just don't go around pretending to be interested in  engaging in actual conversation when all you care to do is lecture and insult..... And it makes no difference if you've read every single word that has ever been printed if all it serves you is a pathetic tool to prove that you are right and all others are wrong and have no intuition behind anything they think or do just because they don't agree with you. That's just imbecilic. You remind me of this girl I went on a date with a year ago (see, now we're sharing dating stories) who had never played an instrument or sang in all of her 34 years but decided suddenly that she was going to record an album.... BUT, she wasn't going to pick up an instrument or learn the basic chords or "jam" (as she derisively put it) ... rather, she was going to study music theory and become an expert on that and then she'd just go sit down and write/record/perform  masterpiece after masterpiece and prove all those drug addled rock n roll morons out there wrong.... Needless to say, she had nothing to say, nothing to write, all those music theory classes taught her nothing and she couldn't get a single note out of any damn instrument..... BUT, I'm sure if she wanted to, she'd be great at blasting people on some music related message board that they just must be wrong about their views on music because they didn't know theory like her.......

"I know just enough about myself to know I cannot settle for one of those simplifications which indignant people seize upon to make understandable a world too complex for their comprehension. Astrology, health food, flag waving, bible thumping, Zen, nudism, nihilism -- all of these are grotesque simplifications which small dreary people adopt in the hope of thereby finding The Answer, because the very concept that maybe there is no answer, never has been, never will be, terrifies them." - John D MacDonald

[halblaineisgood]

"An idea without an intuition behind it is empty".

this girl I went on a date with a year ago (see, now we're sharing dating stories) who had never played an instrument or sang in all of her 34 years but decided suddenly that she was going to record an album.... BUT, she wasn't going to pick up an instrument or learn the basic chords or "jam" (as she derisively put it) ... rather, she was going to study music theory and become an expert on that and then she'd just go sit down and write/record/perform  masterpiece after masterpiece and prove all those drug addled rock n roll morons out there wrong.... Needless to say, she had nothing to say, nothing to write, all those music theory classes taught her nothing and she couldn't get a single note out of any damn instrument.....

[halblaineisgood]

...

[Heysaboda]

what does it mean: *FLUX THREAD!* ?