Best Ever Albums

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Anonymous — Thu, 21 May 2015 20:02:58 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/22/2015 00:02

i agree. i always saw poptimism as a line of defense against the haters for weird anime theme song fodder; off-beat, unsexy synth pop; bedroom folk made by people who don't write lyrics like Rivers Cuomo; auto-tune jacked rappers; etc., not as some kind of self-righteous defense of agreement with Billboard once in awhile

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Applerill — Thu, 21 May 2015 19:27:02 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 05/21/2015 23:27

Hey guys, I don't mean to revive this super-long thread, but I saw an interesting article today that could bring up some discussion here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertain...story.html
TLDR: Poptimism apparently creates its own closed-off echo chamber by silencing people that don't like 1989 or Beyonce's new album.

This article has a lot of good points, but I think it's not as much poptimism "going too far" as it is not going far enough. If we're only embracing these critical darlings in pop while ignoring the Pitbulls and Jason Derulos and Avril Lavigne's, we really are just putting makeup on rockism.

The new Taylor Swift album is a great example. It's great that all these hipsters are finally appreciating T-Swizzle (though for one of her weaker albums IMO), but it really saddens me how her new fans still balk at her early work. It's like they can only appreciate pop music if it's "cool" and fashionable.

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Anonymous — Fri, 8 May 2015 06:15:35 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/08/2015 10:15

I think the last question would be: could be there some objective principle regarding the human experience?
That is a complex question which I have no answer for.
Anyway, I agree with Jhereko that the idea of "improvement" is subjective, but I don't like either the message coming from the initial Osho's quote which started all this. If that's about accecting ourselves, I'm all for that, but put down like that sounds more like an attempt to remove all ambitions from us.
I mean, I can be pretty satisfied of what I am now, but still it would be a good thing to be someone better in future, and try that. Now you can say the idea of "good" or "better" is subjective, and i'll say yes, it's subjective, still it would be ok if i'd like to improve myself for the idea of "improvement" I have myself. Until that doesn't break other people's freedom or make other people extraordinarily uncomfortable (see holocaust). (You can argue that some religions don't even allow blood transfusion, f.e., so that'd be bad for them, but it's ok, since they have the right to not do them, so it doesn't apply to them directly.)
Also, I hate competition, too, but I disagree that it always leads to bad things, like put us one against each other... it depends on how you take it. I've seen many people doing things helped by competitions, and being satisfied of those things and even more satisfied with themselves, and without feeling really against someone, and without really hurting anyone.

Ps: Sorry for keeping this alive but i liked very much the discussion and wanted to say my opinion. You can ignore my post if you are so tired of this. 🤣

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Anonymous — Fri, 8 May 2015 00:47:19 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/08/2015 04:47

Definitely no hard feelings, man. I agree with what you said about opinions not being part of personality. The rhetoric of my post was much more full of fury than I actually felt. Probably for the same reason as you - If I'm going to argue something I'll go all out. And I totally understand your feelings about 'spiritual leaders'.

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Muslim-Bigfoot — Thu, 7 May 2015 13:21:50 GMT

Author: Muslim-Bigfoot

Posted: 05/07/2015 17:21

Hey I read your posts but like you say responding wouldn't be wise because we can get caught in a catch-22 situation where I respond and it's longer than your response and you respond and it's longer and so on. Just wanted to say that when I use words like "bullshit", "stupid", "idiot" it's mostly exclusively in debate-like atmospheres where I use rhetorical language. They're just more interesting ways of trying to say that my opinion is true and yours is false.

Also the funny thing is that I have no opinions about the stuff I wrote. I can't make up my mind that easily but it doesn't mean when I start arguing sth I'm not gonna go all the way. For example about the objectivity stuff; I really don't have an opinion. My mind is in blank state when I think about that kind of stuff. I try to figure it out sometimes but it doesn't get anywhere.

Also I think someone of your opinions about human nature shouldn't get offended because of the stuff that are said about your opinions. One of the few opinions I have that I take as a kind of principle is that opinions are not a part of personality so by saying anything about them one cannot insult the person that has them.

Also about intellectual thing maybe I'm wrong but I consider every academic an intellectual. I, like everyone else, have pet peeves and one of them is spiritual leaders so my first post was just a jab at that. The other stuff that ensue were just attempts at rationalizing my initial jab but I'd like you to know that I'm one of the most uncertain people in the world. I really find it difficult to have firm opinions about anything. Maybe it's my fault, but I see arguments as game-like situations where I can just work under the new terms as a new person somehow. Whatever. I'm just trying to say no hard feelings.

P.S. Godwin's law is about comparing people to Nazis to silence opposition. Using extreme stuff (Holocaust, Nazis) in examples is a very different thing and is meant to put the spotlight on the bare point of the example (cf. Ideal Gas, Ideal Lever, Turing Machine).

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Gigantic — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:34:09 GMT

Author: Gigantic

Posted: 04/22/2015 18:34

I just wanna say Godwin's Law and now I'm gone.

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:48:29 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/22/2015 16:48

I want to start by saying that I don't think there's a simple answer to something as complex as this and that comparing it to 2+2=4 is not helpful even if you were exaggerating to make a point. It's something I'm still trying to figure out about myself and about everyone else so whatever I'm saying is not said under the delusion that I have the definitive answer. I'm merely working with what I understand to be true to my life right now. I think certainty in anything is dangerous and dogmatic and you've borderded on that a few times in your response but I trust that that was just the natural reaction of your passion for the issue. I'm also trying to work out why you brought that quote and this topic up out of nowhere to create this discussion but thinking on it has been fun and interesting so thank you. Anyway:

Quote:

The definition of improvement is definitely not relative.

Then why are we having this discussion? Hitler would have seen the removal of jews as improvement, no?

Quote:

"You can't improve upon your existence" may sound deep and meaningful to uninitiated ear

I'm going to cite this as the first example of your need to separate yourself as different or better than some invisible sector of society . So you obviously see yourself as 'initiated'.

Quote:

When Karl Landsteiner was born there was every chance that he may become Hitler, a tv entertainer, a shoemaker or die when still an infant. What Karl Landsteiner became was a direct result of his decisions as well as external conditions. He tried to learn about biology and become a physician.

And yet determinism would argue otherwise. It’s impossible to argue that you got to where you are because of decisions you made.

Quote:

this intellectual discovered blood types and a s a result have saved according to estimates about 1 billion lives.

So anyone vaguely scientific is an intellectual? We're arguing on different definitions of what it means then. To me it's not to do with education or interests. It's entirely to do with how someone chooses to understand the world and where they choose to seek their worth from and how they choose to separate themselves from others. By deeming yourself or others as intellectual you're automatically separating, once again, an invisible sector of society as being not intellectual. I would not describe every scientist or 'thinker' as an intellectual. Necessarily. I value intelligence (and everyone has it) not intellectualism which is just glorified hot air.

Quote:

He, like everybody else, had the potential to become someone like Hitler. He steered his life in another direction and saved millions of lives through his discoveries. Landsteiner over Hitler: I'd call that improvement.

Once again in Hitler's (and Nazi’s) eyes the removal of Jews would be an improvement. If there was some globally accepted terms of morality, culture and life purpose then you might have some leg to stand on here but that doesn't exist in reality - only in philosophy. The country I live in was founded on the massacre and marginalisation of a race who had been here for what is believed to be approx 70000 years. The invasion of this land only happened less than 300 years ago. Now most people would agree that that was a pretty horrific and destructive thing to happen, however, if it had not happened then I would not exist. Most of the people I know and love would not exist. So through horrific circumstances something else was able to happen. Many Aboriginal people still see the society we have and the 'advances' we claim (including medical ones) as being abhorrent. But a lot of westerners see improvement. Why? Because improvement is entirely relative. Many people still see the abolishment of society and a move to a simpler existence as we once were - living off the land - as an improvement from our ‘schizophrenic’ way of living right now. And others would see that as going backward. This all seems to me to indicate that improvement - both personal and societal - is relative.

Quote:

Your objection will be what I'm going to address next and that is:

I think my objection was different in the end.

Quote:

Now this is where you're misunderstanding or misrepresenting my position. I never said your life experience can't be different based on your choices. Of course it can be different but we don't measure 'difference' the same way we measure 'improvement'. It's not on a scale seen as positive on one end and negative on the other. It's often with judgement removed. 'Different' is just an observation of changed state - not a comment on the value in something increasing or decreasing.

Quote:

How do you determine that Van Gogh's life was not better because of all the beautiful works he did. You can't base your ideas based on observations inside people's brains.

It probably was, I’d say it certainly was. But his choice to make them was clearly not based upon how much they would impact society at large (which is why I used him as an example) – which is what you seemed to be basing your argument on initially. He painted to paint – he had no vision of success in mind. He clearly wanted to hone his skills as he got older but that again is a skill being improved not a person. Was Van Gogh a better person when he could paint better? I don’t believe so. I admittedly am not sure what you’re getting at with the second sentence.

Quote:

You can't go there and the minute you (Osho) base your shallow ideas on that ground I'm gonna call bullshit.

I need to make it abundantly clear here that my words were merely an interpretation of Osho’s and not necessarily exactly what he means. My views don’t represent his and his not mine but you can keep trying to represent me as some mindless follower if you like.

Quote:

Also when you don't address the logical conclusions that arise from your propositions then I'm gonna call double bullshit. If you say "all these things that may be seen as 'improvement'" don't "improve" your life and that "it doesn't matter", what one logical continuation might be is that "What Landsteiner did, didn't improve his life experience compared to that of Hitler because in both cases it doesn't matter. See how much bullshit that is?

I’m not sure if you’re confused here or I am but I’m starting to lose your point. We may be arguing 2 different ideas here. What Osho was arguing was merely that the pursuit of fighting to become some idea of someone you’re not is futile. If you follow the logical continuation, from the idea that you seem to agree with, that everyone is inherently equally valued then this idea of improvement of yourself becomes impossible. As soon as the idea of improvement comes into the equation it becomes a competition between humans – something that generally creates more ugliness than beauty in my opinion. The idea of ‘betterment’ creates a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority and once again there is no global criteria of what that betterment looks like. In some societies that betterment is more wealth in others more beauty in others more knowledge in others good deeds and in others fulfilment of religious duty and so on. The removal of the idea of improving yourself does not mean you become stagnant and stop doing anything or experiencing life – in fact it actually becomes (subjectively) sweeter (I’m aware this is entirely anecdotal evidence only based upon my experience – but then that’s most of what we’re arguing here) and it certainly doesn’t mean you stop wanting to do things to help others (in fact as I tried to illustrate with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs it actually tends to lead towards a selflessness). However I do think a lot of our disagreement here probably comes from the difference in a perspective on nature vs nurture.

Quote:

A more important criticism though is that who gives a shit? You bring Landsteiner and Hitler to a meeting and they're both dying and you tell them both that what they did with their life in the name of improvement or purpose doesn't matter to their actual life. Do you know what they both will say? They will be like "Who gives a shit?" I think Landsteiner would be completely justified in not giving a shit that the fact that he saved millions means that he lost many opportunities of enjoying his summers in spa resorts.

This is a pretty pointless hypothetical .

Quote:

What?? You’re confusing the issue and then attributing said confusion to Osho’s quote? I will once again break down my interpretation of the original quote you brought up and hopefully you can work out what it is that's not making sense: “Drop the idea of becoming someone, because you are already a masterpiece. You cannot be improved. You have only to come to it, to know it, to realize it.” Not once does he say drop the idea of doing acts you perceive as good – which is what your very first snarky uninformed post was attempting to allude to. He is merely saying forget the idea that you can make your self, your being, better than it already is and always has been.
The idea that someone would do good works or discover something game changing merely because they think it will make them a better person is not only a little grotesque it’s also highly unlikely that they’re going to do so since they would be so caught up in their perception of themselves. However I admit there is no way you or I can prove the true motives behind that laundry list of innovators you supplied.

Quote:

This is a trivial point to see but it makes a lot of difference (one reason people like Osho talk shit about so-called intellectuals is that intellectuals are some time intelligent people who can sniff bullshit from a hundred miles.

Aside from his disdain for those he considered ‘intellectuals’ (meaning merely those who chose to understand the universe from an always aging knowledge base as opposed to experiencing the ever changing world) from most people he himself would probably be considered an intellectual since he lectured in philosophy. Once again you position yourself as a bullshit sniffer and yet you continue to throw out bullshit –like comparing something as subjective as the concept of improving the self to 2+2=4. I’m starting to get the feeling that you brought up this quote merely because you identify yourself as an intellectual and were offended by the other quote I posted.

Quote:

Hitler achieved killing 6 million people and Landsteiner achieved discovery of Blood Groups. Now we have standards to determine which achievement is better.

And there is every possibility that we could have been living in a world where Hitler won and our standards would reflect an entirely different set of criteria. This is where I find the biggest flaw in your argument because any idea of a set of standards that apply objectively will always crumble when subjected to hard logic. Each society has had different sets of standards as long as they could communicate and they have constantly changed which is why trying to argue that they exist is like arguing that any social construct actually exists. The death penalty, for instance, once upon a time would have been seen as an inarguable and a reasonable solution and regular standard and yet now a very large percent of people question it.

Quote:

Landsteiner's achievement fulfilled his evolutionary urges and as a by-product saved millions of lives. Now when he dies all the pride and evolutionary urge that he had will be buried with him. Was the world better off with him busting his ass to discover that? Yes. Was he better off doing that? Yes. Is it an achievement? Yes. Is it an improvement over a possible scenario that Landsteiner died when he was 7? Yes. Would his life be of less value if he died when he was 7? No. Because value and improvement are two very different stuff.

So are you disagreeing that a lot of people don’t entangle the ideas of value and improvement and even see a correlation between the two? If not about other people than certainly about themselves. They believe that when they achieve something they are a better person for it and their worth and value is dependent on it and so when they fail they destroy themselves. This is the foolishness that Osho is speaking of, I believe. He is not talking about the way society views your actions – that is entirely irrelevant – he is purely talking about how you perceive your achievements and if you base your self worth on becoming an ideal of something that does not exist. Once again you entangled the idea of good deeds and that equating to self improvement in the quote.

Quote:

Without depression, yearning for betterment and mental problems this world would be a much worse world because those stuff are the spurs that run human creativity and inventiveness.

Absolutely not. From my own experience when I was depressed I was entirely unproductive. I have done more creative work and completed more since I have become happier and more accepting of myself as I am – and more accepting of the world as well. Not productive in the hopes of becoming someone better – because that’s an illusory concept - but productive because I enjoy making the things I make and doing the things I do.

Quote:

Now you might see people who are depressed because they didn't get better SAT results and ended up in worse college and you may say to yourself that's not needed. Well yes, I'd like for that person not to be depressed. But many of his peers were anxious that they may end up like that (for whatever reason, some more selfish than others) and tried more and suffered more to get better results. Some of these guys are probably very interested in what they do and want to get better at it so they try more and get into MIT. There they can work in better environment that may help them realize their ideas and they may come up with this idea of WWW. That improves the world and that is the route they choose for their life to achieve sth that they set out for because that's what is in their genes.

And then some of those people look back on their life wondering they really lived it or whether they spent their whole time trying to become somebody. See I can produce irrelevant and unhelpful hypotheticals too. As for the WWW making the world better – there are always arguments as to why it’s done just the opposite of that once again negating this idea of objective improvement.

Quote:

Now if this Mr. Osho wants people to transcend their genes and at the same time for humanity to improve then he should come up with better bullshit than this.

Hey, it’s not for you – that’s cool. But you should know that all of his teachings are based in Buddha’s just modernised (well as far as the 70s and 80s) for the modern man. Not just bullshit he pulled out of his ass.

So I guess at this point we still think each other is spouting bullshit :/

Quote:

5am??? Sleepless night huh? Didn't I tell you not try too hard and let it go sometimes.

Heh, it was only an hour before that we started this discussion so don’t flatter yourself. As for the rest of your post I think Sp4cetiger confronted it much better than I would have so I won’t bother with that part since I’ve written so many words already. But yeah accusing others of dogmatism whilst saying that seeing the world in any other way but the way you see it as delusion is pretty strange.

I'm certain my point got jumbled up in that jungle of words but I will once again repeat that I don't think I know the answer with 100% certainty. And as everything constantly changes my perspective on this matter developed whilst I was arguing it - so once again thanks for bringing it up out of the blue. I'll also clarify that I don't agree with everything Osho says and as much as you tried to cheaply paint me as some kind of mindless fanatic in your post that's just not accurate. I simply like how he articulates certain things - that's why I quoted him in my earlier post and have cited him as an influence before (as there are many influences on my life). Also I'm not sure If I'd even respond to a response from you on this (if you could even be bothered 🤣 - I know I had to force myself to respond to yours). Not because I don't respect you but merely given how we've argued so far I see it going pretty cyclical and ultimately nowhere given how strong our views on it are and the fact that I see all societal constructs as subjective and ultimately 'meaningless' is not going to change any time soon.

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Anonymous — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:54:51 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/20/2015 18:54

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

It seems we are using different definitions. In common speech, dogmatism (with a lowercase "d") is not restricted to seeking "justifiability in something higher than human itself", it's just asserting the truth of something as inarguable.

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

Well you have all the right not to buy into an argument but you have to come up with a counter-argument. I said that my example about "killing against helping people survive" is as obvious as "2+2=4" if you accept the moral law of "prevention of suffering" which I see as a common sense view and an objective truth based on "human axiom". The fact that Nazis thought otherwise doesn't make any difference to the objectivity or universality of the stuff I talked about. That would be like "arguing for killing and eating innocent people" by pointing out some tribes that do so. I was arguing about "human view", "universality" and "objectivity" and the best that you can come up with is that "Nazis didn't think so?".

The Nazis are actually a really good example of why I don't like this approach to moral questions. Your contention, if I'm understanding rightly, is that the "prevention of suffering" principle is such a common sense view that any non-delusional human being would accept it. This would mean that we have to conclude one of the following things about the human members of the Nazi party:

1) They were delusional.
2) They knew that what they were doing was wrong, but they did it anyway.

I'm not satisfied with the first option simply because it's a cop-out. It's very easy for me to assert the truth of something and then insist that anyone who disagrees with it is delusional, but it doesn't actually help me in achieving consensus and understanding. The second option is a bit more appealing at first, but I don't think it holds up to closer examination. Many members of the Nazi party put their lives on the line for its cause... does it really seem likely that they would do that if they knew it to be wrong?

I think the most likely explanation for the Nazis' behavior is that they viewed their actions as right (or, at least, acceptable) because the people they were killing were seen as less than human. Their greater good was focused only on the Aryans. Unfortunately, this type of attitude is also common in people who aren't members of the Nazi party, though its object can be different. I'm sure many supporters of the death penalty see serial killers and rapists as less than human as well. Perhaps many of us see the Nazis as less than human.

And if our psychology allows for that type of attitude in a non-delusional state, then our "human axiom" is left on very shaky ground. Even if we all seek to prevent suffering in humans, it turns out that we can sometimes be very particular about which humans matter and which ones don't.

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

SquishypuffDave — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 17:53:59 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 04/18/2015 21:53

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

I said that my example about "killing against helping people survive" is as obvious as "2+2=4" if you accept the moral law of "prevention of suffering" which I see as a common sense view and an objective truth based on "human axiom".

Wouldn't you have to say that this "prevention of suffering" axiom is not really an apprehension of objective truth, but really just a description of a subjective emotion? Your argument is basically the equivalent of "we can all agree that beetroots are the best vegetable, and in order to grow beetroots you need to plant beetroot seeds", and you keep pointing to the objectivity of the second half while just taking the first half as inarguable. Some people don't value human happiness and there is no logical argument that can ever "disprove" that. There's nothing to disprove. The only thing you can do is appeal to their sense of compassion, because it's all just subjective feelings. And I embrace my subjective feelings wholeheartedly. I would die for some of them.

In regards to the whole self-acceptance/self-improvement thing, in my experience the two go hand in hand. Love of self fuels love of others, accepting yourself as you are enables you to grow. That's what I thought Jhereko was getting at, but I'll wait for him to respond.

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Muslim-Bigfoot — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 16:29:14 GMT

Author: Muslim-Bigfoot

Posted: 04/18/2015 20:29

sp4cetiger wrote:

Did you really just complain about dogmatism in the same sentence that you said that anyone who disagrees with you is delusional?

Well maybe my definition of dogmatism is a little different than yours but Dogmatic belief dismisses evidence, criticism and external consideration and also seeks justifiability in something higher than human itself. Also I didn't say anything about "people who disagree with me"; the sentence was "to say being responsible for death of 6 million people is not objectively worse than being partially responsible for survival of millions of people requires a great deal of delusion, the kind that goes hand in hand with religious dogmatism." I'm projecting a common sense view out there that I see as objective as 2+2=4 and that is that killing 5 million people is worse than helping them survive (obviously by laying it on the humanistic axiom). Anyone who disputes 2+2=4 is delusional. What I said is as obvious as that.

sp4cetiger wrote:

I don't buy into arguments about people being able to objectively improve themselves, even in the specifically "human" sense you're talking about. There were many Nazis who thought they were serving a much greater good and that those six million lives were lost working towards it. While you and I obviously disagree with them on that point, I don't find it very satisfying, from the standpoint of Occam's Razor, to just call them delusional and be done with it. Every Nazi or white supremacist I have to dismiss as delusional is like an extra epicycle on my philosophy.

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Anonymous — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:12:41 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/18/2015 19:12

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

About that "objective guidelines external to the human experience". To say being responsible for death of 6 million people is not objectively worse than being partially responsible for survival of millions of people requires a great deal of delusion, the kind that goes hand in hand with religious dogmatism.

Did you really just complain about dogmatism in the same sentence that you said that anyone who disagrees with you is delusional?

I don't buy into arguments about people being able to objectively improve themselves, even in the specifically "human" sense you're talking about. There were many Nazis who thought they were serving a much greater good and that those six million lives were lost working towards it. While you and I obviously disagree with them on that point, I don't find it very satisfying, from the standpoint of Occam's Razor, to just call them delusional and be done with it. Every Nazi or white supremacist I have to dismiss as delusional is like an extra epicycle on my philosophy.

Fortunately, I don't see the need to appeal to objectivism to make the case for human improvement. People can improve themselves towards a good that is self-defined. While that leaves no objective basis for comparison of the value of two people, there is a basis for me to compare myself now to what I was ten years ago. Much of the time my idea of improvement is going to be similar to yours simply because we're similar (and social) organisms, but that agreement doesn't make it objective truth.

I'm not sure whose side I'm taking there, but that's how I tend to see things.

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Anonymous — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 09:32:08 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/18/2015 13:32

meccalecca wrote:

Does everything I write on this forum deserve the same attention as Shakespeare's classics?

I can respond to this for myself, but I have no idea if it corresponds to poptimism.

Anyway, I think anything has the possibility of being beautiful art, regardless of any objective classifications we apply to it. Art is just a thing, so it doesn't deserve this or that, it just is. So if someone enjoys reading your posts more than Shakespeare's sonnets, that's perfectly valid. If, on the other hand, I'm an editor for a literature review magazine, I'll want to consider what's likely to interest my audience. There's no need for a high/low art classification to enter that judgement, nor are there ethical restrictions about which music deserves attention. If something is likely to have extremely limited appeal (like most posts on this forum) that's enough reason not to review it.

I just want to do away with a priori exclusion. If I can judge the value of something without experiencing it, then that "value" I'm judging has nothing to do with the thing's artistic qualities. High/low art classification is just one example of this.

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Muslim-Bigfoot — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:59:39 GMT

Author: Muslim-Bigfoot

Posted: 04/17/2015 21:59

Jhereko wrote:

Oh my. Well I thought I should let you know that I am in bed (5am??) and writing this on my phone as I finish reading your post. I want to give you a proper response so I will wait til I have the energy to do so. I will state that the main point of my longer reply will simply be that I disagree with a lot of your conclusions and that we agree on some points but often we take different meanings from those points but mostly that I completely oppose your view of the world being under some objective guidelines external to the human experience as I did when we discussed art and you tried to argue that only certains things that were agreed to be art by 'experts' could be considered art. Bullshit indeed.

5am??? Sleepless night huh? Didn't I tell you not try too hard and let it go sometimes. 🤣

About that "objective guidelines external to the human experience". To say being responsible for death of 6 million people is not objectively worse than being partially responsible for survival of millions of people requires a great deal of delusion, the kind that goes hand in hand with religious dogmatism. Of course, there are no values inherently in the universe (Hydrogen and Helium don't care about suffering, we all know that) but that's a non-point (like "saying everything is relative", it is insignificant and an adorned platitude and since it explains everything, it doesn't explain anything because that's not what explaining does) because when the conversation is value-centered (as opposed to fact-centered) the axiom (the building block, the implicit assumption) is that we're taking the position of a human. Now humans care about suffering, obviously not all of them, but that doesn't dispute the universality of significance of suffering. And that's what makes the value (prevention of suffering) objective; now some people will object that that is not "objective" because everything is relative and there are no vlaues inherent to universe. To that guy I should advise to read this post again. Also there are many things crucial to human experience that are actually outright objective without any axioms like 2+2=4. Now no matter whether you're a human or a sosho that's objective. And there are many other stuff like that that have a bearing on human experience but that's another subject entirely. Also I don't think I've ever said that "only certains things that were agreed to be art by 'experts' could be considered art". I'm pretty sure (if you trust me that I have good access to my brain, which you can validly dispute btw) that I actively think opposite of that.

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:13:28 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/17/2015 21:13

Oh my. Well I thought I should let you know that I am in bed (5am??) and writing this on my phone as I finish reading your post. I want to give you a proper response so I will wait til I have the energy to do so. I will state that the main point of my longer reply will simply be that I disagree with a lot of your conclusions and that we agree on some points but often we take different meanings from those points but mostly that I completely oppose your view of the world being under some objective guidelines external to the human experience as I did when we discussed art and you tried to argue that only certains things that were agreed to be art by 'experts' could be considered art. Bullshit indeed.

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Muslim-Bigfoot — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:55:22 GMT

Author: Muslim-Bigfoot

Posted: 04/17/2015 20:55

Jhereko wrote:

Ah, there we go; I have to type again. I hate typing.

The definition of improvement is definitely not relative. When you discover blood types that make blood transfusion possible you're saving millions of lives and that's improvement.

Jhereko wrote:

but you can't improve upon your existence.

"You can't improve upon your existence" may sound deep and meaningful to uninitiated ear but what it is is bullshit. When Karl Landsteiner was born there was every chance that he may become Hitler, a tv entertainer, a shoemaker or die when still an infant. What Karl Landsteiner became was a direct result of his decisions as well as external conditions. He tried to learn about biology and become a physician. This intellectual discovered blood types and a s a result have saved according to estimates about 1 billion lives. He, like everybody else, had the potential to become someone like Hitler. He steered his life in another direction and saved millions of lives through his discoveries. Landsteiner over Hitler: I'd call that improvement. Your objection will be what I'm going to address next and that is:

Jhereko wrote:

At your death, all these things that may be seen as 'improvement' will become dust. Is Fleming's life, I mean his actual life, or Van Gogh's life improved at all because of how we view their work now? It doesn't matter. Sure their works impact us now but that doesn't make their life, their actual existence, any better than yours or mine.

They will become dust so what? Try telling that to people who are trying to set a record in Fruit Ninja. It doesn't make any difference. You can't take someone's all life experience and say that it cannot be any different no matter what you do. How do you determine that Van Gogh's life was not better because of all the beautiful works he did. You can't base your ideas based on observations inside people's brains. You can't go there and the minute you (Osho) base your shallow ideas on that ground I'm gonna call bullshit. Also when you don't address the logical conclusions that arise from your propositions then I'm gonna call double bullshit. If you say "all these things that may be seen as 'improvement'" don't "improve" your life and that "it doesn't matter", what one logical continuation might be is that "What Landsteiner did, didn't improve his life experience compared to that of Hitler because in both cases it doesn't matter. See how much bullshit that is?

A more important criticism though is that who gives a shit? You bring Landsteiner and Hitler to a meeting and they're both dying and you tell them both that what they did with their life in the name of improvement or purpose doesn't matter to their actual life. Do you know what they both will say? They will be like "Who gives a shit?" I think Landsteiner would be completely justified in not giving a shit that the fact that he saved millions means that he lost many opportunities of enjoying his summers in spa resorts.

Jhereko wrote:

A child of 4 has achieved little beyond basic developmental improvements but that doesn't make his life worth any less than any one else's and that's all that Osho is saying, from my interpretation.

Okay; there's so much wrong here that I can't decide which one I should make bold. This Mr. Osho and consequentially you are making a huge confusion between improvement and achievement on one side and inherent value on another side. This is a trivial point to see but it makes a lot of difference (one reason people like Osho talk shit about so-called intellectuals is that intellectuals are some time intelligent people who can sniff bullshit from a hundred miles. Every human life has the same inherent value. Hitler deserves to have a fair trial if he does something wrong. Landsteiner would deserve the same. This has nothing to do with the psychological matter of improvement or objective matter of achievement. Landsteiner dedicated his life to a discovery and probably sacrificed a lot in this way. Why did he do it? Because evolution. Everyone wants to achieve stuff. Hitler achieved killing 6 million people and Landsteiner achieved discovery of Blood Groups. Now we have standards to determine which achievement is better. Landsteiner's achievement fulfilled his evolutionary urges and as a by-product saved millions of lives. Now when he dies all the pride and evolutionary urge that he had will be buried with him. Was the world better off with him busting his ass to discover that? Yes. Was he better off doing that? Yes. Is it an achievement? Yes. Is it an improvement over a possible scenario that Landsteiner died when he was 7? Yes. Would his life be of less value if he died when he was 7? No. Because value and improvement are two very different stuff.

Jhereko wrote:

Anything that you see improve in yourself in your lifetime is probably superficial, as proud as you are of it it is probably superficial. You look at how depressed many young adults get because of where their life is and where and what they want it to be or even middle life crises or even older adults. It's most often because of an elusive idea of improvement that is always out of reach. Like the endless pursuit of anything: money, knowledge, power etc it's never satisfied because that level of achievement people are after doesn't exist - a quenchless thirst. You exist, you can't top that.

Here couple biographies help me. Without depression, yearning for betterment and mental problems this world would be a much worse world because those stuff are the spurs that run human creativity and inventiveness. Now you might see people who are depressed because they didn't get better SAT results and ended up in worse college and you may say to yourself that's not needed. Well yes, I'd like for that person not to be depressed. But many of his peers were anxious that they may end up like that (for whatever reason, some more selfish than others) and tried more and suffered more to get better results. Some of these guys are probably very interested in what they do and want to get better at it so they try more and get into MIT. There they can work in better environment that may help them realize their ideas and they may come up with this idea of WWW. That improves the world and that is the route they choose for their life to achieve sth that they set out for because that's what is in their genes. Now if this Mr. Osho wants people to transcend their genes and at the same time for humanity to improve then he should come up with better bullshit than this.

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Anti — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:07:56 GMT

Author: Anti

Posted: 04/17/2015 20:07

Jhereko wrote:

At your death, all these things that may be seen as 'improvement' will become dust.

That sent shivers up and down my spine.

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:05:14 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/17/2015 20:05

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

I cannot see how all that is consistent with "you can't improve". You can improve, a lot.

You can improve skills or you can improve your understanding of a topic or you can even 'improve' the life of others (although like anything else the definitions for what would make something improved is arbitrary and different for each individual) - but you can't improve upon your existence. At your death, all these things that may be seen as 'improvement' will become dust. Is Fleming's life, I mean his actual life, or Van Gogh's life improved at all because of how we view their work now? It doesn't matter. Sure their works impact us now but that doesn't make their life, their actual existence, any better than yours or mine. A child of 4 has achieved little beyond basic developmental improvements but that doesn't make his life worth any less than any one else's and that's all that Osho is saying, from my interpretation. Anything that you see improve in yourself in your lifetime is probably superficial, as proud as you are of it it is probably superficial. You look at how depressed many young adults get because of where their life is and where and what they want it to be or even middle life crises or even older adults. It's most often because of an elusive idea of improvement that is always out of reach. Like the endless pursuit of anything: money, knowledge, power etc it's never satisfied because that level of achievement people are after doesn't exist - a quenchless thirst. You exist, you can't top that.

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Muslim-Bigfoot — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:49:54 GMT

Author: Muslim-Bigfoot

Posted: 04/17/2015 19:49

I don't want to analyse what you just wrote Jher but I cannot see how all that is consistent with "you can't improve". You can improve, a lot.

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Anti — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:49:12 GMT

Author: Anti

Posted: 04/17/2015 19:49

sp4cetiger wrote:

The thing is, if someone tried to (seriously) shame me for liking The Black Parade, I'd feel fully justified in ripping them a new one. However, I'm not going to lecture them on open-mindedness just because they listen to it and hate it. If "poptimism" means fighting back against attempts to shame people for what they love, I'm all for it. However, if it means I'm the one doing the shaming, then count me way the fuck out.

My thoughts with the albums Take Care and My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy and Beyonce. Great wording! �'�

Re: Point of Discussion #69: Rockism and Poptimism

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:42:54 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/17/2015 19:42

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

If only someone told that to Alexander Fleming, Edward Jenner, Karl Landsteiner, Franklin Enders, Thomas Weller, Frederick Robbins, Thomas Peebles, Fritz Haber, David Morley and Pearl Kendrick when they were teenagers. If just people could shut up.

That doesn't mean you can't do 'great things' for humanity. He's only talking in terms of seeking self-worth from some unknown place or act which is a huge issue for the modern generation (as well as many before it - if not every). Feeling worthless leads to things like mental health issues, crime and even as far as mass murder. An acceptance of being incredible due only to your existence and nothing else is not exclusive from acts of service for the greater good or mankind in general. In fact it's often argued that it's the only way a selfless act is possible.

If you look at the well known Maslow's hierachy of needs

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

You see that 'self-actualization' is the highest need and I believe this goes into the idea of self acceptance. Maslow would later ammend his original theory to add a level above 'self-actualization' and that was 'self-trancendece'

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

So that above the idea of reaching your full potential (self-actualization) is the need to help others aka humanity.

So basically I don't agree with your criticism that self-acceptance, regardless of achievement, leads to apathy, contentment and inactivity. And I absolutely think that Osho quote is still valid and important.