836800+ entries in 0.553s
mircea_popescu: think about it :
the first of your productions
to be art,
nubbins`: now you know why i leave
the drawing
to others
nubbins`: made it a couple of paragraphs in before realizing
that i already knew how
the conversation would go
ozbot: You want
to see reactionary ? I’ll show you reactionary. pe
Trilema - Un blog de Mircea Popescu.
nubbins`: that's
the best representation of our conversation
that i could come up with
nubbins`: nonsense. you've been
talking nonsense with me for like
two hours.
mircea_popescu: whether you get some others
to do
the same in your general proximity is irrelevant, everyone's still doing it by himself.
mircea_popescu: if you wish
to wallow in nonsense you're stuck doing it by yourself
mircea_popescu: lol no, you can't "Discuss" nonsense.
to discuss a
topic you have
to renounce nonsense.
nubbins`: the length of
this exchange implies otherwise
nubbins`: you assume
that people don't wish
to discuss nonsense
nubbins`: if i didn't wish
to discuss it, i wouldn't.
this is great.
mircea_popescu: so if you don't really wish
to discuss art, why are you ?
nubbins`: or whether person X or person Y is an authority on
the subject?
nubbins`: what's more nonsense
than debating whether or not something is art?
nubbins`: the magazines at
the grocery store
tell me
that kim kardashian is very worthy of my attention, but
that's simply false
mircea_popescu: any conclusion is available
to
the inconsistent set of premises.
mircea_popescu: well
the advantage of holding nonsense views (which utopianisms are by definiton) is
that anything can be derived from
them.
nubbins`: but
that doesn't preclude it mattering
to anyone
mircea_popescu: if
the shipwreck survivor found is a noble or a peasant, not if he owns a lot of farms and what havd you
nubbins`: it matters
to more people if it's an old davinci or what have you
mircea_popescu: audience has nothing
to do with it.
this is wholly a medieval-inspired problem of probatory.
mircea_popescu: think of an old painting being discovered in a stahs. what is
the question first and foremost asked ? is it something as
to
the paionting itself or is it as
to
the pedigree of
the owner ?
mircea_popescu: it exists in
the sense of masturbation, or w/e
the author does in his privacy.
mircea_popescu: but
this sort of drawer novel, as it was known, doesn't exist in
the sense of art.
nubbins`: you wanna air a
tv show, you need
the permission of your master
mircea_popescu: "so what's
this idea ?" "it's nothing" "Then why am I watching it ?" "because it's on
tv" "not yet."
nubbins`: vague recollection, specifics are lost in
the haze
mircea_popescu: you know
that seinfeld episode when george is pitching
to
the network nubbins ?
nubbins`: it's enough
to make your sides ache.
nubbins`: after all, what's a bigger beat-off
than "i'm
the guy who sez what's art and what's not"?
nubbins`: but he deceives himself if he
thinks he can avoid becoming part of
the beat-off
nubbins`: if one chooses
to make himself an authority in such an arena, well, so be it
nubbins`: well, obviously, if you
take my view, all art is a bit of a beat-off
mircea_popescu: the curse of
this particular equalitarian-nominalism ogre is
that it can't really make stateemnts.
nubbins`: the entire sphere of art rests squarely on
the more
mircea_popescu: i've shown
the approach not
to really work, we can move on
mircea_popescu: but
this has little
to do. you were discussing a particular application of
the
theory, with what i
took as a view
to reduce it
to absurd.
nubbins`: "hey, y'know,
this album is actually pretty good"
nubbins`: in fact, it even happens in
the other direction!
nubbins`: and indeed it does, all
the fucking
time
mircea_popescu: and she
throws out all
their old shit cause now she knows better.
mircea_popescu: i pop into someone's house by
the intermediate agency of his wife which is now my slave
nubbins`: so you pop into someone's house, point
to a painting, and say "actually
that's not art at all", and
thus it was never art
nubbins`: so if it's
true, you'll have
to prove it.
nubbins`: ^
this implies
that
there's a ladder we're both on and you're above me on it
mircea_popescu: <nubbins`> surely
there must be something
that makes mp a good judge and nubbins a poor one? <<
this implies
that perhaps nubbins could move upwards in society, and contains implicit an equivalency of substance between
the
two.
this isn't an accepted point between us.
mircea_popescu: nubbins is no such lord. we're going
to have
to explain why we presume.
mircea_popescu: mp is one of
the lords. he makes art be. of course we can presume anything.
nubbins`: surely
there must be something
that makes mp a good judge and nubbins a poor one?
nubbins`: we can also presume
that nubbins also has criteria
nubbins`: sure. nevertheless, we can presume
that he does
mircea_popescu: this naive "man at center of everything" goes well with
the naive nominalism, but it's quite as nutty.
nubbins`: well, obviously it's not
the art but nubbins himself
that is
the cause of
the weeping
mircea_popescu: NOT
the other way around, judge art by how it "makes" you weep or not.
mircea_popescu: there is no because in
the correct statement. in fact, we can judge how good a nubbins you are by how adequately you weep when art is presented
nubbins`: you went from "because x feels y"
to "and x feels y"
nubbins`: you changed your example a bit
there
mircea_popescu: these are not
the same. and for
that matter
the latter's logically unsound.
mircea_popescu: mp said it's art, and it makes nubbins weep, vs nubbins
thinks it;'s art because
that's why he
thinks he wept
mircea_popescu: when i say "it's art because X feels Y" i may be right. when you say "it's art because I feel Y" you're certain
to be wrong.
nubbins`: "cured" has nothing
to do with feeling
mircea_popescu: does
the oncology patient go "all is well doc, i feel cured" ?
nubbins`: "it's art if i
tell you it's art"
mircea_popescu: only in
the minds of people who have no idea what it is.
nubbins`: surgery definitely falls into
the realm of
the quantifiable.
mircea_popescu: obviously
the surgeons are surgeons by decree rather
than because "people" feel surgeonized by
them
mircea_popescu: you don't discuss surgery in
terms of
the subjective impressions of patients. a similar discussion of any other craft is similarly out of place.
mircea_popescu: this may be
true, but
the subjection needn't be conscious.
mircea_popescu: you presume all action is with
the voluntary subjection fo
the subject
mircea_popescu: the remainder is
the "to whom ?" approach, which reduces
to social hierarchy.
mircea_popescu: the "to me" approach is unsound.
this disqualifies it, perpetually and definitively.
nubbins`: someone says a piss pot "is art
to me". i don't care, because whether it's art
to
them has no bearing on whether it's art
to me
mircea_popescu: it is
the avatar of youth, but so are many other illogical
topoi
mircea_popescu: looky,
this
trick where you go "mpex is
too hard, i don;'t understand it ;
therefore we must all glbse because
there's no other way
to do it" isn't logically sound.
nubbins`: sure, but what does
that change?
nubbins`: because
there's no other way
to quantify it, and if you can't quantify
things, you certainly can't classify
them
mircea_popescu: except no one cares about any "to me" sentence.
they're voiceless.
nubbins`: the obvious implication is
that
the words "to me" are inserted between "art" and "if"
nubbins`: or, y'know, occam's razor. it's art if i
think it's art.