af676597
XPost: alt.magick, alt.pagan.magick, alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic
XPost: alt.religion.druid
From: root@wan
Op 19-10-2011 22:45, Tom schreef:
> On Oct 19, 7:34 am, Bassos wrote:
>> Op 19-10-2011 15:49, Tom schreef:
>>
>>> On Oct 18, 10:57 pm, Bassos wrote:
>>>> Op 19-10-2011 1:52, Tom schreef:
>>
>>>>> I was talking to a beer brewer yesterday and he said that using
>>>>> science he could produce the same flavor in beer every time but using
>>>>> art, he could invent new flavors.
>>
>>>> Yet he needs the science to make beer at all.
>>
>>> But he doesn't need to "master" science. He just needs a basic
>>> recipe.
>>
>> Well, unless he wants to master Beer-Brewing.
>>
>> You agree, right ?
>
> As a professional, yes. As a home brewer, no.
Home brewers that sell their product *ARE* professional.
>>> There is no science of math.
>>
>> Ofcourse there is, mathematics itself is science.
>
> I suppose that depends on your definition of "science".
Nope.
Perhaps on my usage of math.
>>>> Does an artist set out for a result ?
>>
>>> Sometimes yea and sometimes no. The result is different every time
>>> either way.
>>
>> Wigglebut.
>
> That must be your way of saying, "You're right."
Or it is my way of claiming you act like a wigglebut.
>>>> For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result,
>>>> is every way perfect.
>>
>>> You asked me how I defined will in the context of my comments and I
>>> did. It's your turn. Define "will" in the context of the statement
>>> above.
>>
>> Okay.
>> Will: a term used to describe the movement of the universe as it
>> influences our own personal expressions of reality.
>
> That's not a workable definition.
Heh, what about it is unclear ?
> It's just meaningless babble.
Just very precise.
> You might as well say "everything is will". That's equally meaningless.
Nonsense.
The way the universe does not move is not Will.
>>>> Well, good scientists doubt, good artists perhaps do not, they just act.
>>
>>> Some artists do, some don't.
>>
>> Artists do, fakes don't.
>
> Fakes claim to know what all artists do.
I do not claim to be an artist, just informed.
>>> Like all political views, there is always a certain
>>> amount of fuzziness, but there does seem to be a consensus regarding
>>> the damage done to the global economy by huge, unregulated financial
>>> organizations.
>>
>> Duh.
>>
>> So now what ?
>
> Now we go find some artistic beer.
Without safety regulations, no clean workplace, no scientific approach
to this alchemical process, yeah.
>>>> omg, the constitution ?
>>>> Are you a wanky constitution waving weirdo aswell ?
>>>> (while raising the morning flag ofcourse)
>>
>>> You asked about "the American Dream". The Constitution is the primary
>>> expression of it.
>>
>> I called the American Dream a Nightmare.
>
> Not in this conversation.
Yes i did.
I just did not use the phrase itself.
Does everything need to be spelled out before you can see ?
> Here's what you wrote. "Guess the American Dream does not want Happyness."
>
> I dispute that.
TAD is about working your way up from nothing to mogul.
No word in there about being happy about the process.
>>>> How did that piece of paper protect the world against greed ?
>>
>>> That isn't what it's for. I told you. It's not about compelling or
>>> guaranteeing happiness.
>>
>> So it is worthless, but you reference it anyway, as if it has some purpose.
>
> Indeed, as a guarantor of happiness, it is worthless.
As anything it is worthless.
> Once again, that's not what it's for.
It has no use other than as a symbol to appease to drones.
> However, as an example of why your comment
> about "happyness" was bullshit, it does the job pretty well.
If you use an ostrich tactic.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
