I think I have once and for all described the quality of a work,

>>9025067
Are you saying, comedies, and tragedies (or at least lets say, philosophical investigative narratives) should be purely judged in two distinct categories? That it is senseless to even compare them?

The worst work, that tries to include philosophical topics, is de facto better than the greatest comedy of all time that does not. Its far beyond apples and oranges.

I wouldnt go so far as to saw a work which does not, or does not a lot or as much, is bad, I would likely even say its possible one can be more good.

I guess if you define good as 'philosophical' than yeah. But then if a person likes reading non philosophical books, are they an idiot, even if they say it gives them pleasure?

Is anything that does not kill a person relatively quickly, which they claim to be pleasurable, (which does not 'directly' harm another) kosher?

>>9025067
Dude you're so high. Just go to bed.

File: IMG_1681.jpg (94KB, 900x450px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 900x450px

>>9025067
>2017
>Still trying to make objective value claims
Slow your roll there, grandpa. I guess you might've been in a coma and missed the news, but in the future we don't play that mess. God's dead and ain't nothin better than nothin anymore, cuz fuck you you ain't the bossa me. So don't let me fucking catch you bringing objective truth in my house again pal. You wanna roll with the big dogs you better be ready for some HARDCORE relativism.

>>9027437
Quite the contrary. My claim is coming from a relativistic, atheist, I'd say nihilistic point of view. I believe in determinism, and the fact that there are no objective values. Absurd as the claim may be, I believe we can agree on certain terms, even if they apply only to a human being's relativistic and ultimately vacuous meaning. We can, in it's absurdity, make an objective claim based on our own relativistic view, that we can all agree on. To object to making agreements in spite of the absurdity of agreeing on anything, would be nothing short of solipsism, we'd be as confused as the character in the book Nausea.

>>9027456
>Even if man were nothing but a piano key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of sheer ingratitude, simply to have his own way…then, after all, perhaps only by his curse will he attain his object, that is, really convince himself that he is a man and not a piano key! If you say that all this, too, can be calculated and tabulated…then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and have this own way.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo

>>9027456
What if like, significantly greater than half (major, supreme, majority) of all "intelligent" (define parameters of large spectrum range of intelligence) life forms that will ever live in reality, with nearly infinite, over infinite time, simulations, and other universes created, with other types of intelligent beings in different types of settings, infinite beings, major quantity, major quality, major variables, experiment process always running and churning for new data, near continuously tending/trending around 90% of all of them, voted on, after peaceful, though if need be rigorous, though always interesting excitable debate, what they could define, express, communicate, depict, to be definitions of "quality", "value" of art.

trillions and trillions of votes every second, for trillions and trillions of years

and it always tended to 90% on the spiritual survey.

We still would not be able to claim this was objective, or objective eternal understanding of objective eternal truth, law?

Because there could be beings beyond the universe, in space and/or time, because in a quintillion quintillion years, this 90% figure may switch to 10% for a quintillion years to the quintillion power? But what would that mean? Just a momentary, subjective, albeit democratically powerful, trend?

Though, it is possible we do know some percentage of some objective glimmer, as it can either be, possible or not, and if possible, 1-100% actual.

(what other than to, conscious "intelligent" (whatever that means) entities, would the values of art matter? The base need is, consciousness, as the requirement to enter the thought experiment, then some distinction is drawn at 'intelligent', which must have something to do with 'seeker of knowledge/understanding/for 'better' doing/experiencing'?. We would figure these would be the essential, base, requirements for, if it existed, 'objective value, 'descriptors', labelers, weighers, judgers, of art' it would be objective, to and for "that which at least must be conscious, that which at least must be intelligent"

File: tumblr_ok65pbUCz51qzhjh2o1_500.jpg (138KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 500x667px

>>9028276
>>9027456

For one person, to teach another, if everyone is unsure about the objectivity of values of art, and then over time, to get towards the 90% figure, individuals, and groups of them, make examples, expressions, depictions, discussions, of their evidence, for their belief:

but they must be believing in 'something' (is it necessarily beyond human?), can anything about the objective value (how separate is value from beauty?) be equal to the human perceived value, beyond human/intelligence being?

Can there ever be truth, or meaning, or beauty, or value, beyond 'the totality of, and of possible, conscious/intelligent' being?

If 10% discover, organize, manifest 'information' regarding their believed 'truth' about the objective value of art/s, and their arguments were so 'convincing'(what are the essential elements to justifiably (objectively?) be convincing) that over short time, and then lasting long time, 90% of people 'agreed/believed/"knew"', well the results would be most likely due to a mixture of multiple things, such as the sensory equipment and manifestation of the being, the history of the being, the memories, the thoughts, the desires:

Would those 10% not have 'come across' information that had some objective truth value? That there is other information related to the possibilities of art; i.e. blaa blah 2852, too bub red la la la 2828 (any random any thing.. is less, focally directed, related at the whole of art) and that it is possible, the depictions, and awareness configurations, are approaching some timeless conception, of 'information' meaning/value related to being/'intelligent'.

Of course this is likely wrong and meaningless. Though I guess what I am getting at, is even asking the question of "does "Art" make any sense", take that poll question infinitely and eternally, do you understand why being (maybe.."intelligent") would want to create and/or consume art? What is the meaning of this, what does your understanding tell you, just that you sympathize, putting yourself in the same position, but are you aware if there is any potential information beyond your perception on the subject that is pertinent: I guess a precursor definition hinges upon an agreement to the meaning of the term 'value',

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaEcDgxm8es

File: 1484542351395.jpg (4MB, 1036x1948px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1036x1948px

>>9028412
((10% vs. 90%) Would we assume those 10% are more correct with their theory, as we assume the small minority of elite; as opposed to masses (of pop culture, ''average' 'awareness''); has the higher more ideal, divine, valuable tastes ((The noble blooded aristocratic spirited is of a different species))? Why couldn't the 90% be convinced (if the 10% were/are right enough (what does right mean, how is it proven?) to prove to themselves) if; what would it mean for 10% view of art to be better? Closer to truth/Truth, more accurate?

What can better ever mean; most pleasurable (does the value of art, at least one dimension have to do with pleasure; would objective value, critique, understanding of art and its potential value, not have anything to do with pleasure, is that possible/)? and in the head, are their different size penises which react (naturally (?)) to different forms and elements of art; and the 10% had the largest dick heads, with the most nerve endings per node; and they know that these head peens, their big one A, others have A, B, C, D, E, too just as '10%' does, but they are varying sizes for others, with varying quantity and quality of nerves, and so 10% with big A, (or do they have the biggest A through Z? or both and more circumstances can/should always be considered) have been taken most care of and have most use and that is why their understanding of "The True Real World" is more accurate; they have all the dick brains as everyone: its just theirs have the most use, the most experience, the most feedback, intra-outra-ultra relation, most length and girth, most nerves and connections, most sensoryations of furtherest regions of information time and space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WQk3QVCUoE

File: tumblr_ojtm7a7nxG1qzhjh2o1_500.jpg (42KB, 500x352px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x352px

>>9028412
>>9029208

10% proposes; "if God exists his biggest and favorite dick head is certainly A", and if god does not exist, or even if he does; The Eternal Substantial Essence of Total All Possible Realities; has an intrinsic, a priori value; and higher meaning and purpose and pleasure; of large A; and that is how/why 10% eternal "opinion" is aligned with "eternal truth", how/why opiniono could be most close to objective perception, reflection, grasping, knowing. So as to be, Reality is a library, and knowledge, is reading one of its books.

Are there physical mechanical principles that man is aware of that are timeless which transcend the particularities of the universes 'type/style/elementhood' of substance?


Even if God said, and God was guaranteed to exist eternally, and it was extremely most likely that no entity could ever become to become as large/vast/powerful as God, and God said, "it is objectively now, for eternal time, rule, law, Truth, that xyz = good values of Art", where would God be getting this information from? Would God invent this, would he borrow it from the real eternal realm of forms? Would it purely or mixturely be 'his feelings', "this is good, because I like this, because my body is pleasured when looking at it, so my body, the nature of my body, determines what is good art?, this is good art because I feel and think it is, and say it is, and since I am eternally most powerful it is so and true?

Instead of all the negative statements and doubting, how about trying to throw out positive claims of what value of art could be: rarity, 'not necessarily, but could elevate the appreciation, reaction' difficulty, quantity and quality of detail (related to prior), geometry/symmetry (eternal landmarks, and representations of order, coherence, stability, structure, balance?),
In regards to art; how different could ideals be; how different could reality elements be; atoms, subatomic particles, molecules, ""force" "fields""; these the basic building blocks of any art (of anything, source of all we are and can be, all we have seen and can know); materials and laws of physics; mind; and computer allows boundaries of possible perception to be pushed (computer graphic arts, allows things to be seen, thought, attempted to be depicted which maybe are not possible without it); how many different style universes are possible, how probable? how many types of substance, material, simulation? In theory; how potentially different could ideals and value systems of art be in all these; How different because of differences of mind, of body, of substance quantity. quality, law, of available and possible knowledge and ignorance (of what... of contextual phenomenal/feeling knowledge of eternal actually, timeless, true Truth?)?

Similar to how much do simply the dna genome a/effect the 'spirit', just relatively simple, in terms of type, building blocks, 1 2 3 4, organized in various ways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTBooio3h9U

File: tumblr_ojmvyiaKcZ1qzhjh2o1_500.jpg (80KB, 500x562px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x562px

>>9028412
>>9029208
>>9029223
Are the large scale works of art (anything, larger than subatomic...?) a sculpture, film, painting, piece of music: transcendent of their material; (Is there something about music, that is beyond, air atoms, human flesh, neurons, mouth, metal, cylinder, holes, (flute), and is that something usually what we refer to as 'math', the perfect timeless self consistent manifold of measurement (and geometry, for ideally approximating 'any potential objectness')) electron, quark, quantity in proximity, atom, molecule, material; does the product Art contain the touch upon actually point at 'something beyond' the raw physical material data that is quanta of substance moving in relation to others, creating phenomenon x y and z?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NufaurLuCw

File: maxresdefault.jpg (151KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1920x1080px

>>9028276
>>9028412
>>9029208
>>9029223
>>9029230

File: tumblr_okcl0xcvvA1qzhjh2363634564_500 copy.jpg (32KB, 540x535px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 540x535px

>>9029264
Idunno

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLRL7fsQFT8