More empty plastic bags.
Charles Taylor in his book on Hegel said- "Art begins to take on a function analogous to religion, and to some extent replacing it."
This sort of idea derives from Glanvill's The Vanity of Dogmatizing (1661). This is in the footsteps of Epictetus on the deceptiveness of the senses and the folly of solipsism. If he's reading this thread he'll be whirling like a govenor on the mine-shaft lift.
Glanvill argued that science has its limits and that we need, which word anti-IDers must reject, "convenient supposals for the use of life" or, one might say we need to take account of the social consequences of the philosophies we embrace for our collective and individual mental health.
Anti-IDers think we don't need to do either or they damn well ought to think that we don't. Questions they just refuse to answer are raised by that. Which leads to the idea that they are propagandists in the service of a private motive. Anti-social by definition.
One of these supposals, and a well ploughed one which my lack of investment in the history of this debate, which I readily admit, is, following Goethe, Herder and Vico, that man's creativity is a function of language (a bloodied carcass on here) in all its forms and that Art can be seen as a sort of deity. A creative deity, the many manifestations of which millions trek to view and photograph and buy reproductions of to display around their living quarters.
Goethe thought that cities, and anti-ID is city based, run and managed, dupes notwithstanding, by city based institutions, communications and democracy endanger Art by endangering the self-possession of the artist.
An example could be seen on here with fm's dogmatic amd solipsistic remarks about Bob Dylan.
What the scientific methodologist takes advantage of is the difficulty of explaining these matters to people who have been starved of inspirations by an exclusive focus in education on simple principles and dogmatic, solipsistic attacks on the sources of those inspirations and that is a recruitment problem involving the manner in which selection panels conduct interviews and make appointments when they are themselves inadequate to such an important task despite them having "somehow" managed to get themselves appointed to do, again for private reasons, by methods hardly known to the public but suspected by many. Possibly the non-voting section of the population. This must reflect the American downgrading of education as Veblen pointed out nearly 100 years ago and Hofstadter more recently along with many others.
fm's remarks about Bob Dylan, your only living artist that I know of now that Andy Warhol is dead, both religious men, are the standard, low grade dogmatic and solipsistic techniques for maintaining that starvation of inspiration and thus furthering, unless laughed out of court, the dehumanizing process, which is easy to see happening, and helping in the destruction of the humanizing feeling in life without which the usefulness of science is rendered pointless. The growth in the sales of pharmaceuticals, legal or ortherwise, is obvious evidence as is the growth of sects and cults and psychological treatments. And look how easy it is to do-
fm wrote-
Quote:Dylan only appealed to me when I was on drugs or booze, or both. When I sobered up, hes a bit laughable and his work is bleedin obvious. Maybe youre lack of understanding of the Americans is based upon a too literal interpretation of our actions and apparent mindsets.
and he asserted Dylan was a DB like Paul Williams.
That's traducing one important source of inspiration.
And done with a flick of the wrist. No sweat, no effort, no thinking, no nothing. Empty, meaningless words.
And it is in the face of Grammies, Hall of Fame, Oscars, French equivalent of our Order of Merit, which is very exclusive, millions of records sold, millions of concertgoers, 300,000 at Blackbushe, songs covered by thousands of other performers and many more to come, a Swedish award similar to the French, thousands of interviews and press conferences, books, movies and it being well known that every serious musician in the world would love to play in his band, and many have done,
his obvious expert knowledge of the complete Western musical and poetic tradition and so much more that it is hard to quantify.
And fm just spews that easy to do infantile crap at it with the sole aim of destroying a source of inspiration that isn't according to his belief in scientific methodology and furthering the dehumanizing of our societies from which one presumes he hopes to gain. By it he also insults the intelligence of viewers here and demonstrates his contempt of them and of the educational process itself and for anything outside the arid, unfeeling desert of atheistic materialism.
T.S. Eliot, an American, said, in praising Joyce's Ulysses, " the myth is simply a way of controlling, of ordering, of giving shape and significance to the immense panorama of futility and anarchy which is contemporary history."
Do scientific methodologists want the futility and anarchy of modern life to be uncontrolled, unordered, unshaped and insignificant.
To attack an out-of-date myth which served the purpose of bringing us to our success and provide no new myth in its place is the biggest wrecking ball the world has seen for many a long year.
And so, one easily sees how difficult all this is to explain and how easy it is to bang on like a wheel squeak about "facts" (ask fresco about them) and "empirical evidence (Oh yeah!) and to gob off facile, effort free insults, smears, and jibes and to take "incidents" as representing "principles". Empty plastic bags sums it up. Bus queue banter. I'm a "poor old duck".
And c.i. joins in with a very erudite comment which this post immediately proves to have been pure bullshit. The dog that took a bite at the prey it thought was "downed".
i.d. (a check on the unacceptable aspects of scientific methodology which is why its proponents won't answer the muzzling question that Lola posed before she "went down" as others have) has as many enemies as there are dogmas and organised solipsisms and it is as far from fundamentalists as it is from applied, pure scientific methodology and its worst enemy of all is that which purloins its hundreds of years old name and capitalises it and sets sail in the service of the profit motive and you are back to Thatcherism. And she had to be led away in tears. They dispensed with the white-coats so it didn't look so bad.
In actual fact fundamentalist Creationists and Scientific Methodologist are in a cosy symbiosis by which they both get air-time a bit like pro-wrestling.
They even laugh at their own "witticisms" and that's a dead giveaway.
