Occam. - 19 January 2011 07:22 PM

3. Darron and Garythehuman—I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with jazz and blues.  In fact, some of my best friends like jazz or blues, and that’s fine for them.  I just can’t take that kind of “music” for myself.

Occam
Wordpad

No problem. I like Classical music too. I like all kinds of music. As Duke Ellington said, “There’s only two kinds of music. Good music and bad music.”

And was it he who said, “If you have to ask what jazz is, you’ll never know”?

I also like folk music, and as a guilty pleasure that I’ve enjoyed ever since as a small child when my mother, a classically trained pianist, played the music she loved—rag time, mostly by Scott Joplin.

Occam

It was prolly Ellington who said that too.

I know a lot of people who can’t stand jazz. It was an acquired taste for me. Seeing Weather Report live in 1973 did the trick.

Occam. - 19 January 2011 07:22 PM

If you think your conceptualization of ‘reality’, is reality, you are hallucinating. Your conceptualization, your ‘science’ is twice removed from ‘what is’. So please, don’t talk or act like your version or conceptualization of ‘reality’, is what is - it is not. What is, is not reduceable to a concept or idea. If you say that as an ‘atheist’, you see the world ‘as it is’, you are kidding yourself. In fact, as soon as you say that you know ‘reality’, you define some religion, all there is left to do is give it a name.

  Sorry, but I see this as semantic nitpicking.  While we recognize a difference between our conceptions and “reality”, they are constantly self-correcting by the results of our behavior.  And, if we hope to relate to others, we have to have a high degree of mutual agreement as to reality.  I believe most of us here recognize the inherent lack of precision of our views.

It really is, at best, nitpicking. It’s mental masturbation, which is all fine and well, but should only involve others who consent to being part of the circle. It’s like the “What’s it all about?” thread, I think, because it’s discussions like these that distract from matters that can actually be resolved to at least some satisfaction on everyone’s part. I don’t think there’s much to discuss about such an abstract personal viewpoint.

I didn’t intend for this to be a suggestive as it ended up being. 

C

Occam. - 19 January 2011 07:22 PM

  Sorry, but I see this as semantic nitpicking.  While we recognize a difference between our conceptions and “reality”, they are constantly self-correcting by the results of our behavior.  And, if we hope to relate to others, we have to have a high degree of mutual agreement as to reality.  I believe most of us here recognize the inherent lack of precision of our views.

I believe that usually those who view this sort of thing as merely semantic nitpicking just don’t get the problem. What you call reality is directly related to brain activity because it’s directly dependant on brain activity. A way of putting this is what you are aware of is what you are doing.

How the brain activity relates to reality is a real problem. unless idealism is the answer, in which case it’s not afterall.

If you were to argue we can’t know, I wouldn’t disagree, if you were to argue it’s of no practical importance, I’d agree to a certain extent but this thing about it being semantics, no I’m pretty sure it isn’t.

Stephen

As you can see, Bee’s Mom, we have a number of different groups of members here.  If you go to the philosophy section, you’ll find some threads dripping with cognitive viscous protein solution.  I’m delighted to see that you seem to be in the succinct wiseass camp. 

Oh, and in reference to your bio, I feel the same way about garlic but, as you can see, I handle those euphemisms you referred to better than you. 

Occam

Bees Mom:  The words, “This has too much garlic in it,” mean absolutely nothing to me.

Reminds me of a restaurant in Denver, above the entrance is a big sign: “If you don’t like garlic, go away.”
And the place always had a crowd during meal times.