Steven Coyle wrote:The strange thing about consciousness, is the higher you ascend, the more and more you rely on the processes inherent in making good art. There is a certain creativity in the Universe, that makes for a near objective overlay onto reality. One could argue that a fully enlightened Buddha is as much an artist as a philosopher, the common thread is there.
A sage wrote of the four qualities of a sage:
creative, original, nurturing, and illuminating.
It's true. In following the Tao (or The Void, Your Self, etc), you begin to view the Universe as a creative ally; and its a creativity that we all share at heart. Nothing inherently exists; nothing exists; these two truths, coupled with an appetite for progress, make life art.
It's true. In following the Tao (or The Void, Your Self, etc), you begin to view the Universe as a creative ally; and its a creativity that we all share at heart.
One and all only ever follows themself. The universe is no ally, but an opponent.
Nothing inherently exists; nothing exists; these two truths, coupled with an appetite for progress, make life art.
It's true. In following the Tao (or The Void, Your Self, etc), you begin to view the Universe as a creative ally; and its a creativity that we all share at heart.
One and all only ever follows themself. The universe is no ally, but an opponent.
Nietszche, the Abyss.
S: Nothing inherently exists; nothing exists; these two truths, coupled with an appetite for progress, make life, art.
J: Well it would be ok if they were true statements.
I get the idea but you'd be better off using a term other than "universe" for that notion. "World" maybe. The word "universe" indicates something singular by definition.
Would you care translating this into proper English? I have this problem -- I don't speak slang or whatever you call your personal/regional variation. Thanks.
I've seen at least one poster here, whose first language is not English, go to great lengths to write in perfectly grammatical English, just so that his points are perfectly understood. His efforts are well appreciated. IMO, he has class.
I don't think we should have to make extra efforts to parse poorly-written sentences, especially if the poster's first language happens to be English.
"Class" is a term which connotes exactly what it says - class. As in the social kind. It is an implicitly pejorative term which reinforces the idea that wealthy is good and intellectual while poor is bad and stupid. To say that someone has "class" is to to say that they behave as the socially privileged do - ostensibly with taste, refinement, tact, and other such qualities. By using the term "class," we perpetuate the false and destructive idea that social rank equates to intellect, character, and worth.
That's why I edited the term out of my vocabulary years ago. Just thought you might want to know, because it's an inherently abusive term that goes against all of the values most of us hold around here.
You have no idea what the word "class" means to me. I'll give you a hint: it has absolutely nothing to do with financial position or status. Another hint: notice the context wherein I used the word.
And I am very much aware that the PC group considers the word "class" a taboo. I don't give a fuck about adhering to social taboos. I basically create my own rules.
ME, if your first language is not English, I admit I may have been too harsh with you.
-
Shahrazad: [I don't speak slang or whatever you call your personal/regional variation. Thanks. ]
Shahrazad: [I don't give a 'fuck' about adhering to social taboos. I basically create my own rules. ]
Do you see the problem with what you wrote and the things you say....Funny, you create your own rules (me too!)lol
Your right, my first language was not English, but how could you be harsh on an internet chatroom; would you consider the obvious realization, that you may be a touch too involved and sensitive, with 'internet forums'.
I joined this great placed, because I want to improve my english, way of thinking and explaore my borders of ingnorance...thks:)[/b]
