ASBO
User
Offline
Posts: 1286
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: June 12, 2008, 05:43:53 AM » |
|
To do this is must eradicate every sentimental aspect, and focus purely on intellectual structures, metal needs to do what Bach did with his best works, or what Webern attempted to do in more difficult circumstances. It needs to leave the modern world behind...
I think there's a difference between sentiment and emotion. Metal should view the world through a contemplative, structuralist perspective. It should be logical in the abstract, and connect the human to that. Modernity is liberalism is utilitarianism is the Crowd rearing its ugly head and demanding individuals right now be more important than interconnected reality. We can fight that without long, bloviating speeches about The Absolute and its relationship to the sterculean.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ASBO“Kurt Cobain was, ladies and gentlemen, a worthless shred of human debris.” - Rush Limbaugh
|
|
|
Moses
Dismember
Offline
Posts: 30
|
 |
« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2008, 01:38:42 AM » |
|
I think there's a difference between sentiment and emotion.
Metal should view the world through a contemplative, structuralist perspective.
It should be logical in the abstract, and connect the human to that.
Modernity is liberalism is utilitarianism is the Crowd rearing its ugly head and demanding individuals right now be more important than interconnected reality.
We can fight that without long, bloviating speeches about The Absolute and its relationship to the sterculean.
Modernity is fundamentally the reduction of man's possibilities to what he can immediately perceive without any concentration or effort, great art recognises that reality is more than appearance. Every political and ideological failure of the modern world stems from this basic fact. Communicating this through essays is something I think I do well, if you don't like them, don't read them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
neoclassical
User
Offline
Posts: 280
|
 |
« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2008, 02:30:17 AM » |
|
I just think you shouldn't confuse reason with intellect. Although de Victoria's Requiem or Bach's Mass in B Minor are more sentimental than serialist compositions, they're also more intellectual.
Apart from that, music is probably not very important to the intellectual elite, precisely because there are more effective ways to transport knowledge, for example by conversation or books.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ASBO
User
Offline
Posts: 1286
|
 |
« Reply #18 on: June 13, 2008, 02:43:20 AM » |
|
Modernity is fundamentally the reduction of man's possibilities to what he can immediately perceive without any concentration or effort, great art recognises that reality is more than appearance. Modernity is image-based because it's based on the consensus of crowds. Modernity is a revolution against hierarchy in the light of technology. Most of all, modernity is the decay of civilization from having a goal into utilitarianism. You make the same fucking mistake every time, which is to mistake physical reality for appearance. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and recede into the metaphysical ghetto -- it hasn't worked for the last 500 generations, and it won't work now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ASBO“Kurt Cobain was, ladies and gentlemen, a worthless shred of human debris.” - Rush Limbaugh
|
|
|
Moses
Dismember
Offline
Posts: 30
|
 |
« Reply #19 on: June 15, 2008, 07:06:56 PM » |
|
Physical reality IS appearance/illusion etc. There's really no point going on.
@neoclassical
I don't think I have confused reason with intellect, in the examples you cite the sentiment displayed only has value because it is subordinated to intellectuality. Just as the exoteric aspect of doctrine derives its importance from the esoteric, whereas in serialism what is attempted (though rarely realised) is the stripping away of appearance to reveal the core.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
More Celt Then Sassenach
User
Offline
Posts: 1210
|
 |
« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2008, 04:49:09 PM » |
|
I just think you shouldn't confuse reason with intellect. Although de Victoria's Requiem or Bach's Mass in B Minor are more sentimental than serialist compositions, they're also more intellectual.
Apart from that, music is probably not very important to the intellectual elite, precisely because there are more effective ways to transport knowledge, for example by conversation or books. Music is however not a mode of propaganda or an information dispersion system thus it will of course fail in this respect when compared to other eras entirely devoted to it. Music is useful to the intellectual elite because it creates a sense of satiety where only mild contentedness existed before. It lets man escape the trappings of nihilism as Nietzsche saw it and allows for an individual the ability to reach far further towards the Übermensch then possible without it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
chb
User
Offline
Posts: 60
|
 |
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2008, 02:40:06 AM » |
|
Do we need to define a "use" for music? I like music because it makes me fonder of life in general. No need to over-complicate things.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ASBO
User
Offline
Posts: 1286
|
 |
« Reply #22 on: June 17, 2008, 06:39:47 AM » |
|
Physical reality IS appearance/illusion etc. That's a nifty dualist view, but my point was: Appearance is illusion; beneath it, structure/reality can be detected. I like the idea of elitism -- natural selection favoring only the best -- but in practice, it is ruined by people who want to be part of an elite without earning that status. Yes, the modern capitalist-leftist funderground is a total waste of time and destructive to metal, but forming a clubhouse is too easily the error of elitists. Instead, I think we should de-liberalize and de-consumerize our outlook toward metal, and make it a sacred enjoyment in which we celebrate what we prize and make fun of the rest in one-line mockery like a certain Swedish zine.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ASBO“Kurt Cobain was, ladies and gentlemen, a worthless shred of human debris.” - Rush Limbaugh
|
|
|
More Celt Then Sassenach
User
Offline
Posts: 1210
|
 |
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2008, 03:57:09 PM » |
|
Physical reality IS appearance/illusion etc. I like the idea of elitism -- natural selection favoring only the best -- but in practice, it is ruined by people who want to be part of an elite without earning that status. Elitism isn't a social construct, its an exertion of individual character. However I agree it would be pleasant to meet men who where themselves Elitist by personal choice, not by society beckoning them to.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Pro Abortion
User
Offline
Posts: 170
|
 |
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2008, 04:15:10 PM » |
|
You make the same fucking mistake every time, which is to mistake physical reality for appearance.
What is the difference between physical reality and appearance? Spell it out for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I live in my own place Have never copied nobody even half And at any Master who lacks the grace To laugh at himself, I laugh!
|
|
|
Dedrater
User
Offline
Posts: 63
|
 |
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2008, 09:48:20 AM » |
|
You make the same fucking mistake every time, which is to mistake physical reality for appearance.
What is the difference between physical reality and appearance? Spell it out for me. Appearance: A table which looks brown, feels hard, smells like lacquer; the phenomenal manifestation of physical reality Physical reality: A relatively loose collection of subatomic particles clustering in a particular way as a result of force having been applied by another relatively loose collection of subatomic particles, with the former collection -- as a noumenal thing -- looking like nothing, feeling like nothing, and smelling like nothing; the thing-in-itself
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
death metal black metal
YaBB Administrator
Offline
Posts: 3079
|
 |
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2008, 11:31:10 AM » |
|
What is the difference between physical reality and appearance? Spell it out for me.
In addition to Dedrater's insightful commentary: Appearance -- how things look to a human being Physical reality -- how they are
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Pro Abortion
User
Offline
Posts: 170
|
 |
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2008, 08:39:00 PM » |
|
OK. I'm starting to understand. Thank you both. I will have follow up questions as I mull this over.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I live in my own place Have never copied nobody even half And at any Master who lacks the grace To laugh at himself, I laugh!
|
|
|
DionysianDeath
User
Offline
Posts: 79
|
 |
« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2008, 11:01:24 PM » |
|
So, having established that things have appearances and physical natures, and that despite the fact that there is a relationship between the two, the physical nature of a thing is independent of its appearance..... Do things have any other nature besides the ones identified in the last few posts?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Moses
Dismember
Offline
Posts: 30
|
 |
« Reply #29 on: June 30, 2008, 11:10:29 PM » |
|
What is the difference between physical reality and appearance? Spell it out for me.
In addition to Dedrater's insightful commentary: Appearance -- how things look to a human being Physical reality -- how they are Other than the loose corellation between appearance and physical reality how is this not dualism? We only know physical reality by how it appears to us, assuming that it has some existence separate to our perception of it is an assumption of massive proportions unless one has knowledge of higher priniples which can satisfactorily define manifestation itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|