Originally posted by Starrman
Knowing Russ, I very much doubt that the description was put there for any other means than to be a very general signpost.

Lets face it, the forums aren't set up to fulfil needs, they're set up to segregate topics. Debates segregates the hatemongers, Spirituality segregates the magic-men, General segregates the morons and spammers, Clans segregates the r ...[text shortened]... t things without being segregated into the other forums as they stand, topics are meaningless.

I understand your desire to have a forum to discuss topics that are of interest to you that get you away from the undesireable elements of those other forums. But that doesn't change "art" into "philosophy".

Originally posted by Starrman
1) The desire is not borne from illusion, it is borne from the very real sense of comfort that is paralleled in a mother's arms or the smell of a dad's jumper etc.

2) I could list them all day, but here's just a few: The desire for food, the desire for quiet, the desire for companionship, the desire for understanding, the desire for safety, the desire ...[text shortened]... helter, for clothing, for love, for recognition. None of these are illusions, I could go on.

1) In the final analysis, the blanket is just a blanket.

2) Most of these are borne of illusion. Like I said, "Most people carry similar illusions well into adulthood if not the rest of their lives." It's a difficult thing to see when you're wrapped up in it. Sounds like you're very much wrapped up in it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I understand your desire to have a forum to discuss topics that are of interest to you that get you away from the undesireable elements of those other forums.

Good, I hope there will be a lot of grey areas in the 'Cultural' definition, so that really interesting aspects of it can develop in discussion. If the forum really was just a 'what's the best film?' kind of affair, it might as well be called 'General 2'.

Originally posted by Starrman
Good, I hope there will be a lot of grey areas in the 'Cultural' definition, so that really interesting aspects of it can develop in discussion.

I hope there will be a lot of colourful areas.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
1) In the final analysis, the blanket is just a blanket.

2) Most of these are borne of illusion. Like I said, "Most people carry similar illusions well into adulthood if not the rest of their lives." It's a difficult thing to see when you're wrapped up in it. Sounds like you're very much wrapped up in it.

1) But this isn't a final analysis, it's an analysis of origins. And besides, it's not just a blanket, it has a host of other causal relationships, meanings and uses, none of which obscured by it being 'just a blanket'. It is many other things as well.

2) How are most of these borne of illusion? Stop obfuscating and deal with one or two of them.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Is this true? At least in western culture? I have thought about this quite a bit
and want to know your thoughts. It seems to me that the more we desire the more we suffer...so I believe this is true...(especially in relationships 🙁 )

Desire leads to disappointment.
Yet, a lack of desire leads to apathy.

I think it was a wise man who said: "It's better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all."

Originally posted by Starrman
Good, I hope there will be a lot of grey areas in the 'Cultural' definition, so that really interesting aspects of it can develop in discussion. If the forum really was just a 'what's the best film?' kind of affair, it might as well be called 'General 2'.

Think about it. The description was written to more clearly define the intent of the forum.

Even though you have desires to the contrary, it doesn't change "art" into "philosophy".

Originally posted by Nordlys
I hope there will be a lot of colourful areas.

I'm sure there is room for a full spectral viewscape.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Think about it. The description was written to more clearly define the intent of the forum.

Even though you have desires to the contrary, it doesn't change "art" into "philosophy".

Lol, seriously, you have got to realise that the guys that code these forums like drinking in the pub and not playing chess at all. They're not the sort of people that carefully choose a description to directly define the intent of a forum. Like I say, they probably just chose the first and simplest thing that came to them.

I'm am not claiming it does, but art and philosophy are very closely tied on many subjects. I'd go so far as to say that there's not much point in art, if you can't philosophise over it.

Originally posted by Starrman
Lol, seriously, you have got to realise that the guys that code these forums like drinking in the pub and not playing chess at all. They're not the sort of people that carefully choose a description to directly define the intent of a forum. Like I say, they probably just chose the first and simplest thing that came to them.

I'm am not claiming it does, ...[text shortened]... go so far as to say that there's not much point in art, if you can't philosophise over it.

Maybe you need to realize that some people are capable of saying what they mean. Are you saying they aren't?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Think about it. The description was written to more clearly define the intent of the forum.

Even though you have desires to the contrary, it doesn't change "art" into "philosophy".

The culture forum was created because people asked for it, not because Russ has a special interest in having a forum about art and only art. If the users decide that they want to use this forum to discuss culture in a very wide sense, I doubt Russ will have any objections.

Originally posted by Starrman
1) But this isn't a final analysis, it's an analysis of origins. And besides, it's not just a blanket, it has a host of other causal relationships, meanings and uses, none of which obscured by it being 'just a blanket'. It is many other things as well.

2) How are most of these borne of illusion? Stop obfuscating and deal with one or two of them.

Ultimately it's a matter of realization. If you're close to making the realization, you'll see it. If not, there's little I can say to convince you otherwise.

Tomtom has said that he's put a lot of thought into it. Perhaps what I posted will help put things in place.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Ultimately it's a matter of realization. If you're close to making the realization, you'll see it. If not, there's little I can say to convince you otherwise.

Tomtom has said that he's put a lot of thought into it. Perhaps what I posted will help put things in place.

I'm not sure you've actually posted anything, so I don't know how it will help him. I'm still no nearer to seeing any post by you which explains a position or which deals with my objections. Your claim was 'most' desires were illusionary, but I'd be prepared to take one or two. Perhaps you could explain how the desire for food is illusionary, or take another from the list.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Maybe you need to realize that some people are capable of saying what they mean. Are you saying they aren't?

I'm saying very few people say what they mean for things which matter little to them.

Originally posted by Starrman
I'm saying very few people say what they mean for things which matter little to them.

Do you find it at all telling that "what they really meant" happens to coincide with your desires?