Gatogateau

Illegitimi non carborundum mews

YOU ARE WRONG!!!!

Speaking of LEA, or now SLEA... I hate speaking on behalf of others, but I will go out on a limb here (quick call the fire dept! kitty in a tree!), that not everyone who participates in LEA is interested in making money, needs to make money, or wants fame, or anything else along those lines. For some it is the ability to create for the joy of creating. One of my good friends had several LEA installations over the years, and I'm pretty sure that making a $L wasn't an issue for her. Being given the opportunity to express her thoughts in a non-verbal way was reward enough. Not everyone thinks in terms of cash or political ideologies when creating art. Some do. Some do not. It is a fallacy to claim otherwise. My friend has tried to convince me to apply for LEA or similar installations over the years, I declined, for a variety of reasons. But had I chosen to make a proposal, I can guarantee that making some kind of monetary result from it would never have crossed my mind. Nor would the publicity, other than to get people to enjoy (or not) and experience and think about whatever it would be that I would have created. I have a love/hate with the impermanence of the exhibits, which brings a whole other creative element into the mix.

I generally find it not a good use of time to argue with anonymous cats on the Internet. But you'd be ok arguing with recognized cats on the Internet? In another thread you said you couldn't argue with someone with unknown age or educational background, too. (Apparently quality of words mean nothing, just their provenance.) All of that makes it terribly puzzling as to why you spend so much time and energy on an Internet chat forum. But I think you mistake long texts with points laid out rationally to be something that you believe it is -- just because. Not at all. Facts not in evidence, quite the contrary. If anyone bothers to launch into the notoriously predictable walls of text will find, they match the definition of Gish Gallop beautifully, as does the stuff I snipped out of your last post—which just with a cursory glance (all it is worth) has several other logic fallacies as well, including red herrings and straw men. Quelle surprise! And there's little I can do to dispel that rigid ideological position so I won't bother. Ideological? LOL! :::hands you a dictionary::: Rigid or otherwise. You quoted me giving a rather textbook definition, or explanation of a logic fallacy. That is not ideological. "so you won't bother" followed by reams of virtual paper of bothering. Ah, Prok, I have seen your Gallops for years. They bore the living daylights out of me. They are not intellectually challenging, unless one takes that to mean wading through the convoluted morass that you seem to want us to take so seriously. The fact that you cannot make a cogent argument without those reams of virtual paper is proof in itself that there is no real substance there. This anonymous cat, of unknown age, place of residence, and formal education is simply not impressed. I'd rather pull the sand from between my toes than get into one of your ridiculous, never-ending, wtf-ery faux debates.

So much of this mirrors my own process and thoughts and beliefs for decades. You explained yourself well, imho. There is a difference between philosophical Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taosim and their respective religions. One doesn't have to practice the religion to gain benefit from the philosophies. (The three I mention have all similar underlying "themes" which makes sense because of how they came about historically.) Alan Watts is a good source, albeit a bit overly wordy as that group of writers tended to be at the time. Your lack of wanting to be tied down to a specific -ism also was my M.O. When pressed I would say I was a Boo-Dow-Due (Bud-tao-du) Interestingly, to me anyway, is a recent change of events, in a truly ironic, wtf-ery twist that only a link to SL can provide, I have found myself back to near full-circle and back to some monotheistic studies that have a foundation in my distant family history. The cool thing I learned is that I can still hold onto my eastern philosophical beliefs and apply it without some guy on a cloud smiting me. ymmv

@Scylla Rhiadra still not poking you, btw. But passes you an adult beverage of your choice. Sees some dust marring the sheen of your footwear. And to get back on topic regarding SLEA: Thank you for pointing to Inara's blog. I missed that and so missed the news. My fingers toes are crossed, and I hope the group can make a go of it, without the caveat of needing to solve world hunger, the troubles in the Middle East, COVID, or society's general lack of support of art and artists on any large scale.

/me waves hand around. "oh! oh!" This will deviate a tad off topic but I think it is a valuable bit of information germane to things in this thread. A PSA! Because I'm a giver... There was this fellow, Duane Gish, who was a biochemist but who was noted as an outspoken creationist. Perhaps, though, his greatest claim to infamy was his rapid-fire debate style, in which he would present arguments and change topics quickly, while in a never ending spew of words. This was intentional, as it prevents a logical rebuttal to any single point. This fallacious logic style used to be known as "proof by verbosity" has since been renamed as the "Gish Gallop." In a Gish Gallop the tactic is to drown your opponent in a torrent of single, weak argument points, thus preventing a rebuttal of the whole argument collection, at least without a great effort, time, and writing walls of text of one's own to refute, point by point. It is the sort of thing where it is always easier to make the mess than clean it up. Because of this inherent tangle, the Galloper will then cast doubt on an entire refutation if one of his Gallops holds true. Gish Gallops rarely are the single logical fallacy in the screed. The key is to include some basic, irrefutable facts, which leads the listener or reader to believe the entire argument is sound. Among the rhetoric will be the normal things like half-truths, red herrings, straw men and there may also be gotcha arguments — which take little time to state but take a lot of work to deconstruct. So, just remember good old Duane Gish the next time you see one, two, three or more walls of text to state A SINGLE point. If you have the ten hours to haul out and make point by point refutations, good on ya! Part of the Gish Gallop is that it ensures total boredom of the listener or readers. Or, in Internet lingo: TLDR. If you don't have the ten hours, or the interest, then I offer another suggestion, one that is tried and true. Log into SL and let yourself have some actual fun and/or (and being my preference):

Putting clickable links in my profile that stay there and work fine... until they don't. For some reason the formatting just poofs. This leaves things like "My Flickr" hanging out in normal text looking like a daft person wrote the pick. Speaking of Flickr, another pet peeve: I follow some truly gifted artists. I'll upload a photo of mine that I rather like and then will go review what others have done. ... It is really hard not to just close my Flickr feed in a bout of existential angst sometimes. So peeve: All of those wonderful photos that make me smile when I view them.

I wasn't poking you! I was poking someone who is quite UNintentionally funny, which, wait, sometimes is you, but not in this instance, probably... Oh. Never. Mind.

I loved this movie. I need to watch it again. But I don't know what they were smoking. No one I knew ever went into frenetic, bounce off the walls, head shaking dances from the funny cigarettes *we* had. It would have, at best, made our heads hurt and spin. Ally Sheedy got it right at the end...

Yes please. Don't forget to include the inquiry into metaphysical contradictions and their solutions in the proposal. Also, the meaning behind kibble.

People, of course. But people with no senses of humor (or humour as the case might be).

Seriously? Seriously!? Duuuude. You know better than to give me a straight line like this!!!! /me sits on typing paws and mews pitifully, while eyeing the nice leather boots

I just work here...

There was a reason for that...

Wait. Wut? You didn't set it up as a false dichotomy, Prok did. I thought I said something along the line that "support" whether it came from having the space to create (that would be SLEA) or whether it came about from financial (people buying art), can help artists, yes. But helping artists doesn't equate into better art necessarily. As far as the subjectivity of art, yes, there are certain conventions that list this as "good" and that as "bad" but... wut?

Ho-hum, pardon as I roll my eyes at your superiority gig. False dichotomies are rife tonight in the GD subforum! (Probably elsewhere too.) You are correct about there being a difference between doing and being. However, when you discuss such a vast subject as love, and its nuances, it is silly to say it has to be either/or. It is both. It is a verb and a noun. Keep the company of those who seek the truth; and run from those who have found it.

I find it interesting that citing the author of the blurb in the OP is getting so much push-back. From "we don't need your stinkin' PhDs" to "he stole it!" to "sorry you had to read it" (note: I did not "have" to read it, I chose to read it, as it is part of an elective class that I'm taking via Stanford). I have not stated anywhere that I endorse the blurb, or condemn it, although I believe on page 1 or 2 I did write about some of my beliefs. Yeesh. I do love [sarcasm font] people who write about such topics with such conviction that they alone know The Truth and The Way and anyone writing about it otherwise is just a poorly educated idjit. On the other hand, on the OP I noted that the flames usually start on page 3 so we're ahead of the game by being behind (page 8).

I'm not sure why this is an either/or situation, in fact, I think it is a false dichotomy — that a renewed LEA is contradictory to art sales. That it would produce *better* art? Since art is subjective, I just really don't see the connection. Certainly funding can help, whether that is through allotting space in which to create or actual cash. I'm happy to see LEA back and I am hoping one of my friends will seize the opportunity yet again to provide us with her unique perspectives on things.

I'm converted!!!!!

You can find anything on Youtube.

Ah, but what is more minimalist than nothing? Nothing matters, period. >>> . <<< See what I did there?

When I have had less than cheerful, Facebook-y quotes or self-written blurbs, I've had some people comment that "You seem grumpy, you won't get friends that way." or some such. Some of those comments have come from people I know and others from strangers, which leaves me thinking wtf???

/me passes the smokey-thing from the other philosophical thread, allowing others in the dorm room to partake. "I find this to be deeply nihilistic, duuuude."

That's what I thought. Truthfully, I don't think about the Photo of the Day because I see enough SL photos via the forum and Flickr, plus none of my photos will ever make the cut for Photo of the Day (since they tend to favor post-processed images) (no, I'm not bitter ). So I checked the blog you snipped above, and saw what you said, that it is often but not every day, or even every work day. I don't know if it has always been so or not.