What is this thing called love?

[Oli]

Yes. I thought the story was silly. I liked the colors, though.

Then you missed of the point of the film.

How can that be?
Isn't performing your duties the highest satisfaction?
And if it isn't, then why perform those duties?

So if you loved someone but your duty prevented you being with them how would you feel?

 

[wynn]

Then you missed of the point of the film.

Interesting. Just what I've been getting at in the other thread on art!

You say, in the indicative, that I 'missed the point of the film'. As if there existed an 'objective point' of a film, and other people - like you - know it, but that I don't.

So if you loved someone but your duty prevented you being with them how would you feel?

I cannot relate to the issue.

 

[Oli]

Interesting. Just what I've been getting at in the other thread on art!
You say, in the indicative, that I 'missed the point of the film'. As if there existed an 'objective point' of a film, and other people - like you - know it, but that I don't.

I had this argument with my architecture tutor years ago: there many "points" to a film or book - the first being what the writer intended and the others being what readers/ watchers see.
Isaac Asimov was once invited to a literature class to discuss one of his books and the teacher began by deconstructing the story and telling the pupils what the theme of the book was.
Asimov interrupted the teacher and told him that he was completely mistaken as to theme.
And the teacher replied that Asimov had merely written the story: it was up to each reader to find the point that suited them based on their own experiences.
So I suppose the "point" of that was to say that THE point of ANY piece of art is WHATEVER the viewer/ reader/ listener thinks it is.
(Although there usually IS some general agreement).
So your take on the film wasn't necessarily wrong (although I'm fairly sure that "look at the nice colours" was not what was intended ), just, um, not what you'd call a majority view.
Personally the strongest chord that film struck in me was the love/ self-denial theme between Michelle Yeah and Chow Yun Fat: duty above gratification.
Meh, depends on how much of life you've seen and what's happened in your life.
I know guys for whom the film was nothing but spectacular fights - everything else went over their heads.

I cannot relate to the issue.

Okay how about this: you love her, she loves you. You're both married with kids, but not married to each other.
What do you do?
Do you do your duty and stay with your own families, trying to forget each other or do you hurt both families, possibly severely damaging the kids and think only of yourselves?

 

[wynn]

I had this argument with my architecture tutor years ago: there many "points" to a film or book - the first being what the writer intended and the others being what readers/ watchers see.

I know of this. For the most part, it is simply speculation about another person's intentions.
Sometimes, artists do state what their intention was for creating a particular work of art, but then there is the question of whether that statement is to be interpreted as art as well (ie. another set of 'What did he intend with stating his intentions about why he wrote that book?')

Isaac Asimov was once invited to a literature class to discuss one of his books and the teacher began by deconstructing the story and telling the pupils what the theme of the book was.
Asimov interrupted the teacher and told him that he was completely mistaken as to theme.
And the teacher replied that Asimov had merely written the story: it was up to each reader to find the point that suited them based on their own experiences.
So I suppose the "point" of that was to say that THE point of ANY piece of art is WHATEVER the viewer/ reader/ listener thinks it is.
(Although there usually IS some general agreement).

I actually went to study literary theory and criticism, seeing what the different approaches for talking about literature are.
The Reader Response approach that you mention above is just one of many. Some more are listed here, for example: http://www.cla.purdue.edu/blackmon/102cs2001/critical.html .

So the next questions are how and why to choose among these approaches, what justifies their existence?

What puzzles me also is that some people, notably teachers, are aware of the multitude of these approaches, yet they still do as if only one was the 'right one'.

So your take on the film wasn't necessarily wrong (although I'm fairly sure that "look at the nice colours" was not what was intended ), just, um, not what you'd call a majority view.

Fer shure.

Okay how about this: you love her, she loves you. You're both married with kids, but not married to each other.
What do you do?
Do you do your duty and stay with your own families, trying to forget each other or do you hurt both families, possibly severely damaging the kids and think only of yourselves?

I suppose I just don't give 'romantic love' as much importance as some other people do.
I also don't see how, with spouse and children, I would have time and opportunity to get to know someone else so well as to think that I love them romantically.

 

[Oli]

I know of this. For the most part, it is simply speculation about another person's intentions.

Oh no, you can speculate about the intentions (which is a lot of what art critics do), but what I meant is that each individual sees a meaning that is relevant to him.
I could look at piece of art and speculate about what the artist intended but that may well be nothing like what meaning the piece has for me.

Sometimes, artists do state what their intention was for creating a particular work of art, but then there is the question of whether that statement is to be interpreted as art as well (ie. another set of 'What did he intend with stating his intentions about why he wrote that book?')

Well with literature authors have been known to give large clues (or even direct statements) as to what the intent was.

I actually went to study literary theory and criticism, seeing what the different approaches for talking about literature are.
The Reader Response approach that you mention above is just one of many. Some more are listed here, for example: http://www.cla.purdue.edu/blackmon/102cs2001/critical.html .

Bookmarked, thanks.

So the next questions are how and why to choose among these approaches, what justifies their existence?

Deep territory.
How and why, heh, easy if you're still studying - follow the "party line" at least somewhat, that way you've got more chance of passing and fewer arguments (although it depends on WHY you're doing the course - my last stint at uni was purely for the arguments )
Justify their existence?
Of the approaches? If an approach produces results it's justified.
If a viewpoint means something to YOU it's justified, but a single individual's viewpoint may not be on the exam answer sheet.
That's life...

What puzzles me also is that some people, notably teachers, are aware of the multitude of these approaches, yet they still do as if only one was the 'right one'.

Time constraints?
Curriculum restraints?
The purpose of schools is to get a set of pupils through each year of schooling in one year - so they go with the majority view (the consensus) and possibly indicate other approaches.

Fer shure.

But it doesn't make it any less valid!
OTOH when you get asked by that hot intellectual babe to go for coffee and discuss films you better have something more to say than "pretty colours"

I suppose I just don't give 'romantic love' as much importance as some other people do.

Heh, it sneaks up on you.

I also don't see how, with spouse and children, I would have time and opportunity to get to know someone else so well as to think that I love them romantically.

It really can sneak up on you.

 

[wynn]

Oh no, you can speculate about the intentions (which is a lot of what art critics do), but what I meant is that each individual sees a meaning that is relevant to him.
I could look at piece of art and speculate about what the artist intended but that may well be nothing like what meaning the piece has for me.

Why should what you think be relevant to you?
Why should what I think be relevant to me?

Ever wondered about that? Why, in what way should my thoughts be relevant to me? They aren't relevant to most people I know.
I wonder where we get that notion from that our thoughts matter.

Well with literature authors have been known to give large clues (or even direct statements) as to what the intent was.

But these clues can also be taken the artistic way, not at face value.

For example, a while back, an art student, as part of her diploma, made pictures from what she stated was the blood and remains of the fetuses she aborted by herbal abortives. She stated her intention was to make the public aware of the issue of abortion or some such, along with a campaign, interviews etc.. Then later, she stated that the whole thing was fake and arranged and part of a media project.

But it doesn't make it any less valid!

That depends whom you ask, neh?

OTOH when you get asked by that hot intellectual babe to go for coffee and discuss films you better have something more to say than "pretty colours"

The role of the color scheme in a film isn't to be underestimated. After all, usually, when they make films, they carefully decide what sort of lenses and filters to use, and films differ in that very much.
The atmosphere of a film depends much on the used lenses and filters. Imagine the film would be shot in cinemascope, or in BW, or in sephia, or in some bluish tone etc. etc. What would come out would effectively be a different film.

Anyway, my point on the colors was just a precritical response - what I remembered about the film the most. I tend to notice and remember the colors - and through them, the atmosphere, the emotions, the plot.
To me, because the colors were on the whole rather mild, pastel, the love story didn't seem all that dramatic or tragic. I am sure I would feel differently about it if the film would on the whole be shot in more stark, contrasted colors.

It really can sneak up on you.

Well, I wouldn't know about that.

 

[Oli]

Why should what you think be relevant to you?
Why should what I think be relevant to me?

So whose opinion should I go for?
If I don't listen to me then I'm annoying other people for their opinion.

Ever wondered about that? Why, in what way should my thoughts be relevant to me? They aren't relevant to most people I know.
I wonder where we get that notion from that our thoughts matter.

If your thoughts don't matter to you what does?

But these clues can also be taken the artistic way, not at face value.

For example, a while back, an art student, as part of her diploma, made pictures from what she stated was the blood and remains of the fetuses she aborted by herbal abortives. She stated her intention was to make the public aware of the issue of abortion or some such, along with a campaign, interviews etc.. Then later, she stated that the whole thing was fake and arranged and part of a media project.

Wheels within wheels...
But she came clean at the end.
Possibly.

That depends whom you ask, neh?

Valid to you, at least.
Shikata ga nai...

The role of the color scheme in a film isn't to be underestimated. After all, usually, when they make films, they carefully decide what sort of lenses and filters to use, and films differ in that very much.
The atmosphere of a film depends much on the used lenses and filters. Imagine the film would be shot in cinemascope, or in BW, or in sephia, or in some bluish tone etc. etc. What would come out would effectively be a different film.

I think you just got yourself another half and a coffee with that woman...
So you do have a perspective on the film.

Anyway, my point on the colors was just a precritical response - what I remembered about the film the most. I tend to notice and remember the colors - and through them, the atmosphere, the emotions, the plot.
To me, because the colors were on the whole rather mild, pastel, the love story didn't seem all that dramatic or tragic. I am sure I would feel differently about it if the film would on the whole be shot in more stark, contrasted colors.

So you have your own perspective on the film (my apologies, I took it from your original wording that "pretty colours: period" was the only thing you'd got from the viewing).

Well, I wouldn't know about that.

Then you're either very lucky or very unlucky...

 

[swarm]

And, if there need be 'another', then what of self love?

Then self is the other.

So, I am thinking specifically about that feeling of love. At the moment when the feeling is there, what is it's true basis?

The way in which you interrelate with each other.

I can agree that romantic love is a lot of rot

What a shame. You are definately missing out.

 

[wynn]

So whose opinion should I go for?
If I don't listen to me then I'm annoying other people for their opinion.

I know, I do that too, sometimes ...

We can't and we don't believe everything we think (except perhaps for the utterly and severely self-enamored).
We also feel that our thoughts, our experiences, our emotions are not fully real unless we tell someone about them, and ask them about their opinion. It's not like one could live all by oneself, never talking to anyone - such a life situation tends to drive people crazy.

I've read in an introductory textbook to studying literature that the point of reading literature is 'enjoyment'.
And I agree, it surely can be an enjoyment to read literature all by yourself, or watch a film etc. all by yourself. But never talking to anyone about art, yet still trying to enjoy it - I think that makes a person crazy. First really really snobish and selfish, and then crazy. I've met some people who are like that, and the phenomenon is sometimes discussed in literary works as well.

But - enter social discourse - enter goals and guidelines of this discourse. You can't talk about just anything with just anyone in just any way.

Consider: we're practically strangers, discussing art and life on the internet - and are communicating in ways that normally would be reserved for people who are on good, friendly terms. Strange.

If your thoughts don't matter to you what does?

Thing is: I discard so many of my thoughts. Just because I have a thought, doesn't mean it's a good one. Obviously.
We are taught from early on to be selective in our thinking. But I don't recall many explicit lessons on how to structure, organize, evaluate our thinking. It seems as if we were supposed to 'pick it up somehow', along the way.

Shikata ga nai...

Which means?

I think you just got yourself another half and a coffee with that woman...
So you do have a perspective on the film.

I have a perspective on everything!

 

[Oli]

I know, I do that too, sometimes ...

Heh, but only sometimes: there are more dickheads than people truly worth listening to.

We can't and we don't believe everything we think (except perhaps for the utterly and severely self-enamored).

Or a typical SciForums woo woo.

We also feel that our thoughts, our experiences, our emotions are not fully real unless we tell someone about them, and ask them about their opinion.

Sometimes: when you get to the stage of deciding it's not worth passing on your thoughts it's time for change of scenery...

It's not like one could live all by oneself, never talking to anyone - such a life situation tends to drive people crazy.

It does pall after a while.

I've read in an introductory textbook to studying literature that the point of reading literature is 'enjoyment'.
And I agree, it surely can be an enjoyment to read literature all by yourself, or watch a film etc. all by yourself. But never talking to anyone about art, yet still trying to enjoy it - I think that makes a person crazy. First really really snobish and selfish, and then crazy. I've met some people who are like that, and the phenomenon is sometimes discussed in literary works as well.

It's a human thing - wanting to share.
Especially if it's good experience.

But - enter social discourse - enter goals and guidelines of this discourse. You can't talk about just anything with just anyone in just any way.

Never been in a British pub?

Consider: we're practically strangers, discussing art and life on the internet - and are communicating in ways that normally would be reserved for people who are on good, friendly terms. Strange.

Any second now you're going to start on "When I was a lad we didn't have ..."

Thing is: I discard so many of my thoughts. Just because I have a thought, doesn't mean it's a good one. Obviously.

And just because you discard it doesn't mean it was a bad one - only that it didn't fit with the current structure of how things are that you hold at the time.

We are taught from early on to be selective in our thinking. But I don't recall many explicit lessons on how to structure, organize, evaluate our thinking. It seems as if we were supposed to 'pick it up somehow', along the way.

If there were lessons wouldn't everyone end up with the same structure/ organisation/ evaluations?
Would that be good or bad?

Which means?

It varies: but in context for this case - how else?

I have a perspective on everything!

That helps.

 

[wynn]

Sometimes: when you get to the stage of deciding it's not worth passing on your thoughts it's time for change of scenery...

In 'American Beauty', Lester Burnham said: All is not lost as long as you can still surprise yourself. (Or something to that effect.)

It's a human thing - wanting to share.

I wonder how come.

Never been in a British pub?

Nope.

If there were lessons wouldn't everyone end up with the same structure/ organisation/ evaluations? Would that be good or bad?

People might be very alike then, in some ways, yes. I don't think this would be necessarily bad, though.
If the structure/ organisation/ evaluations would be those aligned perfectly with the workings of the Universe, that that would be wonderful. No pollution anymore!
Also, I think that with a good grounding in structure/ organisation/ evaluations, people could express their uniqueness in more meaningful, creative ways. That is, instead of just desperately trying to be speshal and going to great lengths to accomplish that (with doing a lot of harm and mistakes along the way), they could express their uniqueness without all that collateral damage.
But that seems a bit too good to be real!

 

[Oli]

In 'American Beauty', Lester Burnham said: All is not lost as long as you can still surprise yourself. (Or something to that effect.)

By switching disciplines...

I wonder how come.

Man is a social animal.

Nope.

It wouldn't be unheard of (in fact I've done it) to end up discussing philosophy with total strangers over a pint or two.

People might be very alike then, in some ways, yes. I don't think this would be necessarily bad, though.
If the structure/ organisation/ evaluations would be those aligned perfectly with the workings of the Universe, that that would be wonderful. No pollution anymore!
Also, I think that with a good grounding in structure/ organisation/ evaluations, people could express their uniqueness in more meaningful, creative ways. That is, instead of just desperately trying to be speshal and going to great lengths to accomplish that (with doing a lot of harm and mistakes along the way), they could express their uniqueness without all that collateral damage.
But that seems a bit too good to be real!

But innovation comes, generally, from those who don't organise/ evaluate their thoughts the same way as most others.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Jozen-bo:Conditional love and unconditional love. The first is shallow and weak, while the second is great and wondrous.

Oh I don't believe in unconditional love. All love is conditional, the closest one can get to unconditonal love is the bond or feeling a parent has for a child and even that can fail. Actually I would go as far as to say unconditional love is unhealthy, it means you are willing to give this affection whether someone is worthy or not. Can you love someone who is destructive or self-destructive? Maybe for a while but it would soon erode. I prefer a conditonal love that demands the beloved be the best they can be for themselves and others.

 

[Cyperium]

Could it 'love' be that sense of belonging? And if so, what is this sense?

Love is what keeps us together. Otherwise we would drift apart.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Love is a word we use to describe a feeling..... to explain love.... it is just a huge exageration of care or affection. you can care for people and love people on different levels. loving somebody is like saying I care about you x1000.

Love is a connection, a feeling, a bond, it is lots of thing's, isnt this taught in schools at liek the age of 4 while watching magic roundabout.?.


peace.

 

[Bells]

Chi!

Long time no see.

How are you? How is the baby?

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Hi lol, She is just fine, starting to talk and walk (run) she is like a little person now, at the copying everything you do stage.

How have you been?.


peace.

 

[Bells]

Hi lol, She is just fine, starting to talk and walk (run) she is like a little person now, at the copying everything you do stage.

How have you been?.


peace.

Pretty good.

Good to see that you are back and that the baby is doing well!

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Pretty good.

Good to see that you are back and that the baby is doing well!

I came back to see how you guys have progressed philosophicaly and ethicaly. I am dissapointed.

But anyway yeah I realised something, I love babies and toddlers they are great. Not just mine all the little babies and kids I meet now lol. They are so honest and pure and free, you all have alot to learn from small children. they're so great.

peace.

 

[swarm]

How did we manage without you to judge us?