"Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits."

[shogun rua]

"... Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking."

--Albert Einstein

[ebbomega]

Written before television, home theatres, internet and video games.

People read a lot more back then. Somehow I don't think it's valid anymore.

[shogun rua]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Written before television, home theatres, internet and video games.

People read a lot more back then. Somehow I don't think it's valid anymore.

I think it's the difference between being passive and active as my mom likes to point out.

You have people who are "passionate" about music, but nowadays that usually means having 10,000 songs on their ipod and if you ask them if they've ever tried to play music they look at you funny.

Likewise for obese beer swilling 300 pound sports fan critics like Dan Russell (aka comic book guy) who live and die for their "sport".

It's really easy to get caught up on the wrong side of the fence in this respect I think.

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by shogun rua

I think it's the difference between being passive and active as my mom likes to point out.

You have people who are "passionate" about music, but nowadays that usually means having 10,000 songs on their ipod and if you ask them if they've ever tried to play music they look at you funny.

Likewise for obese beer swilling 300 pound sports fan critics like Dan Russell (aka comic book guy) who live and die for their "sport".

It's really easy to get caught up on the wrong side of the fence in this respect I think.

That's one way of looking at it, but I don't think your example with "passionate" about music really clicks. Think it is quite possible to be passionate about music, without having ever picked up an instrument.

And for your example of Dan Russell, I think it's an interest in broadcasting and talk radio rather then exclusively sports. In fact I know this for a fact, he's always been huge into radio, specifically talk, and actually formed Vancouver's sports radio because of this love. So for him, it's not really a passive thing, it's quite active.

[shogun rua]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

That's one way of looking at it, but I don't think your example with "passionate" about music really clicks. Think it is quite possible to be passionate about music, without having ever picked up an instrument.

perhaps you can be passionate about it, but again you're just being a consumer rather than being creative about it (root word "to create"). And don't tell me that your average music lover never dreamed of playing the stuff he heard or making up his own stuff.

It's like those people who read books until the cows come home or your various career students pushing 30 who are vain about the latest theories they've acquired, but really, what is the net effect on the rest of society? Knowledge without action is like silver in the mine.

Therefore your appreciation level is less involved than it could be.

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

And for your example of Dan Russell, I think it's an interest in broadcasting and talk radio rather then exclusively sports. In fact I know this for a fact, he's always been huge into radio, specifically talk, and actually formed Vancouver's sports radio because of this love. So for him, it's not really a passive thing, it's quite active.

I've only heard him talk about sports, and even then it always seemed like he was living vicariously through the Canucks.

Barring some kind of disability, I would tell him that talk is cheap. Not because he needs to prove something to others, but because being out there in the arena is fun whether its ping pong or UFC or hockey.

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by shogun rua

perhaps you can be passionate about it, but again you're just being a consumer rather than being creative about it (root word "to create"). And don't tell me that your average music lover never dreamed of playing the stuff he heard or making up his own stuff.

I have met several people far more passionate and with a deeper understanding of music then I have, who don't play any instruments. Talk to a real symphony lover, and they can go into great details about the composition and harmonies, with more knowledge and passion then the average guitar player could.

Therefore your appreciation level is less involved than it could be.I've only heard him talk about sports, and even then it always seemed like he was living vicariously through the Canucks.

I've heard him talk about broadcasting, and he has a passion for it few people could appreciate. Hell, he's been doing it for thirty years, and practiced every day till he got his first job at 18 in his basement with a mic and turntables he had set up.

My point is, he's not disconnected from Sports Broadcasting, he's incredibly active in broadcasting, and combines it with his love of sports. I wouldn't put him down as being "passive" in this at all.

That, and every sports broadcaster in the city has a sports background before they started broadcasting.

[ebbomega]

So what about DJing? Is it possible for a DJ to be passionate about music without ever having picked up an instrument?

[shogun rua]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

So what about DJing? Is it possible for a DJ to be passionate about music without ever having picked up an instrument?

the turntable is his instrument

[ebbomega]

Sorry, disagree. 99.99% of DJ's don't make music, they simply play other people's.

Performance art yes, musicianship no.

Maybe if you're talking about Amon Tobin, Kid Koala, Cut Chemist or guys like that, but that doesn't represent the vast majority of DJs.

[decypher]

Interesting conversation starter. Although, for Einstein, without any context you don't know whether Einstein was talking about reading in general or reading the novel and popular fiction. The elites back in the day used to look down on novels and popular fiction as a medium that degraded culture and intellect.

It's possible he was talking about that because the argument has been around forever.

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by shogun rua

the turntable is his instrument

Uh, no.

[shogun rua]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Sorry, disagree. 99.99% of DJ's don't make music, they simply play other people's.

Performance art yes, musicianship no.

Maybe if you're talking about Amon Tobin, Kid Koala, Cut Chemist or guys like that, but that doesn't represent the vast majority of DJs.

I was thinking more of Tiesto, but yeah i forget about the more common kind.

Yah they don't really make music, but they do modify it. It's trying at least.

[ebbomega]

Tiesto does even less work with the turntables. He puts on pre-produced tracks and then stands around in front of the decks and waves his arms around.

Point is, it's art and it's productive. But really what a DJ's art is is to display their appreciation of the music - and IMO the best DJs are the ones who can play songs that you might not normally be into, but given how they present it, you actually enjoy it. They're able to communicate what makes _THEM_ appreciate the music so much to the audience, that then the audience appreciates it.

The point that's being made is that you don't absolutely have to be a musician to be a true appreciator of said music, and to make it an active part of your life. DJs do it. So do promoters, agents, music industry execs, and all the billions of other people involved in bringing music to the world that aren't actually musicians.

The same goes for anything - as long as you're providing or being active about something, you don't have to be right in the middle of it all to contribute.

[shogun rua]

Originally Posted by decypher

Interesting conversation starter. Although, for Einstein, without any context you don't know whether Einstein was talking about reading in general or reading the novel and popular fiction. The elites back in the day used to look down on novels and popular fiction as a medium that degraded culture and intellect.

It's possible he was talking about that because the argument has been around forever.

I think the statement is pretty self explanatory.

It's about being acutely aware of reality and the nature of things, having initiative, and using your imagination.

Did Adam Smith compile a bibliography before he set out to describe the "hidden hand" of freemarket capitalism? or did he sit at a busy port and ask himself, how the hell do indian spices, persian rugs, indonesian rubber, chinese porcelain, and german timber all find itself in one place? who directs this?

[shogun rua]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Tiesto does even less work with the turntables. He puts on pre-produced tracks and then stands around in front of the decks and waves his arms around.

Point is, it's art and it's productive. But really what a DJ's art is is to display their appreciation of the music - and IMO the best DJs are the ones who can play songs that you might not normally be into, but given how they present it, you actually enjoy it. They're able to communicate what makes _THEM_ appreciate the music so much to the audience, that then the audience appreciates it.

The point that's being made is that you don't absolutely have to be a musician to be a true appreciator of said music, and to make it an active part of your life. DJs do it. So do promoters, agents, music industry execs, and all the billions of other people involved in bringing music to the world that aren't actually musicians.

The same goes for anything - as long as you're providing or being active about something, you don't have to be right in the middle of it all to contribute.

my example was a bit simplistic but you get my point

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by shogun rua

my example was a bit simplistic but you get my point

I'm not entirely sure. Your point is pretty poorly argued.

I would argue that 99% of dj's could hardly be considered "modifying" music in any sense. Most of them just mix the ends of songs together to string a bunch of songs together.

I cut out commercials on my PVR when I watch TV, but I hardly consider it being active in TV.

Some of the most influential people in creative pursuits, aren't the creative ones.

Any show I've played I've seen tons of people behind the scenes, doing more for the music then I was. Sound guys, don't create music, but are actively participating in it. Promoters don't create music, but are actively participating in it.

To be an active participant in a creative endeavor, you don't necessarily have to be the one holding the tool.

You can be the center of attention, but there are just as many people behind you working just as hard as you.

And even the people watching it, can have an active appreciation of it as well.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by shogun rua

my example was a bit simplistic but you get my point

No, I don't get your point. At all. Or if I do, I disagree with it.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by shogun rua

I think the statement is pretty self explanatory.

It's about being acutely aware of reality and the nature of things, having initiative, and using your imagination.

*sigh*

You can stimulate this by reading, so your argument is invalid.

Robert A. Heinlein taught me more about the human condition than Freud ever did.

[shogun rua]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

*sigh*

You can stimulate this by reading, so your argument is invalid.

Robert A. Heinlein taught me more about the human condition than Freud ever did.

So if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo, you know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientations, the whole works, right? But I'll bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling; seen that. If I ask you about women, you'd probably give me a syllabus about your personal favorites. You may have even been laid a few times. But you can't tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy. You're a tough kid. And I'd ask you about war, you'd probably throw Shakespeare at me, right, "once more unto the breach dear friends."

But you've never been near one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap, watch him gasp his last breath looking to you for help. I'd ask you about love, you'd probably quote me a sonnet. But you've never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable. Known someone that could level you with her eyes, feeling like God put an angel on earth just for you. Who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn't know what it's like to be her angel, to have that love for her, be there forever, through anything, through cancer.

And you wouldn't know about sleeping sitting up in the hospital room for two months, holding her hand, because the doctors could see in your eyes, that the terms "visiting hours" don't apply to you. You don't know about real loss, 'cause it only occurs when you've loved something more than you love yourself. And I doubt you've ever dared to love anybody that much. And look at you... I don't see an intelligent, confident man... I see a cocky, scared shitless kid.

[shogun rua]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

*sigh*

You can stimulate this by reading, so your argument is invalid.

Robert A. Heinlein taught me more about the human condition than Freud ever did.

reading is milk.

imagination and reasoning is solid food.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by shogun rua

I think the statement is pretty self explanatory.

It's about being acutely aware of reality and the nature of things, having initiative, and using your imagination.

Did Adam Smith compile a bibliography before he set out to describe the "hidden hand" of freemarket capitalism? or did he sit at a busy port and ask himself, how the hell do indian spices, persian rugs, indonesian rubber, chinese porcelain, and german timber all find itself in one place? who directs this?

The wealth of nations was written over two hundred years ago, observations alone do not mean you are aware of the nature of reality and if that book where written today it wouldn't make the cut. They didn't have sttatistical information to examine two hundred years ago the way they do now so the bar is set much higher. Imagination and intiative are powerful skills but they don't make someone acutely aware of anything.

I think what you are trying to point out is the failure to correctly value the ablity to think ciriticaly. Which is an interesting stance to take since it is very clear that you lack those skills yourself. Conversely its also interesting that you constantly rail against education because critical thinking is something that is primarily taught in a liberal arts education, it is not an inate ability.

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by shogun rua

So if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo, you know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientations, the whole works, right? But I'll bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling; seen that. If I ask you about women, you'd probably give me a syllabus about your personal favorites. You may have even been laid a few times. But you can't tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy. You're a tough kid. And I'd ask you about war, you'd probably throw Shakespeare at me, right, "once more unto the breach dear friends."

But you've never been near one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap, watch him gasp his last breath looking to you for help. I'd ask you about love, you'd probably quote me a sonnet. But you've never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable. Known someone that could level you with her eyes, feeling like God put an angel on earth just for you. Who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn't know what it's like to be her angel, to have that love for her, be there forever, through anything, through cancer.

And you wouldn't know about sleeping sitting up in the hospital room for two months, holding her hand, because the doctors could see in your eyes, that the terms "visiting hours" don't apply to you. You don't know about real loss, 'cause it only occurs when you've loved something more than you love yourself. And I doubt you've ever dared to love anybody that much. And look at you... I don't see an intelligent, confident man... I see a cocky, scared shitless kid.

Posting a monologue by a character to explain why you have to do things/experience things for yourself, rather the write a retort yourself is probably the most self defeating thing I've ever scene.

I mean the whole way that he knocks down Matt Damon's character is to point out, he can't actually argue his points himself, he can only quote others...

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by shogun rua

So if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo, you know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientations, the whole works, right? But I'll bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling; seen that. If I ask you about women, you'd probably give me a syllabus about your personal favorites. You may have even been laid a few times. But you can't tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy. You're a tough kid. And I'd ask you about war, you'd probably throw Shakespeare at me, right, "once more unto the breach dear friends."

But you've never been near one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap, watch him gasp his last breath looking to you for help. I'd ask you about love, you'd probably quote me a sonnet. But you've never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable. Known someone that could level you with her eyes, feeling like God put an angel on earth just for you. Who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn't know what it's like to be her angel, to have that love for her, be there forever, through anything, through cancer.

And you wouldn't know about sleeping sitting up in the hospital room for two months, holding her hand, because the doctors could see in your eyes, that the terms "visiting hours" don't apply to you. You don't know about real loss, 'cause it only occurs when you've loved something more than you love yourself. And I doubt you've ever dared to love anybody that much. And look at you... I don't see an intelligent, confident man... I see a cocky, scared shitless kid.

Did you spend a lot of time on that strawman? I sure hope not.

[decypher]

Originally Posted by shogun rua

I think the statement is pretty self explanatory.

It's about being acutely aware of reality and the nature of things, having initiative, and using your imagination.

Did Adam Smith compile a bibliography before he set out to describe the "hidden hand" of freemarket capitalism? or did he sit at a busy port and ask himself, how the hell do indian spices, persian rugs, indonesian rubber, chinese porcelain, and german timber all find itself in one place? who directs this?

Yes I see it's obvious rhetorical value. I'm more interested in what it means in it's original context, because the excerpt conveyed is pretty stupid considering reading does not make you subservient or unimaginative. If anything reading allowed for people to have inner conversations that could be seen as individually created thoughts rather then information put there by a higher power.

So to read is to be "acutely aware of reality and the nature of things, having initiative, and using your imagination."

Now if you are talking about a specific type of reading or type of individual practice with some sort of context then you have a debate. Otherwise you just have unimaginative rhetoric.

[shogun rua]

Originally Posted by decypher

Yes I see it's obvious rhetorical value. I'm more interested in what it means in it's original context, because the excerpt conveyed is pretty stupid considering reading does not make you subservient or unimaginative. If anything reading allowed for people to have inner conversations that could be seen as individually created thoughts rather then information put there by a higher power.

He's saying reading past a certain age.

It is a stepping stone, if a stepping stone is required, towards using your own mind instead of trying to comprehend what others are thinking all the time.

For people like SEAN! and the like who treat the work of old intellectuals as holy writ it's really fucken sad. We inhabit the same world as they did.

Instead of going to school and writing scholarly articles about their words that later turn out to be typos how about using your own brain? Oh wait, we're gormless until we shell thousands of dollars to go to a church of the state and a priest declares us educated with the powers of "critical thinking"

Originally Posted by decypher

So to read is to be "acutely aware of reality and the nature of things, having initiative, and using your imagination."

No I'm saying not reading does that.