What is timeless?

Patrick, I see you got time on your hands. What do you score on <a

href="http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=23320">this quiz</a>? (You

can paste your result into <a href="http://localhost/entry/41">this

page</a> on my site.)

Ooops, bad habits of copying and pasting are getting into me. The correct link to the page on my website: <a href="http://www.eugenescherba.com/entry/41">http://www.eugenescherba.com/entry/41</a>.

Looks like I'm a postmodern existentialist. Well, duh.

The important thing, Colm, is that you scored ;)

<i>The important thing, Colm, is that you scored ;)</I><p>

Frequently, my good man...

Cool,

 

I did the test twice and scored 100% Existentialist / 100% Materialist first time, and 100% Existentialist / 100% Modernist the second time.

100% idealist... and yet somehow regularily grumpy... then again i guess idealists have more to get grumpy over. ;)

Grumpy is a normal part of the human condition.

 

For what ever it's worth:

 

Cultural Creative 100%

Romanticist....... 75%

Existentialist.... 75%

Fundamentalist.... 69%

Idealist.......... 50%

Postmodernist..... 44%

Materialist....... 25%

Modernist......... 19%

<p>I enjoy your way of thinking, Peter. Although I wanted the thread

to die at one point, I would still love a little elaboration on what

you mean by

"collective perspective" and how it relates to time. Your comment

makes visceral sense to me, don't know why, probably because of

your, 'hem, original style of writing.</p>

 

<p>And after I make that clear to myself: DIE, this thread, DIE!</p>

If you want a thread to die, then stop coming back to it.

Back again, the only thing that is timeless is time, because we don't know how long it may last, so must assume it is infinite.

 

Right?

Now really Eugene, how can a thread on timelessness ever... REALLY die??? ;)

 

Ben, many ancient cultures had a much more "timeless" concept of time itself than we do. We tend to think of time as this line that extends from point A (creation/bigbang) to point B (the end of the universe, death, whatever). The ancient mayan shamanitc tradition... (and likely others) looked at time as being a sort of amalgam of this linear idea and a more "timeless" (possibly much much older) version in which the cycle of each year represents a microcosm of the full cycle of the linear scale. Throughout the year they celebrated ceremonies which recounted specific events in the story of creation. So before the new-years they celebrated the end of the world and the forces of chaos descending upon the earth to destroy it followed by the birth of a new order. Shaman priests had a duty to preform the ceremonies to assure that the following year would indeed happen at all.

 

And ancient Europeans probably beleived in a similar concept... or else we wouldnt have the figure of the reaper (Saturn) and the baby to this day on new-years decorations. In fact its not too hard to imagine a world without the long term linear scale of time.... a world where every spring is the beginning of a new year... where the same souls come back to earth to repopulate the planet after their death. Where little seems to change year after year. I think that is probably an essence of timelessness. That a moment could encapsulate all of time as a microcosm reflecting all of history. And that is not a new idea, but a very very very old one.

<i><blockquote> So for you Picasso is not enough

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

For me, eighty years says nothing about 'timeless.' That it does to some is timelessly

amusing.

<p>No, Bailey, "timelessness" is not about time. Time is just

another dimension as far as art goes. There is also the cultural

dimension, the social dimension, the psychological dimension, the

semantic dimension. What works a long way across one of these

dimensions will (usually) work across other dimensions as well.</p>

 

<p>Timelessness is just one of those spiritually-charged values that

people like to assign, but which, in reality, has nothing to do with

time. It is related to the concept of "perfection." Usually, people

only name "perfect" things timeless -- things that appear "perfect"

to them. By naming "perfect" things timeless, people even further

hide the effects of the subjective variable on their definitions,

but, in reality, the variable remains a variable. I couldn't have

said it better than Nietzsche:</p>

 

<blockquote><p><i>Perfection said not to have evolved</i>. When

something is

perfect, we tend to neglect to ask about its evolution, delighting

rather in what is present, as if it had risen from the ground by

magic. In this regard we are probably still under the influence of

an ancient mythological sentiment. We still feel (in a Greek temple

like the one at Paestum, for example) <i>almost</i> as if a god,

playing

one morning, had built his residence out of these enormous masses;

at other times as if a soul had all of a sudden magically entered

into a stone and now wished to use it to speak. The artist knows

that his work has its full effect only when it arouses belief in an

improvisation, in a wondrous instantaneousness of origin; and so he

encourages this illusion and introduces into art elements of

inspired unrest, of blindly groping disorder, of expectantly

attentive dreaming when creation begins, as deceptions that dispose

the soul of the viewer or listener to believe in the sudden

emergence of perfection.</p>

<p>As is self-evident, the science of art must oppose this illusion

most firmly, and point out the false conclusions and

self-indulgences of the intellect that drive it into the artist's

trap. </p> <p>(Nietzsche, <i>Human, All Too Human</i>. IV,

145)</p></blockquote>

 

<p>That's exactly the trap whoever believes there is anything more

timeless than, say, <i>a language</i> falls into.</p>

"It is related to the concept of "perfection.""

 

Sorry, the act of being timeless, has nothing to do with "perfection."

 

Try again. :)

I'll give you a clue why it has nothing to do with perfection......

 

All things are perfect, anything perceived as otherwise is nothing more then a reflection of our insecurities.

<p>Hello again, Thomas.</p>

 

<p>> All things are perfect, anything perceived as otherwise is

nothing more then a reflection of our insecurities.</p>

 

<p>This is correct.</p>

 

<p>I rephrase: All things are imperfect, anything perceived as

otherwise is nothing more then a reflection of our insecurities.</p>

 

<p>This is also correct (and don't you dare to say it is not ;)

Well, you can say it is not correct, but please support it.</p>

 

<p>Obviously, the concept of perfection is not useful in defining

anything objectively as your statement "all things are perfect"

suggests. Perfection is defined and redefined in a context, always

by a mind's eye -- your eye, my eye, somebody else's eye. Every

signification, every operation of anyone's exclamation "this is

perfect" is an operation of redefinition. In other words, the

concept of perfection is not stable on the level of an individual,

which means that such a concept is not stable on any given

superindividual level.</p>

 

<p>Of course, semantically, "timeless" is not "perfect." I was not

talking about semantics when I said timelessness is related to

perfection. I offer you an example at what level I am treating

perfection as a concept: Descartes' second proof for the existence

of God (it's [in]validity is not important here): God is perfect;

existence is a perfection; therefore God exists.</p>

 

<p>Following the very same argument (still invalid, but that's not

the point): Timelessness is a perfection because perfection is

timeless.</p>

 

<p>Now comes the hard stuff: whether you agree with me or not,

timelessness is an idealistic concept because it relies on a value

proposition. <i>Same</i> applies to perfection. This is the way in

which timelessness and perfection are related. It is a family-based

relation, a hierarchical relation, not a semantic relation.</p>

The rub, both time and perfection are constructs of humanity:)

Patrick, interesting about ancient civilizations and how close those old values of time and timelessness still are to our minds, or genes.

 

Eugene, cool idea to reverse the perfect imperfect concept.

<p>> The rub, both time and perfection are constructs of humanity:)

</p>

 

<p>I told you they are related!</p>

"I told you they are related!"

 

As a tree is to an ocean liner. When I write that there's a rub, it means the same as saying there's a flaw.

 

Being contructs of humanity, doesn't make them related as it only makes them, along with many other ideas, in simplist terms, strictly a human construct to help define (time) and give meaning to our pitiful egocentric existance (perfection.)

 

Siiiiigh!

 

Get a bit of soul and neither have matter or meaning to one other than being used as a tool in which to help arrive at the dentist on time and be able to tell if the job on their teeth, was done right:)

 

Thoreau, where for art thou as I wish an Amish farm without the Amish politics:)

At this time, I'll encourage you to have the last word as I don't wish this to become a timeless exercise.

 

Wishing you well.

Thomas, a honest question: Do you think I am crazy enough not to see a difference between a tree and an ocean liner?

Not crazy enough for that, but....

Photographic Timelessness...

devoid of fashion that dates the photo. i.e. clothing, shoes, accessories

something that could have been appreciated in 1920 the same way it is appreciated in

2075.

 

Madonna dates herself in the 1980's. When you look at photographs of her then you know

that you are looking at the 80's.

 

Nagel (omg i spoke this name) is dated. therefore not timeless.

 

The Mona Lisa is timeless. Although in my opinion, ugly. Sorry da Vinci.

 

Janice Joplin is dated, you know you are looking at the 1960's. Hendrix... etc.

 

A lot of portraits of people are timeless, depending on the clothing they are wearing. A lot

of nudes are timeless, unless they are wearing shoes that put a date stamp on the image.

 

I guess you would have to know your fashion.