What is timeless?

[Landrum Kelly]

You haven't cited anyone that I haven't read, Eugene. Why on earth are you attributing views and characteristics to me that I do not have?

 

I have been studying philosophy since before you were born. You gave up on argumentation from your first line on Tony's POW.

 

I do philosophy. I am teaching this very semester three upper division preps in social and political theory and finishing another book manuscript. I don't need this nonsense.

 

Seek professional help.

[beeman458]

"The opposite applies as well. No, I haven't visited Amazonian jungle, but I don't think I have to."

 

Then don't make pronouncements on that what you don't know. Makes for a more rational conversation.

 

One thing you haven't gotten a grip on yet, cultural appreciation is a two way street in that "all" cultures appreciate similarities and differences.

 

What you did was go back to a very restricted and cloistered culture, stone age in nature and then tried to apply this unique Amazonian situation across the board as being a generalized fact for all earthly humanity and then apply it to humanity a thousand years in the future. Your theory/premise falls flat on it's face from the beginning because it's human nature to be interested in new things and considering the statuary that I speak of, BC Roman stone work, is high stone age art, I think your buddies in the Amazon might appreciate it more then you're willing to give them credit for. Why? Because dollar to doughnuts, they ain't stupid and only stupid people would try to do what you suggested they would do.

[jon w.]

As my previous post on this topic suggests, I more or less agree with Eugene. As a professional historian, the word 'timeless' always makes me froth at the mouth, though I don't think it is accurate to refer to alleged 'timelessness' as a 'style': rather the term tends to be triggered by certain positive features (mist, fog, 'emotive' facial expressions or postures that are emphatic and easy to decipher, decontextualised and deeroticised nudes, nature w/out any obvious signs of human intervention) and certain absences (anything that is too obviously culturally specific or obsolete). The notion is definitely connected to Romanticism. Might be interesting to consider the relation between 'timelessness' and 'progress' (as applied to art rather than science), since the two are presumably antithetical. Also worth noting that photographic technology is not 'timeless'. To use black and white chemical photography now (as I do) is to be consciously obsolete, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Depends what you do with that knowledge.

[eugene_scherba]

<p>Lannie, there is reading, and then there is reading. I pity

whoever you teach.</p>

 

<p>And what the ***, Lannie, does my age have to do with this? It

does not have to do with this anymore than your mother. I am sick of

people even mentioning this. I do not know who your

mother is or was, and I do not talk about your mother on this forum,

okay?</p>

 

<p>Thomas, what you are doing is you are interpreting humoristic

statements literally. I was not making literal claims about

amazonian indians. I have seen, however, many cases of people

failing to understand why I considered this or that aspect of nature

beautiful, and, on the other hand, I failed many times to appreciate

other people's ideals of beauty. I have seen, for example, people

completely failing to understand why I considered storm clouds

majestic. To them, they were just clouds. I bet there is something

else important to some person that I will fail to understand. I am

completely jaded to sunsets, for one thing. It often has something

to do with culture. For example, in agricultural regions of Ukraine,

birds of prey for a long time were considered as pests, and I

remember hearing a honest reaction of a person upon seeing a hawk

"how ugly it is," while I thought that the hawk was actually

beautiful. This is just one example of many.</p>

 

<p>Being an immigrant myself, Thomas, I am rejecting any of your

claims that I do not have a grip on cross-cultural appreciation as

absurd. I am willing to take issue with this and prove it if you

want to, with references if you would like to.</p>

 

<p>Jonathan, yes, absolutely, my calling "timelessness" a style is a

huge stretch. This was intended to demonstrate that there are

patterns that evoke it, nothing more.</p>

[beeman458]

"" Being an immigrant myself, Thomas, I am rejecting any of your claims that I do not have a grip on cross-cultural appreciation as absurd. I am willing to take issue with this and prove it if you want to, with references if you would like to."

 

I'd like that as that's not what I said. Let's see what I said. Hmmmmm! Nothing about immigration. Nope. Didn't say that "you" didn't have a grip on "cross-cultural appreciation." You might want to read my quote below and make note of the comma between "...yet..." and "...cultural..."

 

Context is the first thing to go online:) Nothing that I wrote in my below, after "yet" had anything to do with "you" as I was making a pronouncement that you aren't showing an awareness of. It would help if you addressed that what was written unless your intent is polemic.

 

" One thing you haven't gotten a grip on yet, cultural appreciation is a two way street in that "all" cultures appreciate similarities and differences."

 

Clouds are good as are sunsets.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3025192&size=lg

[eugene_scherba]

Thomas, you are right on this one; I misread what you said (what was

that again?), and I was overly defensive after Lannie's ad hominem

attacks. Thanks for correcting me. You still

haven't proven that "timeless" things are appreciated across all

cultures (and I know they are, only, I believe, same ones aren't and

can't be).

[eugene_scherba]

<center><img border=2px

src="http://www.eugenescherba.com/medium/42dd7a9d8ae37"><p>Japanese

tourists

visiting Musee Picasso in Paris</p></center>

[eugene_scherba]

aaah, so this is what it takes on PN to get some real answers. I

will ponder more closely on your post tomorrow, Ben. I believe there

is a good reason the Encyclopedia you mentioned doesn't list

timelessness. I repeat myself again, my calling timelessness a

'style' was purely demonstrative. But I am going to bed now.

[beeman458]

"You still haven't proven that "timeless" things are appreciated across all cultures (and I know they are, only, I believe, same ones aren't and can't be)."

 

Question. Do we live in a multi-cultural world? Yes or no?

 

If yes, my case is made.

 

The world isn't an enigma. Some enjoy making it as such as if it's enigmatic then they can wallow in their prejudices.

 

There is good and bad everywhere and it will follow, unrequested into the future as it's part of the human condition. The human condition is predictable, it's not enigmatic. But if it's made conveniently enigmatic, then one has built in excuses.

 

Siiiiigh!

 

I commented on the emotional nature of timeless and it seems to have gotten lost. Shrug. What again?

 

Is "timelessness" studium or punctum?

 

It's both as you have to be attracted in a visceral way in order to be affected emotionally.

 

The universiality (timelessness) of Shakespeare is that with little amending, he could be writing about any time, place or society as he nailed the human condition as his efforts are as valid today as they were then and his writings on society will be as valid in a thousand years as they were when he put quill to paper.

 

Humanity has what I term common threads. Threads that are common for all people, in all societies, through out time; clothing, food, language and emotions. Even your buddies in the Amazon jungles suffer undeniably from these basal human conditions. How these conditions are played out vary but the differences aren't important. What's important is the point that communication of want's and needs are universal and this universiality is the basis of timelessness.

 

I don't want to know where a person is from or what their origin is as these are only superficial social trappings in nature. Take away the superficiality of society and you're left with the primitive and this primitive is the basis of timeless as in the end it's what we all are.

 

Remember, there is no such thing as time as time is a creation of mankind to define their existence in the continuum.

[ben_holland]

Thomas, let me see if I understand you

 

You say, "The world isn't an enigma... The human condition is predictable, it's not enigmatic."

 

So if an "enigma" is something that is mysterious, perplexing, or difficult to understand, and

you don't find the world or the human condition to be that way, are you suggesting that you

actually believe that you understand and know it all?

 

Surely I misunderstood your comments.

[beeman458]

"...are you suggesting that you actually believe that you understand and know it all?"

 

Not at all but people "are" predictable and are not enigmatic. The only thing about people that I find amazing is their ability to shovel it and pretend they aren't.

 

Leaving crazy people; medical conditions out of my above.

[beeman458]

"The world isn't an enigma."

 

A clarification of my above.

 

It should read, The world of humanity isn't an enigma." I don't try and lay claim to being omniscent. Sorry for the omission.

[patrick j dempsey]

I just dont buy this Picasso thing... if Picasso is timeless then I think I must be in the wrong dimension or something.

[ben_holland]

Patrick, I can definitely relate. Because my parents weren't into formal abstract art for me

to grow up with a supportive exposure to it, it wasn't until my final semester in painting

that I finally "got" Picasso. Thank God. Prior to that his work only appeared to me (I'm

embarrassed to say) like a complete crock (excepting his bull's head made from a bicycle

seat and handlebars, which I found easily accessible). I honestly believed he was all flash,

no substance, so if I got past that, I feel pretty much anybody can get there if they're

genuinely open to it. Just be very patient. I don't recall exactly what it was, probably

some sort of cumulative exposure I suppose, but after hours and hours of looking, over

several years, his work finally came into perspective for me.

 

I feel like it was more of a gift, because my conscious effort wasn't getting me very far into

his work, I was being too prejudicial. For myself, I really just had to expose my eyes and

heart to the truth of his work and accept and trust that it was beyond my ability to

comprehend at the time, which it certainly was. Most of his work is, and remains, very

advanced because he was advancing the world of art in so many ways. The above painting

hangs in the museum where I went to school, so I had the luxury of being able to go and

stand in front of this small masterpiece to reflect undisturbed for long periods of time.

 

After graduating, I was fortunate enough to eventually travel to to Paris where I saw "Le

Dernier", a show of his last great canvases at the Pompidou Center, where something else

struck me - the best canvases in the show were owned by his family. It's like he

recognized and reserved most of his very best work for his own family. And like with any

painting, the real thing is as different from a color reproduction in a book, as a color

reproduction is from a black and white. Seeing them in the flesh is essential. I suppose I

place Picasso in the came category as Jimi Hendrix - so searingly ahead of his time, and in

a revolutionary way, that it's initially difficult to comprehend. But once you develop a

taste, the work is there before you to enjoy and marvel at.

[William Kahn]

In my first post, I said that there is no rational definition of timelessness. This thread has certainly ratified that observation, to my (gratification? Dismay?).

 

Art that is timeless to me will remain so until I die. After that, the next generation will decide what is, and what is not. And the next, and the next, ad infinitum or destructum. Some of what I hold as timeless may or may not still be around then. But, after my ashes have settled into the soil of my favorite canyon wilderness, I really won't give a damn.

 

And that, my friends, is the bottom line for each of us.....

[eugene_scherba]

<p>Thomas, a lot of what you say is right. However, to me at least, it seems that you are missing some key points.</p>

 

<p>You say: <i>The universiality (timelessness) of Shakespeare is that with little amending, he could be writing about any time, place or society as he nailed the human condition as his efforts are as valid today as they were then and his writings on society will be as valid in a thousand years as they were when he put quill to paper. </i></p>

 

<p>I am sure it would be fun for you to read this: <a href="http://www.fieldworking.com/library/bohannan.html">Shakespeare in the Bush</a>.</p>

[beeman458]

You might find this comment/response of mine interesting; from another thread which I'm currently participating in.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E7fN

 

"My nature, (your work is excellent) rigid upsets my stomach considerably as if I had been put in a condemned man's room and the key thrown away. I see WA cause that's how I see in real life. My images, iconoclastic as that's my conservative nature; go figure, an anarchist in conservative's clothing:)

 

I made an image on Friday, nothing like your efforts, but reflective of my efforts and while doing so, I didn't make an image that I saw while on site. The image that I didn't make and may go back and create would have been a stitched hundred and eighty degree pano of wide open nothingness; only sand, sea and foggy sky. No people, birds, buildings or anything, just sand, sea and foggy sky; the ultimate in anarchy:)"

 

I'll check the link out later today as the day job is calling. Thanks for the thought.

[beeman458]

"Shakespeare in the Bush"

 

That was funny. Thanks!

 

Doesn't change my pronouncement, only encourages it as Shakespeare would only need to ammend to accomodate cultural differences but with relatively little modification they go it and it worked for them..... according to their culture.

 

People have been zooming people for thousands of years and will continue to the end of humanity's existance in the continuum cause people zooming people, is a timeless action:) LOL

[patrick j dempsey]

Maybe some of us dont consider the modern movement to exactly be an "advancement" ;) I think modernism is something you really have to be conditioned to appreciate... and god forbid I ever start thinking I should paint a room all white, or that coffee makes a good breakfast, or that somehow paintings of nothing show more than paintings of something... Wow I hope I never "grow up"... how boring!

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>Maybe some of us don't consider the modern movement to exactly

be an "advancement"</i></p>

 

<p>You sound like a postmodernist, Patrick. Seriously. And not in a

bad

light.</p>

[eugene_scherba]

Yeah, Thomas, someone scored, I guess. Thanks for contributing.

Let's close this thread.

[ben conover]

If this thread is 'timeless' then it has no end.........

 

In other words, there is no answer to an open ended question, and philosophy is by all means an open ended question. Many questions in philosophy are considered 'timeless' because they continue to emerge out of basic curiosity. Labeling something 'timeless' may simply be a way of refering to that simple and curious quality which seems to remain open to question. It has no answer and yet it has a value, if you let it. That value may be abstract. You think Einstein's amazing ideas were timeless? me neither, but I think his imagination may have been.

 

Cheers.

[patrick j dempsey]

I dont know... some people who have studied mysticism may totally agree that Einstein was timeless... I mean, matter is energy... wow, I think thats a timeless concept that we are just too culturally blinded to see... it exsists as not only a concept, but a basic tenant in the ancient Hindu beleif system. Perhaps the expression of Einstiens ideas into complex equations isnt timeles... but hey, he didnt invent math, he just used it to illustrate his concept. I dont really think Einsteins medium was math anyway, I think his imagination WAS his medium, and math was the only way he could communicate his medium. E=MC^2 is not only timeless in what it implies in terms of advanced physics but also in what it implies in esoteric terms, and at the same time is so simple that a child could understand it. To say that Energy, Matter and Light; the Soul, Body and Spirit of the universe, have such a simple and straight-forward way of interacting as a Trinity, is not just great science but an absolutley penetrating transcendental concept... and one which has had precursers in countless mystical spiritual systems the world over.

<br><br>

And no i dont think that things are only "timeless" in regard to cultural significance... if that was really the case then we would have absolutely no sense of "timelessness" in great architecture and art of asia and ancient america... and yet its there. And because we have defined it as a feeling and not an intellectual property of art, I have a feeling that "timelessness" is probably a MORE universal concept than alot of the pompous intellectualism, self-reference and culture-centricism which so many people consider to be the "valid" points of great art today.

<br><br>

P.S. I spent 4 years in art school and I still dont get "post modernism"... its not even really a movement, unless you can call consumerism and nihilism a "movement" in art. Call me a dirty hippie, call me a flakey weirdo if you like, but please dont call me a post modern! Im self-labelled a 21st-Century Spiritual Symbolist and this is the kind of thing I do:

<br><br>

<img src="http://artdorks.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10170/Emc2.jpg">

[ben conover]

Patrick, I must agree that imagination can cetianly be a very powerful tool. However, I feel that you are confusing Einstein's genius of simplicity, with spiritual belief systems. Ok, so maths is a system of sorts, but not one of beliefs, just logic and imagination. Perhaps 'timeless' came from an age of 'beliefs' we are now beginning to question, or forget.

[patrick j dempsey]

I make no distinction between science and spirituality... except that bullheaded people who claim to be representatives of both are too power-hungery to realize what its all really about.... what could be more spiritual than Energy = Matter x Light?