Calling All Fantasy Buffs: Demonstrate the Difference!

[Lost_Wanderer]

That’s not to say that their originators lack talent or intelligence–quite the contrary–but that their influence is far from neutral, and indeed is negative.

When you recycle garbage into something clean and beneficial, do you still call it garbage? Heck, the whole cycle of nature revolves around that concept. You yourself eat food that sprung from that which is dead and discarded. I suggest you stop eating entirely if you want to go that route.

You don’t really believe that Bach, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, or Euler get “really boring, really fast”, do you? Or that “angels, halos, and knights” is all there is to classical culture?

Oh yes, I do. Believe me. The same can be said of popular music (which is often blaring in my office and in my home). Anything gets boring really fast if it’s all there is and there’s no option for variety.

You’re probably a smart, creative person; but you’ve placed limits on your intelligence and creativity by remaining within the confines of “low” culture. “High” culture edifies rather than limits.

Oh please, don’t give me this typical talk of pitting high vs low culture. It’s a false dichotomy. It’s like the rich snobs elevating their tastes all over again. It disgusts me just as much as the Marxists disgust me with their talk of ‘the bourgeoisie’ and all that communist tripe.

The truth is people are blind to the limits of human taste and overstate its significance. I’d rather just simply enjoy what I like, respect what others enjoy, and leave it at that. Sparking wars between genres, pitting religion against art/music/fiction, and trying to place an absolute moral imperative on that which is inherently relative, is all pointless.

Again, don’t talk about telling people to go beyond their limits when I can pretty much see the limits you set up for yourself. Why don’t you follow your own advice with respect to what you’ve labeled as ‘low culture’?

 

[WinterLight]

When you recycle garbage into something clean and beneficial, do you still call it garbage?

No. The trouble, however, is that the “garbage” (your word, not mine) hasn’t been recycled: it’s still garbage.

Oh yes, I do. Believe me. The same can be said of popular music (which is often blaring in my office and in my home). Anything gets boring really fast if it’s all there is and there’s no option for variety.

It’s too bad that you think that way (I’m not referring, of course, to modern pop music; on that point I probably agree with you). Classical culture is rich in its diversity: how else could it survive the passing of centuries? There’s no rule that you have to like all of it. I just encourage you to expose yourself to some of it.

Oh please, don’t give me this typical talk of pitting high vs low culture. It’s a false dichotomy. It’s like the rich snobs elevating their tastes all over again. It disgusts me just as much as the Marxists disgust me with their talk of ‘the bourgeoisie’ and all that communist tripe.

Yes, some people use high culture as a vehicle for snobbery. Make no mistake, though: devotees of low culture are no stranger to snobbery either. In any case, it is irrelevant to the question of which is superior.

Again, don’t talk about telling people to go beyond their limits when I can pretty much see the limits you set up for yourself. Why don’t you follow your own advice with respect to what you’ve labeled as ‘low culture’?

As the kids say: been there, done that. After years of reveling in low culture, I tired of it, wanting something better. I was always left with the haunting thought: is this all there is? the best we have to offer? Fortunately, the answer is no. My only regret is that I failed to move on sooner.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

No. The trouble, however, is that the “garbage” (your word, not mine) hasn’t been recycled: it’s still garbage.

Your opinion. And by the way, rather odd for you to say this right after you deny accusing the originators for a lack of creativity/intelligence. Oh boo-hoo for me for recycling a pentagram into something less malevolent (e.g. decoration, puzzle piece, fantasy guild symbol).

It’s too bad that you think that way (I’m not referring, of course, to modern pop music; on that point I probably agree with you). Classical culture is rich in its diversity: how else could it survive the passing of centuries?

Elitism and snobbery have well survived the passing of centuries along with it. Does that make those qualities justifiable? I don’t think so.

There’s no rule that you have to like all of it. I just encourage you to expose yourself to some of it.

I have. It’s nice in some areas but absolutely begs to be parodied in others. I see its value in its proper place.

Posts like yours though just seem to elevate it beyond that. Frankly, that makes you no better than the ‘low culture’ you despise.

Yes, some people use high culture as a vehicle for snobbery. Make no mistake, though: devotees of low culture are no stranger to snobbery either. In any case, it is irrelevant to the question of which is superior.

Ah but it’s quite relevant. It just proves the point that neither one is superior. Both have equal shares of flaws and both have just the same potential to be absolutely lame-o.

As the kids say: been there, done that. After years of reveling in low culture, I tired of it, wanting something better. I was always left with the haunting thought: is this all there is? the best we have to offer? Fortunately, the answer is no. My only regret is that I failed to move on sooner.

Yes well I’m constantly hammered by you ‘high culture’ buffs here on these very boards. Suffice it to say, I pose to you the same questions: Is this all there is? The best you have to offer?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes and my regret is almost falling into the false dichotomy you people perpetuate.

 

[WinterLight]

Your opinion.

I’m sure you can do better than the “your opinion” canard. Convince me that I’m wrong, or at least convince yourself and others that I’m wrong.

Yes, in part, it is an opinion that I’m expressing, but some opinions are–how shall we say?–more equal than others. I believe that art does not exist merely for sensory pleasure (although that is a side effect) but that it is an expression of truth. Anything not of truth is not fit for eternity; and so is not fit for us.

And by the way, rather odd for you to say this right after you deny accusing the originators for a lack of creativity/intelligence.

Why? You called it “garbage.” I merely showed that your analogy doesn’t work.

Oh boo-hoo for me for recycling a pentagram into something less malevolent (e.g. decoration, puzzle piece, fantasy guild symbol).

I appreciate your good intentions. But you must realize that symbols do have meaning. What explains the cross-cultural potency of literary symbols? Indeed, even secularists like Freud or Jung realize this.

Elitism and snobbery have well survived the passing of centuries along with it. Does that make those qualities justifiable? I don’t think so.

My point here was not classical culture is good (although I think it is), but that it is diverse rather than uniformly tedious as you previously suggested.

Posts like yours though just seem to elevate it beyond that. Frankly, that makes you no better than the ‘low culture’ you despise.

Explain.

Ah but it’s quite relevant. It just proves the point that neither one is superior. Both have equal shares of flaws and both have just the same potential to be absolutely lame-o.

It proves nothing. Using your reasoning, we have the following argument: Christians and non-Christians both behave wickedly; therefore, Christianity is not superior to any other system of beliefs. Surely, you don’t believe this? The problem is, however, that if we accept the first argument as valid, then we must (if we have any respect at all for logic) accept the second argument as valid.

Yes well I’m constantly hammered by you ‘high culture’ buffs here on these very boards. Suffice it to say, I pose to you the same questions: Is this all there is? The best you have to offer?

I’m not hammering you; rather I’m encouraging you. You’re capable of more than comic books.

Unfortunately, the answer is yes and my regret is almost falling into the false dichotomy you people perpetuate.

What is false about the dichotomy between good and bad?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Yes, in part, it is an opinion that I’m expressing, but some opinions are–how shall we say?–more equal than others. I believe that art does not exist merely for sensory pleasure (although that is a side effect) but that it is an expression of truth. Anything not of truth is not fit for eternity; and so is not fit for us.

Thank you for reciting the high-culture buff party line. So, can you actually say something other than the same old expression of emotionally attaching perceived truths to things that don’t necessarily carry them?

Remember, moral truths are absolute because they are established, tried, and tested. I’m sure you’re aware that emotions and personal tastes are distinctly thrown out because of that. Therefore, since morality itself establishes human taste to be too relative for any significant role, then I don’t see why I shouldn’t rule out your attachments as simply your own personal opinion and does not apply to every human being on the planet.

Why? You called it “garbage.” I merely showed that your analogy doesn’t work.

You implied it with your talk of ‘negative influence’. Stop dodging the issue.

I appreciate your good intentions. But you must realize that symbols do have meaning. What explains the cross-cultural potency of literary symbols? Indeed, even secularists like Freud or Jung realize this.

Apparently you’re another person in need of a crash course in basic semiotics and linguistics. The cross-cultural potency you see is in fact attached meaning, not inherent meaning. That’s how we managed to hijack a symbol of disgraceful Roman execution and the Satanists in turn managed to hijack a symbol that originally stood for our first Pope.

My point here was not classical culture is good (although I think it is), but that it is diverse rather than uniformly tedious as you previously suggested.

A glaring majority of classical music brings forth to my mind nothing but comedic gag skits and antiquated commercials.

The sight of Victorian-era dress and theme makes me think of just that era and unless given the modern twists of steam punk and gothic-lolita redesign, any literature from that era will always bring to me the same thematic package.

Explain.

Simple. You hail the qualities you see in ‘high culture’ all the while take no shame in blasting the flaws of ‘low culture’. Unless you’ve shown yourself capable of making fun of both, then you’re in no place to encourage me to favor either one. In fact, you wouldn’t be able to even if you were capable.

It proves nothing. Using your reasoning, we have the following argument: Christians and non-Christians both behave wickedly; therefore, Christianity is not superior to any other system of beliefs. Surely, you don’t believe this? The problem is, however, that if we accept the first argument as valid, then we must (if we have any respect at all for logic) accept the second argument as valid.

You’re confusing art with other fields that have established absolutism (e.g. religion). And even in the case of religion, just because the belief system is superior, it doesn’t make its followers any more so.

This is the problem with you high-culture Catholics. You’re far more materialistic than you think because you’re so attached to the culture that you put it on the same level as our faith.

I’m not hammering you; rather I’m encouraging you. You’re capable of more than comic books.

Right and a ‘low culture’ buff can’t say the same to you in turn? “I’m not hammering you; rather I’m encouraging you. You’re capable of more than old novels.” After all, it’s only fair.

And for the record? I have gone beyond comic books. I’ve read classical novels. I’ve read modern fiction. I’ve read works both foreign and local. In the end, it’s all the same. They all have cliches. They all have something they hold sacred that I have no qualms in mocking.

What is false about the dichotomy between good and bad?

When it comes to art, nothing is good and bad. Standards change. Ultimately, it’s a matter of perspective. Sounds like you need a crash course in post-structuralism too.

 

[WinterLight]

Thank you for reciting the high-culture buff party line. So, can you actually say something other than the same old expression of emotionally attaching perceived truths to things that don’t necessarily carry them?

This is a loaded question (like “so, when did you stop beating your wife?”). But I’ll bite. I’m less interested in originality than in truth–I guess that would make me a dinosaur in the eyes of the secular priesthood (i.e., the intelligentsia). Thus, the objection that I asserted the “same old expression” carries little weight with me. I don’t care that the argument is old, only that it is true.

Remember, moral truths are absolute because they are established, tried, and tested.

I disagree. At the risk of writing what sounds like double talk: something is true because it is true. All truth, but in particular moral truth, is true independently of our testing of it. There is, I admit, a possible objection to this, but it is quite technical and since it falls apart anyway, it’s not worth mentioning in this response (for anyone wondering, it involves first-order logic).

I’m sure you’re aware that emotions and personal tastes are distinctly thrown out because of that. Therefore, since morality itself establishes human taste to be too relative for any significant role, then I don’t see why I shouldn’t rule out your attachments as simply your own personal opinion and does not apply to every human being on the planet.

The “because” and “therefore” requires justification.

You implied it with your talk of ‘negative influence’. Stop dodging the issue.

I’m not “dodging the issue.” Yes, I don’t hold low-culture in high regard. But that wasn’t the point. Your “recycling” analogy just doesn’t work. Don’t blame me for it.

Apparently you’re another person in need of a crash course in basic semiotics and linguistics. The cross-cultural potency you see is in fact attached meaning, not inherent meaning. That’s how we managed to hijack a symbol of disgraceful Roman execution and the Satanists in turn managed to hijack a symbol that originally stood for our first Pope.

Slow down. I don’t want to get into a credential-slinging match–that’s counterproductive. But I have studied linguistics as an undergrad, and I’ve also studied more logic than is good for one’s health. In any case, I don’t see the relevance here. Although you make a paritally good point about the crucifx, notice that the Satanists haven’t really hijacked anything: they just inverted (and the theme of inversion is central, for obvious reasons, in Satanism) a Christian symbol. This, however, is the exception rather than the rule. If meaning is merely attached rather than inherent, then why do many symbols show up in disparate cultures?

A glaring majority of classical music brings forth to my mind nothing but comedic gag skits and antiquated commercials.

Madison Avenue has done us all a disservice by using Mozart to pitch dish soap.

The sight of Victorian-era dress and theme makes me think of just that era and unless given the modern twists of steam punk and gothic-lolita redesign, any literature from that era will always bring to me the same thematic package.

Well, these are prejudices that you ought to overcome.

Simple. You hail the qualities you see in ‘high culture’ all the while take no shame in blasting the flaws of ‘low culture’. Unless you’ve shown yourself capable of making fun of both, then you’re in no place to encourage me to favor either one. In fact, you wouldn’t be able to even if you were capable.

Yes, that’s quite true: since I don’t kowtow to the pomo multicults, I need not feel ashamed of my beliefs.

You’re confusing art with other fields that have established absolutism (e.g. religion). And even in the case of religion, just because the belief system is superior, it doesn’t make its followers any more so.

No. I’m pointing that your argument is either valid or invalid. If it is valid, then you must accept as valid any instance of the argument.

This is the problem with you high-culture Catholics. You’re far more materialistic than you think because you’re so attached to the culture that you put it on the same level as our faith.

I mean this sincerely: consider the possibility that you’re projecting your own views onto “us”. (By the way, why should this be an “us vs. them” argument?)

Right and a ‘low culture’ buff can’t say the same to you in turn? “I’m not hammering you; rather I’m encouraging you. You’re capable of more than old novels.”

I was only attempting to clarify my intentions. Unfortunately, you thought I was “hammering” you; I do not want you to think that’s my intent.

And for the record? I have gone beyond comic books. I’ve read classical novels. I’ve read modern fiction. I’ve read works both foreign and local. In the end, it’s all the same. They all have cliches. They all have something they hold sacred that I have no qualms in mocking.

Mockery of greatness is a symptom of the modern age.

When it comes to art, nothing is good and bad. Standards change. Ultimately, it’s a matter of perspective. Sounds like you need a crash course in post-structuralism too.

These are assertions that require justification. Can you justify them? Why do I need to learn anything about post-structuralism? Can you summarize its core principles?