Art vs. Porn

[Delacroix]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>I understand what you're saying, and I don't agree. I believe that everyone's heart is slightly different and is not relative to their culture. What their mind tells them is relative to their culture and knowledge, however. Some cultures won't let the citizens listen to their own hearts.

An "extreme" example would be Drizzt and the Drow of Menzoberanzen. The Drow are taught from birth, pretty much, that their way of life is the right way to live. Their minds override what their hearts tell them. Then there is someone like Drizzt who's heart speaks more loudly than the hearts of the other people and/or he is more open to listening to it; thus he is unable to accept what he is taught and listens to his heart instead of his mind.</STRONG>

Drizzt is a fiction creation. This kind of example is not good, because I don't know too much about drizzt. but anyway.

In Drizzt case his personal ethic was against the drow moral. So he goes away, he ranegade the drows moral. The other drows "listen to their hearts as Drizzt". But he was diferent, as if he has a diferent view from a diferent culture.(i don't know if he was influenced by someone).

But why you say that only he listen the heart? Because his heart are close to yours SS. His concept of Good and Evil is the same of yours. That is why you think he listen the heart and the others drow don't. Because he is from the same culture of yours. As I say before hearts from diferent culture says diferent things. The other drow listen to their heart, but their heart say diferent things of your heart( and drizzt's heart).

I feel a little bit of etnocentrism in your words; that is normal, sometimes I have dificult with this too.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>Drizzt is a fiction creation. This kind of example is not good, because I don't know too much about drizzt. but anyway.</STRONG>

I agree that he is not the best type of example possible, but he is an extreme example that is easier to "disect" for explanation.

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>In Drizzt case his personal ethic was against the drow moral. So he goes away, he ranegade the drows moral. The other drows "listen to their hearts as Drizzt". But he was diferent, as if he has a diferent view from a diferent culture.(i don't know if he was influenced by someone).</STRONG>

There was some, though very little, influence by Zaknefein. However, neither Zaknefein nor Drizzt had any influence upon them of any sort except that which the Drow society put upon them.

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>But why you say that only he listen the heart? Because his heart are close to yours SS. His concept of Good and Evil is the same of yours. That is why you think he listen the heart and the others drow don't. Because he is from the same culture of yours. As I say before hearts from diferent culture says diferent things. The other drow listen to their heart, but their heart say diferent things of your heart( and drizzt's heart).</STRONG>

As I said, everyone's heart is different than everyone elses. Some hearts speak louder than others. Some hearts are more "evil" while some hearts are more "good." However, what your heart tells you is not affected by society. What your mind tells you is affected by both society and knowledge. Whether you listen more to your heart or your mind also can be influenced by society. I did not mean to say that all the Drow had hearts that told them the same that Drizzt's heart told him, though this would seem to be the case if you look at the Drow children(upto about age 15). However, the Drow society does everything it can to quiet the "voice" of the heart. Matron Malice's attempt to "make a true Drow warrior" out of Drizzt before sending him to Melee-Magthere is an example of them doing this.

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>I feel a little bit of etnocentrism in your words; that is normal, sometimes I have dificult with this too.</STRONG>

The only problem with what you said right here is that I don't conform to society. I'm assuming you mean ethnocentrism. I'm not totally clear on the meaning of this word, but if it means what I think it means then that is not exactly possible since I am not exactly part of any one ethnic group, sociologically(?).

[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Sailor Saturn ]

[Delacroix]

As I said, everyone's heart is different than everyone elses. Some hearts speak louder than others. Some hearts are more "evil" while some hearts are more "good." However, what your heart tells you is not affected by society. What your mind tells you is affected by both society and knowledge. Whether you listen more to your heart or your mind also can be influenced by society.

You say some hearts are more evil, while some are more good. The heart cannot be evil or good; when you say: "this is evil, and that is good"; you are talking about your culture concept of good and evil. Thats why hearts from diferent culture have diferent concept of good. So, what your heart say that is good, is diferent from what the drow's heart concept of good (except for driizt, because as I say before, he is of the same culture of yours). That is why the heart wisdom is diferent from one culture to other. Let me make a more real example: Your concept of good is diferent of the Bin Laden concept of good. He (Bin Laden) is listen his heart as much as you, but your heart say that is good to cultivate friendship( just for example), and his heart say that good is end the USA policy. Because you and Laden are from diferent culture. Your hearts say diferent things. There is no good or evil if you don't have a culture, there is no good or evil if you are not human. Your heart or ethic have influence of what you see, what you learn, how you learn,... Culture.

Otherwise there will be a supreme, generic, untouchble concept of good, as a fantasy/Tolkien tale, or the religious propose.

The only problem with what you said right here is that I don't conform to society. I'm assuming you mean ethnocentrism. I'm not totally clear on the meaning of this word, but if it means what I think it means then that is not exactly possible since I am not exactly part of any one ethnic group, sociologically(?).

In this point, I think my poor english and the diference beetween our language become a problem.
Etnocentrismo (in Brazilian portuguese) mean exactly what you say; but after the globalization process this word gain new acceptions. A totaly ethnocentrical person have dificult to understand (understand is diferent of accept) the point of view of other cultures, even if himself is formed of more than one type of culture(globalization). I say that you talk a bit ethnocentric because you say that Drizzt listen to his good heart and the others drows don't (supreme good belief I talked before), instead of say that the drows are listen they heart, but their heart concept of good is diferent from Drizzt and SS concept of good.
For example, yesterday at99 prove that he is totaly etnocentrical, because he believe that his culture were more good than the muslim culture; but that was an extreme case of etnocentrism.

PS:[ All quotes were posted by Sailor Saturn]
PS2: In a few minutes I'll meet my friends in the bar, so I'll not reply for some hours; when I arrive home again I'll connect and reply.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>You say some hearts are more evil, while some are more good. The heart cannot be evil or good; when you say: "this is evil, and that is good"; you are talking about your culture concept of good and evil. Thats why hearts from diferent culture have diferent concept of good. So, what your heart say that is good, is diferent from what the drow's heart concept of good (except for driizt, because as I say before, he is of the same culture of yours). That is why the heart wisdom is diferent from one culture to other. Let me make a more real example: Your concept of good is diferent of the Bin Laden concept of good. He (Bin Laden) is listen his heart as much as you, but your heart say that is good to cultivate friendship( just for example), and his heart say that good is end the USA policy. Because you and Laden are from diferent culture. Your hearts say diferent things. There is no good or evil if you don't have a culture, there is no good or evil if you are not human. Your heart or ethic have influence of what you see, what you learn, how you learn,... Culture.</STRONG>

Notice that I put quotation marks around evil and good. I did this to set them off as relative terms. By Drow standards, the more evil you were, the better Drow you were. They were taught this by Lolth, not by their hearts. As can be seen in their children, prior to the indoctrination of Drow evil, their hearts are predominantly "good." There was something special about Drizzt, though, and his heart would not be silenced by the Drow indoctrination. He continued to have to fight, his Drow indoctrinated mind vs. his strong-principled heart. The variance of "good" and "evil" among cultures is part of the indoctrination of society that often attempts to override what your heart tells you. Whether or not someone's heart is predominantly "good" or "evil" also depends on the culture you are in, but the actual things your heart is telling you does not.

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>Otherwise there will be a supreme, generic, untouchble concept of good, as a fantasy/Tolkien tale, or the religious propose.</STRONG>

As I said, I was not speaking of definable good and evil, but of relative good and evil.

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>In this point, I think my poor english and the diference beetween our language become a problem.
Etnocentrismo (in Brazilian portuguese) mean exactly what you say; but after the globalization process this word gain new acceptions. A totaly ethnocentrical person have dificult to understand (understand is diferent of accept) the point of view of other cultures, even if himself is formed of more than one type of culture(globalization). I say that you talk a bit ethnocentric because you say that Drizzt listen to his good heart and the others drows don't (supreme good belief I talked before), instead of say that the drows are listen they heart, but their heart concept of good is diferent from Drizzt and SS concept of good.</STRONG>

Alright, I did understand what you meant by the word. If you read The Dark Elf Trilogy, particularly Homeland and Exile, you'll see what I'm talking about with the "naturally good" Drow children getting turned into the "deadly evil" Drow adults through indoctrination that overrides what their hearts tell them to the point that most Drow don't even hear their hearts speaking to them. I can fairly easily understand/comprehend other cultures. Anthropology is a hobby of mine that I endulge every chance I get. I am able to comprehend a culture's viewpoints, even if I don't agree with them. I do not hold it against them if I do not agree with them, either. I am not an ethnocentrical person.

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>PS2: In a few minutes I'll meet my friends in the bar, so I'll not reply for some hours; when I arrive home again I'll connect and reply.</STRONG>

Have fun.

[C Elegans]

@Voodoodali: Your input in this thread has been great Welcome to SYM if I haven't said that before

My first thought when I saw read the opening post also went to Duchamps, the statements he made with his ready-mades, the Reservoir etc. I agree with most of what you have posted so far. It was ages ago I studied art, but I have some friends active in the area, and I very well recognize the reasoning you present.

I agree with you that "Art is in the eye of the beholder" is an unsatiesfying definition. Just as you say it would both make morally unacceptable things like child porn (produced for a market of pedophiles, not just pictures of nude kids) art, if an observer choosed to define it as art. Secondly, it makes everything art, so the concept of art becomes meaningless.

My personal definition of art lies in the communication between the artist and the observer plus the context. If I go to and art museum and look at a nude painting with the intention of getting sexually aroused (ie as if it was porn) that doesn't make the painting porn since the artist had the intention of showing the artistic quilities, and the museum is presenting it as art. If I buy Playboy magazine and think the photos of nude girls are art, that is still not art since the photographer did not make the photos with an artistic intention, and the context, ie the magazine is not either presenting it as art.

@Ivan Cavazell: You asked what we think about Dadaism? When I was in art school many years ago, I took a great interest in their revolutionary ideas and their reformation of the concept of art. Today, I still love Duchamp and Picabia The Dadaism was IMO a necessary breaking point for art.

@SS & Ivan C: Interesting discussion - it seems like you are heading for the depth of the human nature. SS, if I understand you right, you mean that every person has a part of themself, which you call "heart", that is unaffected by the environment? Am I understanding you correctly?

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>SS, if I understand you right, you mean that every person has a part of themself, which you call "heart", that is unaffected by the environment? Am I understanding you correctly?</STRONG>

Yes, you seem to be understanding me correctly, which is somewhat surprising because I rarely actually expect anyone to understand me.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Yes, you seem to be understanding me correctly, which is somewhat surprising because I rarely actually expect anyone to understand me. </STRONG>

Good I understand what you mean I know of some philosophers who would agree with you about the independant part of the human being.

This unaffected part, what do you think it consists of? How does it relate to the rest of the person? And how does it stay unaffected from the persons experience (like upbringing, cultural values, etc environmental factors) if it's also a part of the person?

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Good I understand what you mean I know of some philosophers who would agree with you about the independant part of the human being.

This unaffected part, what do you think it consists of? How does it relate to the rest of the person? And how does it stay unaffected from the persons experience (like upbringing, cultural values, etc environmental factors) if it's also a part of the person?</STRONG>

Well, it's hard to really say, but I do have some theoretical ideas on the matter, though I don't claim any of them to be absolutely true. Just an idea I came up with in my overabundant spare time.

This kinda gets into some spiritual aspects and the ties between the spirit and the body. The "heart" is the person's spirit, or at least a part of the person's spirit. The activity in the...frontal lobe(that's where conciousness is, right?) is where the spirit "dwells" or rather, where the link between the spirit and the physical body. The "heart," being essentially in the "spiritual realm"(so to speak) thus is seperate and unaffected by the physical world. We then have the mind, which is our intellectual self. The more knowledge we have, the easier it is to make a well-educated decision. However, sometimes, a well-educated decision is not necessarily the right decision. In some cases the "naive" decision, which occurs when the "heart" is more in control than the mind is. Examples of "naive" decisions being the right choice are things like when my mom chose to marry my dad. He was 29(turned 30 the day they married) and she was 19. He'd been married before and divorced. He sang in nightclubs(they met when he was singing at Crystal's Pizza in Abilene) and was in the Air Force. Mom was a Church of Christ preacher's daughter going to college at Abilene Christian University. "Common sense" and "well-educated decision-making"(which is what everyone she knew was telling her) all told her not to marry him, that he wouldn't stick around more than 5 years. Her "heart" told her otherwise, so she made the "naive" decision and married him. They've been married for 20+ years now. Imo, the best way to go is to listen to both your "heart" and mind and make a decision based on what both are saying...which can be summarized in the philosophy of "Hope for the best; prepare for the worst."

Does any of this make any sense?

[C Elegans]

@SS: It makes sense in as much as I think I understand your reasoning. I don't share your views though, I think the human mind is one even if it has many different aspects, and I also think no part of ourselves can be unaffected from our surrounding. But your views are in no way strange to me - I know several people who believe in a spiritual part of the human mind.

Just one note: consciousness is not located to the frontal lobes - in fact, nobody knows where it is located. In the brain, yes, but where and how? Most likely consciousness is a complex funtion that is not located in a specific part of the brain, but is mediated via a lot of different systems in the brain. The nature of consciousness in one of the hottest areas in neuroscience currently, but it's still a very long way to go for deeper understanding of it.

So if you believe we have a spiritual part that is sort of "dwells" in our brains, how does this part stay unaffected? If the spiritual part is connected to a spiritual realm, what is this spiritual realm? Are we conscious or unconscious about this spiritual part?

Regarding the situation you describe for your mother, obviously she made the right decision The terms "naive" versus "well educated" decisions, is what many people would call "rational" or "intellectual" versus "emotional" or "impulsive". My idea is these are two aspects of the human mind, and even if they are affected by different factors and in different ways, they are both affected by our environment. Another idea of mine is that the more integrated those two aspects are, the better possibilities we will have to make good decisions and live happily.

I have to catch some sleep now - I'll be going up again in 4 hours. See you!

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>@SS: It makes sense in as much as I think I understand your reasoning. I don't share your views though, I think the human mind is one even if it has many different aspects, and I also think no part of ourselves can be unaffected from our surrounding. But your views are in no way strange to me - I know several people who believe in a spiritual part of the human mind. </STRONG>

I'm glad you understand, even if you don't share my views. I believe understanding to be more important than agreement.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Just one note: consciousness is not located to the frontal lobes - in fact, nobody knows where it is located. In the brain, yes, but where and how? Most likely consciousness is a complex funtion that is not located in a specific part of the brain, but is mediated via a lot of different systems in the brain. The nature of consciousness in one of the hottest areas in neuroscience currently, but it's still a very long way to go for deeper understanding of it. </STRONG>

Perhaps conciousness was not the exact word I was looking for. Isn't it the frontal lobes where most of the brain activity for critical thinking and other such complex brain activity occur? I may be confused on this, I'm not sure.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>So if you believe we have a spiritual part that is sort of "dwells" in our brains, how does this part stay unaffected? If the spiritual part is connected to a spiritual realm, what is this spiritual realm? Are we conscious or unconscious about this spiritual part? </STRONG>

It stays unaffected because it is not directly in this world. The stuff that effects how we act and such is merely knowledge. Whether it is cultural indoctrination, knowing whether or not it will rain, or some other knowledge, that's all it is. Knowledge that is stored within the brain(our mind). It is difficult to comprehend some of these things, I know. The "spiritual" realm might be something like what some people would call the "astral plane." I haven't really bothered to think it all out. That's metaphysics, I'm more interested in physics.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>I have to catch some sleep now - I'll be going up again in 4 hours. See you!</STRONG>

G'night. Cya!

[Weasel]

The "why" man will ask a "would" question.


Person (Male/Female doesn't matter)
Born on deserted island.
Mother dies at the childs birth.
Father wasn't on island.

By some chance the child survives and is found 20 years later. Would the child (now an adult) find any difference between art and porn?

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>The "why" man will ask a "would" question.


Person (Male/Female doesn't matter)
Born on deserted island.
Mother dies at the childs birth.
Father wasn't on island.

By some chance the child survives and is found 20 years later. Would the child (now an adult) find any difference between art and porn?</STRONG>

Hmm...well, since she would probably be considered "uncivilized" upon being found, the people who find her(or whoever they turn her over to) would likely attempt to educate her and, in the process, would likely teach her to view art as art and porn as not art, unless they themselves did not make tht distinction. Does this make any sense?

[Weasel]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Hmm...well, since she would probably be considered "uncivilized" upon being found, the people who find her(or whoever they turn her over to) would likely attempt to educate her and, in the process, would likely teach her to view art as art and porn as not art, unless they themselves did not make tht distinction. Does this make any sense?</STRONG>

Yes it makes sense....I could not come up with a way to cover this. The child will need to be able to talk to tell the difference. (Communicate..yea or nay)

For the child to talk...she/he would need to hear another person. This will lead to corruption right off the bat. Whoever teaches/is around the child will leave traits.

What I was trying to see was....would someone without knowledge of art/porn know the difference. I believe they would not. To them...good/bad ,right/wrong wouldn't mean anything.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>Yes it makes sense....I could not come up with a way to cover this. The child will need to be able to talk to tell the difference. (Communicate..yea or nay)

For the child to talk...she/he would need to hear another person. This will lead to corruption right off the bat. Whoever teaches/is around the child will leave traits.

What I was trying to see was....would someone without knowledge of art/porn know the difference. I believe they would not. To them...good/bad ,right/wrong wouldn't mean anything.</STRONG>

I see what you're saying. The child would've grown up relying on instinct to survive, much like an animal, which is why whoever found her would consider her uncivilized. Because of the uncivilized label placed upon her, until she was taught to be civilized, her opinion on the matter would be consider invalid by society. Initially, she would not know any difference between the two as both are merely representations of something and most likely, neither would have any meaning to her.

[Nippy]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>I would have to see the photo/painting/sculpture to know for sure. But, in response to your question, I ask you this: how is that any different than the sculpture I mentioned earlier that is in India. It is just one of 6 erotic scenes sculpted on the outside of the Kandarya Mahadeva Temple. The details of what the figures in the sculpture are doing are just as visible as what you described in your question. Also, what makes it different from the equally visible penis on Michealangelo's David, Donatello's David, and in Michealangelo's paintings on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel; or the perfectly visible breasts on the Venus de Medici, Venus de Milo, and in Birth of Venus?</STRONG>

@ SS like you said the Taj Mahal as three or four of these. Remember that this is the country is the maker of the Karma Sutra, it is part of their culture as Weasel and Fable have said. (BTW the picture is of a blond woman with a 44DD cup, shaven crotch with the legs right open, Sleepy don't edit please!!)

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Nippy:
<STRONG>@ SS <snip> (BTW the picture is of a blond woman with a 44DD cup, shaven crotch with the legs right open, Sleepy don't edit please!!)</STRONG>

Hmm...is it a photograph or a painting? If it's a painting, is it water color or oil, or is it a charcoal drawing? Like I said, I'd have to see the picture, not just to know exactly what it is a picture of; but also to see how it was made, what it is on, what medium was used, what style, etc.

[Delacroix]

I thought "heart" mean ethic and/or moral enviroment. Spirit is more dificult for me to talk about. Your words have something of spiritual and/or religious points. Most of the religious dialetical are based in the consolidation of this superior good. Do you believe in the Supreme good? [I'm reading and rereading this paragraf, and still don't like it, sounds like I'm against the religious belief; my poor english don't alow my euphemism, sorry, I don't mean nothing agressive or critical in the religious belief]

By SS:
By Drow standards, the more evil you were, the better Drow you were. They were taught this by Lolth, not by their hearts. As can be seen in their children, prior to the indoctrination of Drow evil, their hearts are predominantly "good." There was something special about Drizzt, though, and his heart would not be silenced by the Drow indoctrination. He continued to have to fight, his Drow indoctrinated mind vs. his strong-principled heart. The variance of "good" and "evil" among cultures is part of the indoctrination of society that often attempts to override what your heart tells you. Whether or not someone's heart is predominantly "good" or "evil" also depends on the culture you are in, but the actual things your heart is telling you does not.

Russeau. I think your theory is very near of Russeau thoughts.
The example of the Drows cannot be clear for a civilization analisys. It is too much fictional. In fact I don't see any culture that is based on the evil itself, one culture that do the evil, know that do the evil, and still doing. The civilization/ religions do the good, their concept of good.

By SS:
I can fairly easily understand/comprehend other cultures. Anthropology is a hobby of mine that I endulge every chance I get. I am able to comprehend a culture's viewpoints, even if I don't agree with them. I do not hold it against them if I do not agree with them, either. I am not an ethnocentrical person.

I totally believe you. I hope you do not get offended.


Let me understand, agree, disagree, ask somethings about your spiritual/astral plane Theory:
You say your mother do what her "Heart" say to her. And the "Heart" purposes are the ever the same, it do not change. The Time, Space, or Culture where the human being is located do not matter. Because these variables only affect the knowledge, Ethic and Moral.

But what your mother did was acceptable by the culture that she live. It was not acceptable by the MAJORITY moral. If you do the same act of her today it will be more accepted than in the time she did it. In the sec. XIX what your mother did was even thinkable. Meaning that: The Heart words change in the Time.

Originally, you mean the Heart say normally what is the Right beyond the society moral. Because the heart is ever the same. But when I think about all diferents civilizations and culture that appear in human cronology,[Antique Greeks, Esquimós, Aztecs, Brazilian Indians, Romans, Hebreus, Muslims, Jews, Maiars, Incas ,........] there are so huge diferences, religious beliefs, homo-hetero sexuality views, mono-poli teism, canibalism , patriarchs- matriarchs... ; that is dificult to me, see a commom spiritual guidance between them all. A guidance that is constant in time, space and culture.

To end:

Your lasts posts you defend somethings of your point of view (Heart, Spirit,...). You are defending a Theory you create or a Belief you have?
If it is a theory I think my observations that the Heart change from culture to culture are usefull and procedent for your analisys.
If it is a Belief, than my observation don't make much sense. The belief (all beliefs) have a natural and intrinsic legitimity, that is far beyond dialecticals capabilities.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>I thought "heart" mean ethic and/or moral enviroment. Spirit is more dificult for me to talk about. Your words have something of spiritual and/or religious points. Most of the religious dialetical are based in the consolidation of this superior good. Do you believe in the Supreme good? [I'm reading and rereading this paragraf, and still don't like it, sounds like I'm against the religious belief; my poor english don't alow my euphemism, sorry, I don't mean nothing agressive or critical in the religious belief]</STRONG>

I know what you're saying. It helps that for much of last year, I had a friend I chatted with online who couldn't speak English half as well as you do. BTW, your English is better than that of the majority of my English Composition class(which isn't saying much... ). Besides, we all have trouble finding the right words sometimes, even in our native language.

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>Russeau. I think your theory is very near of Russeau thoughts.
The example of the Drows cannot be clear for a civilization analisys. It is too much fictional. In fact I don't see any culture that is based on the evil itself, one culture that do the evil, know that do the evil, and still doing. The civilization/ religions do the good, their concept of good. </STRONG>

A fictional civilization, if given enough data on the civilization can be, while not ideal for analysis, useful for example. The Drow society is based upon treachery, assassination, and killing off entire houses for advancement, and as long as the acts are done within the Drow 'code,' the perpetrators go unpunished. It is their way of life and they consider it the best way of life because they are unable to accept that anyone could be any other way. It has been indoctrined into them by the older generations that the way they live is the only way to live. Drizzt's heart told him otherwise loudly enough he listened to it. The problem is that this is not something that can be proven with statistical data or physical evidence. It's a matter of metaphysics, philosophy, and in some ways psychology.

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>Let me understand, agree, disagree, ask somethings about your spiritual/astral plane Theory:
You say your mother do what her "Heart" say to her. And the "Heart" purposes are the ever the same, it do not change. The Time, Space, or Culture where the human being is located do not matter. Because these variables only affect the knowledge, Ethic and Moral.

But what your mother did was acceptable by the culture that she live. It was not acceptable by the MAJORITY moral. If you do the same act of her today it will be more accepted than in the time she did it. In the sec. XIX what your mother did was even thinkable. Meaning that: The Heart words change in the Time.</STRONG>

Actually, what my mom did wasn't very acceptable. Many people condemned her for marrying my dad. Even her own parents thought what she did was wrong. They couldn't stop her, but they tried to talk her out of marrying my dad.

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>Originally, you mean the Heart say normally what is the Right beyond the society moral. Because the heart is ever the same. But when I think about all diferents civilizations and culture that appear in human cronology,[Antique Greeks, Esquimós, Aztecs, Brazilian Indians, Romans, Hebreus, Muslims, Jews, Maiars, Incas ,........] there are so huge diferences, religious beliefs, homo-hetero sexuality views, mono-poli teism, canibalism , patriarchs- matriarchs... ; that is dificult to me, see a commom spiritual guidance between them all. A guidance that is constant in time, space and culture. </STRONG>

The heart does not necessarily tell you what it is right. You have to know when to listen to your heart and when to listen to your mind. It is a difficult thing to learn.

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>To end:

Your lasts posts you defend somethings of your point of view (Heart, Spirit,...). You are defending a Theory you create or a Belief you have?
If it is a theory I think my observations that the Heart change from culture to culture are usefull and procedent for your analisys.
If it is a Belief, than my observation don't make much sense. The belief (all beliefs) have a natural and intrinsic legitimity, that is far beyond dialecticals capabilities.</STRONG>

It's theory and belief because, if something is not proven, but you believe it is true, it is a belief you have; but I formulated it through the same way I would formulate any scientific theory.

Now, I gotta get to class, I'll be back to say more late, but I'm already almost late to class.

[Shadow Sandrock]

I'm sure somebody already said practically the same thing as me already anyway, but here goes.

Pornography vs. Art

Art is designed to show the beauty of any given noun. An artist has the talent to create beautiful images of even the most despicable things. Art takes on many forms, and in some forms it takes on nudity.

Nudity isn't pornography.

Nudity is not wearing clothes, just to show the beauty of the human body.

Pornography is looking at pictures of naked people who are "teasing" the viewer, trying to arouse them to take matters "into their own hands" so to speak.

So what is really the difference?

Well, for one, nudity just means that you are naked. When used in art, nudity can be beautiful. It is pleasing and inspiring to the eye, and the true heart of the artist and the person creating the art flows from it. Just because the person is naked does not mean she is acting erotic. Only a true sicko would really find something sexually exciting out of David or something.

Now as for pornography.

Pornography is pictures of naked people of the opposite gender (hopefully) that are designed to turn you on. They aren't artistic, usually, they are just naked people showing off their privates and trying to make you feel like having sex with them sounds really great right about then.

So, nudity isn't bad. Pornography is. Especially with all the child porn/sex trade coming around now...

[Weasel]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>I see what you're saying. The child would've grown up relying on instinct to survive, much like an animal, which is why whoever found her would consider her uncivilized. Because of the uncivilized label placed upon her, until she was taught to be civilized, her opinion on the matter would be consider invalid by society. Initially, she would not know any difference between the two as both are merely representations of something and most likely, neither would have any meaning to her.</STRONG>

In the end, culture is the judge. Or a least culture starts the path down which everything is judged.


A heart/soul is neutral till the effects of culture come in to play. To even try to go against culture means that culture still played a role, the role of going against culture.