Terry

Joined

• started 1,986 topics
• posted 18,437 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Terry

• 
  17

  Can we really talk about BEAUTY?

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can we really talk about beauty?

  (first, a necessary preamble.

  bear with me, please.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Terry

  Cofty, the book that spun me around sideways was Mortimer J. Adler's
  10 PHILOSOPHICAL MISTAKES.
  In fact, it was the very first book of Philosophy I ever read.
  I was just killing time at the public library until it was time to pick up my
  son at school.
  The name Mortimer J. Adler struck me because I adored my set of
  GREAT BOOKS of the WESTERN WORLD he had assembled.
  
  So, I began reading and it grabbed me. I read the whole book in one sitting
  and - after collecting my son - went straight to the bookstore and bought a copy
  for myself.
  Adler is a Humanist who has a deep-seated "spiritual" side.
  But he is intellectually honest.
  That is damned rare.
  http://www.churchhistory101.com/docs/Adler-Ten-Mistakes.pdf
• 
  17

  Can we really talk about BEAUTY?

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can we really talk about beauty?

  (first, a necessary preamble.

  bear with me, please.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Terry

  COFTY: There was also an anti-Enlightenment movement that can be traced from Emmanuel Kant via all the way to postmodern philosophers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida.
  _____________________________
  
  In my opinion, Communism failed its predictions about the rising up of workers and overthrowing Capitalists (in the West) ... and so...
  there emerged the Frankfurt School which converted Communism and repackaged it
  into Social Justice criticisms substituting as they went POWER Hierarchy instead of Capitalism. Instead of workers throwing off chains, we have women standing up to male dominance; blacks standing up to White Privilege, and Philosophers / Writers
  deconstructing "meaning" in Art, Literature, etc.
  The means of transmission of this Frankfurt School ideology is Universities and faculty.
  Primacy of Consciousness runs rampant through Social Justice movements and the deconstruction by post modernists. That's Plato in a nutshell.
• 
  16

  I met an Exorcist

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i like to ride my bicycle to starbucks.

  when weather permits i sit on the patio and write in the sunshine.a pesky crow i call edgar usually arrives to beg (or steal).that's all you need to know before we begin._____________________.

  location exterior : the patio of starbuckstime: 11 amcast:lou : media / news analyst, religious fundamentalistterry: crow magnet and know-it-alledgar: spawn of satan________________.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Terry

  smiddy311 hours ago

  That was a good read Terry not only funny but surprisingly informative .

  I`m now looking forward to you meeting a Jehovah`s Witness ?
  
  
  
  
  
  ___________________

  Everybody who goes to Starbucks knows me and that I'm a writer.
  So, today a fellow in a suit overhears two other people talking to me about my writing and I say out loud that I'm writing about religion and how people have different ideas about truth.

  The man in the suit strolls over to me and we end up chatting about some awfully familiar territory! Suddenly, I noticed he's carrying the SILVER SWORD under his arm!
  
  He's a J-Dub! Ha!! He's wanting to count time out in service using me!
  ____________
  I went into stealth mode.
  Funny thing how your heart starts beating fast. I hate it.
  ___________

  I asked the man about his religious ideas and he gave me the usual response. Then, I suggested he sit down for a brief interview! I said it might be included in my book.
  
  It finally came out that he is an Elder in the local congregation!

  
  He asked that I not put his name in the book and I said I wouldn't.
  (I suppose he was covering his ass in case he said anything which could be construed as damaging.)

  After pretending he didn't have time--I could see he was flattered and really DID want to be interviewed by a writer for a book! (Vanity?)

  What follows is my attempt to be neutral, scholarly and professional.
  I began with as safe and uncontroversial a topic as I could think of.
  But it was clearly meant to strike weak spots i knew would be problematic.
  _______
  
  _________________________________

  Question: "How do Jehovah's Witnesses manage diversity within their congregations?"

  Elder: "I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'diversity.'

  Question: "Individual opinions, tastes, dispositions are part of all societies are they not? How does your clergy or leadership manage basic human diversity?"

  Elder: "There really isn't any diversity of opinion. All Jehovah's Witnesses agree with all other Jehovah's Witnesses. There is a harmony of belief and practice."

  Question: "Is that because diversity is not allowed?"

  Elder: "Well, it's not quite like that. We're not a totalitarian regime; it's just that Jehovah's Spirit brings about harmony which might ordinarily spring up because of human imperfection. All of which is because of the correct application of God's word, the Bible."

  Question: "How is this any different from any other religious group--most of which are plagued by sectarian squabbles? There are over 40,000 Christian denominations disagreeing fundamentally enough to call their church by different names?"

  Elder: "We don't have churches. We have small congregations and they are all in agreement on all policies. All Kingdom Halls around the world are in 100% agreement with all the other ones."

  Question: "But how would you know that without internal opportunity for airing disagreement? Wouldn't Elders, such as yourself, step in and isolate any diverse opinion under the auspice of 'protecting the congregation' from heresy, apostasy, or divisions?"

  Elder: "I see where you are headed. But--no, it's not like that at all."

  Question: "I'm asking simply: 'How is it possible to know what your members are thinking, inasmuch as speaking dissidently or dissonantly is condemned outright as unspiritual and devilish?'"

  Elder: "Any Witness who has worries, doubts, questions is free to approach any of the older men in the congregation. That's what elders are there for."

  Question: "How likely is it that a member would place themselves under suspicion of disloyalty--in effect making themselves a marked target of suspicion?"

  Elder: "Well--if you say it like that--it . . . First let me say . . ."

  Question: "Isn't loyalty to the Governing Body an absolute requirement in order to be considered a member in good standing?"

  Elder: "I was going to say . . .well--no, I mean we don't have loyalty to weak, sinful, imperfect human beings. It is loyalty to God's perfect earthly arrangement."

  Question: "Can you unpack that in plain English?"

  Elder: "JW's are part of a government guided by heavenly appointed representatives. As an Elder, I have a responsibility to Jehovah. I must oversee, shepherd, and counsel. In some cases, I must preside judicially.
  We can't let predatory wolves creep in under the banner of 'diversity.'"

  Question: "My way or the highway? So to speak."

  Elder: "(Laughing) That would be Jehovah's statement; not mine."

  Question: "You're comfortable with speaking for Almighty God?"

  Elder: "It's a commission Jesus made clear. We are compelled to do that very thing. It's the core of evangelizing."

  Question: "Jesus hung out with a highly diverse group, totally at odds with the leaders of Judaism such as the Pharisees. If I recall correctly that would be prostitutes, thieves, tax collectors, fishermen---"

  Elder: "Oh no! Not thieves! Jesus didn't--"

  Question: "He chose Judas, didn't he? Judas was stealing from the collection box!."

  Elder: "Huh. . . oh, um. . .. well--okay. That's a technicality, But okay."

  Question: "My point being, diversity was not a problem for the founder of Christianity. Jesus didn't excommunicate anybody--did he?"

  Elder: "That wasn't his mission. He was a teacher and a healer and the anointed King-to-be of his heavenly Father's kingdom."

  Question: "What about the diversity question?"

  Elder: "What about it?"

  Question: "Do you try to be like Jesus in accepting prostitutes, thieves, and other social outcasts? Homosexuals, transgenders, etc?"

  Elder: "That's kind of. . . well--it's almost a trick question. The important thing isn't human diversity--it is putting off the flesh and putting on the spirit. It is the aspect of getting people to be a New kind of person--not staying the way they are."

  Question: "Well, correct me if I'm wrong on this. Aren't you really mixing up spirit-anointed Christians with the so-called 'other sheep'? You don't teach the Bible is FOR regular people--diverse people. You teach the Bible is for anointed persons chosen to become the Bride of Christ--right?"

  Elder: "Um. . . what, now? Oh! Okay. Okay. I'm with you now. I see what you mean. Yes. Um. . . let me clarify my meaning . . ."

  Question: "Please do. Take your time."

  Elder: "Jesus' ministry was for Jews. The Apostle Paul's ministry was for people of all nations. There is your diversity."

  Question: "What about Jehovah's Witnesses? Do you accept and celebrate human diversity for 'other sheep', Gentiles, homosexuals, transgenders, thieves, prostitutes, etc?"

  Elder: "Yes. IF THEY CHANGE and learn the Truth, become baptized and lead a clean life Witnessing about Jehovah's kingdom"

  Question: "So, you personally know non-practicing homosexuals in your congregation?"

  Elder: "What? Well. . . I didn't say I personally did, but--generally speaking we get all kinds of people who repent, reform, live by the rules so-to-speak."

  Question: "Pedophiles?"

  Elder: "I'm not sure I know what you mean?"(Growing uncomfortable)

  Question: "Do you know personally of any pedophiles in your congregation?"

  Elder: "That's. . . I. . . it's not for me to say--I mean to speak publicly about private matters of confession. I'm sure you know, priests can never divulge what comes out in confession."

  Question: "Okay. So--Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholic priests are like-minded in their silence on pedophiles, then?"

  Elder: "I really don't think it's profitable to continue this line of questioning. I have to go now. If you have any other questions. . . you can go online to our website. It's (says name of website) and it has Frequently Asked Questions." (Gets up and departs.)
  _______
  
  I'd have to say I felt just a bit sadistic while I was doing that.
  I'll have to work on moderating such non-virtuous feelings.
• 
  16

  I met an Exorcist

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i like to ride my bicycle to starbucks.

  when weather permits i sit on the patio and write in the sunshine.a pesky crow i call edgar usually arrives to beg (or steal).that's all you need to know before we begin._____________________.

  location exterior : the patio of starbuckstime: 11 amcast:lou : media / news analyst, religious fundamentalistterry: crow magnet and know-it-alledgar: spawn of satan________________.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Terry

  Vanderhoven716 hours ago

  Terry, did you check out his website.
  
  ________
  
  I watched a video he had produced.
  Predictable. It's a miasma of assertions.
• 
  17

  Can we really talk about BEAUTY?

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can we really talk about beauty?

  (first, a necessary preamble.

  bear with me, please.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Terry

  COFTY : Didn't the Platonic Academics despise art?
  
  
  _____
  The mutations of Plato's ideas produced something called:
  

  Plato’s Aesthetics
  Plato's readers will not find a single aesthetic theory in the dialogues.
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-aesthetics/
  
  
• 
  17

  Can we really talk about BEAUTY?

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can we really talk about beauty?

  (first, a necessary preamble.

  bear with me, please.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Terry

  
  “What do we know - and - How do we know it”?
  
  
  Judaism and Christianity is filled with Plato and Neo-Platonic fluffiness.
  The Rise of Technology and Science in the West (as a result of LOGIC and Primacy of Consciousness) far surpassed
  The East (Primacy of Consciousness, Spiritualizing everyday life ).
  
  After the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment produced thinkers willing to debunk
  Long-held “Truth” by challenging it’s history and efficacy on mankind.
  Unfortunately, so many religious Philosophers and writers still clung to the Supernatural component they could not completely escape from Spiritualizing new efforts to build a Political Utopia (shining city on a hill).
  Deists (rather than Theists) along with church reform, drafted Constitutions, Bills of Rights, and developed Systematic Theology (applying logic to Holy Writ).
  The results?
  Christianity splintered into fragments of schismatic splinter groups, sects, cults, movements, churches, reforms, etc. A buffet of “freedom of choice” stultified by the hidden influences of Plato warring with Aristotelian logic.
  
  WHAT DO YOU THINK?
  
  Chances are - whatever it is - Plato and Aristotle had a great deal to do with it.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  24

  Ask current Jehovah's Witnesses if they KNOW what happened in 1954 (SHOCKING)

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  (referred to below: watchtower bible and tract society presidents: russell, rutherford, knorr, franz )did you know that from 1879 until 1954 ... ... the writings of c.t.russell, j.f.rutherford, nathan knorr, and the watchtower's own charter... ... agreed ... that jesus christ was to be worshiped?this fact has been cleverly and dramatically hidden by manipulation of older quotations.

  ______________________________________________________________________pastor charles taze russell answers the question for us.

  see below zion’s watch tower 1898 jul 15 p.216“question: the fact that our lord received worship is claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was god the father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Terry

  Telling an active JW the truth about their 'Truth' is like telling a guy
  "You're Mom is a whore."
  You'll get a smack in the face.
  It's a violation to them - embarrassing, and shameful.
  So ..."Watchtower is a cult" gets you a smack.
  
  Automatic shutdown of the mind comes with bad news.
  What's the first word out when a disaster strikes?
  "NO! You're kidding, aren't you?"
  
  JW's "know" intellectually that mere information changes regularly about the "true" teachings.
  The Governing Body is made to seem like a team of forensic scientists with test tubes
  in a laboratory examining fragments scripture through a microscope, detecting
  tiny fluctuations of understanding.
  But we know better.
  These men, over the last hundred years, have BIG EGO problems.
  By changing doctrines they impose THEIR POWER.
  Everybody gets to take turns at the top.
  So, the old roulette wheel keeps spinning.
  
  Just think about the change of Jesus Christ into Christ Jesus.
  At first - it sounds so weird. (And it is). But, just like hearing the words "Jehovah God" over and over ... your ears grow accustomed to it.
  
  There was a narrow window of time in the Organization when a phrase suddenly appeared: Jehovah's CHRISTIAN Witnesses. Did you know that?
  
  Self-consciousness about kicking JC's butt out the back door, no doubt. Or, a response to external pounding.
  
  This will get much crazier as years go by.
  Remember this and don't forget it: IN THE LONG RUN, the people who leave don't matter because the people who stay become twice as convinced.
  Loyalty to leaders is an old, old story.
  
  If we Ex-JW's had an external community for insiders to run to for refuge - it might be a different story. BUT WE DON'T.
  Efforts to create one have been disastrous in the past.
  We have become individuals who think for ourselves. We can't ever agree
  to follow anybody's ideas again.
• 
  17

  Can we really talk about BEAUTY?

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can we really talk about beauty?

  (first, a necessary preamble.

  bear with me, please.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Terry

  
  
  In the case of Stewart, the fallacy of argument from ignorance was tested.
  Stewart is saying, "I don't know - but - I do know." However, he is arguing against
  generalization and for specificity.
  "I can't generalize - but in this specific instance I can rule on the exception."
  He used different words than I just did, of course.
  
  Having said all that ...
  
  There is an old saying which is awkwardly worded: "The exception proves the rule."
  A less awkward wording would substitute the word TEST for PROVES (like a proving ground for an airplane). "The exception tests the (general) rule."
  
  I'm familiar with the obscenity test under Stewart.
  There is a very basic distinction between proof and assertion and it is codified
  and instantiated by evidence presentation.
  
  General Principles usually apply on a case by case basis by the precedent of continual examining of possible exceptions.
  Those exceptions TEST the general Rule.
  Judges have the task of sorting out exceptions worthy of tempering an absolute rule.
  
  BEAUTY is a concept.
  Algebraic symbols must be given some numerical value, but may be given any value. So too the concept of Beauty. It requires some instance of value but may be given any particular instance -- and only the test of time sorts out VALUE.
  
  Here is an experiment I performed.
  I looked at the Top 20 books on award winning lists going back 100 years.
  Those books were judged by mavens (at the time) as "best."
  My task was rather simple: which books have stood the test of time and changing tastes and culture?
  
  1920

  1. The Man of the Forest by Zane Grey
  2. Kindred of the Dust by Peter B. Kyne
  3. The Re-Creation of Brian Kent by Harold Bell Wright
  4. The River's End by James Oliver Curwood
  5. A Man for the Ages by Irving Bacheller
  6. Mary-Marie by Eleanor H. Porter
  7. The Portygee by Joseph C. Lincoln
  8. The Great Impersonation by E. Phillips Oppenheim
  9. The Lamp in the Desert by Ethel M. Dell
  10. Main Street by Sinclair Lewis
  11. The Brimming Cup by Dorothy Canfield
  12. The Mysterious Rider by Zane Grey
  13. The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton
  14. The Valley of Silent Men by James Oliver Curwood
  15. The Sheik by Edith M. Hull
  16. A Poor Wise Man by Mary Roberts Rinehart
  17. Her Father's Daughter by Gene Stratton-Porter
  18. The Sisters-in-Law by Gertrude Atherton
  19. The Kingdom Round the Corner by Coningsby Dawson
  20. Harriet and the Piper by Kathleen Norris
      
      HOW MANY DO YOU RECOGNIZE?
      
      My point?
      The "BEST" of anything really has two spheres of consideration.
      (1)Comparison to contemporaries and (2) comparison in the long run to all others as time continues.
      
      BEAUTY over the eons has presented many candidates and general standards have changed.
      When I was a little boy, Marilyn Monroe was the criterion of a certain kind of popular contagious fanaticism.
      She is STILL popular - but - we now are more critical of how much heavier and fleshy she was (by today's standards.)
      
      Bottom line: There is Beauty as a category but not as a Law of Nature unless the majority comes out year after year, century after century in solidarity to a stated standard.
      
      
• 
  24

  Ask current Jehovah's Witnesses if they KNOW what happened in 1954 (SHOCKING)

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  (referred to below: watchtower bible and tract society presidents: russell, rutherford, knorr, franz )did you know that from 1879 until 1954 ... ... the writings of c.t.russell, j.f.rutherford, nathan knorr, and the watchtower's own charter... ... agreed ... that jesus christ was to be worshiped?this fact has been cleverly and dramatically hidden by manipulation of older quotations.

  ______________________________________________________________________pastor charles taze russell answers the question for us.

  see below zion’s watch tower 1898 jul 15 p.216“question: the fact that our lord received worship is claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was god the father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Terry

  Yes, most of us at one time or another have wondered out loud what each
  ERA (under a particular President) what say to the next era as teachings morphed, dissolved, reappeared in various exotic interpretations : each TRUTH.
  
  It's mere vanity to think Truth evolves or grows brighter.
  Who asks the simple question: BRIGHTER? BRIGHTER THAN WHAT?
  If the last "Truth" was dark: who transmitted it from heaven?
• 
  17

  Can we really talk about BEAUTY?

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can we really talk about beauty?

  (first, a necessary preamble.

  bear with me, please.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Terry

  CAN WE REALLY TALK ABOUT BEAUTY?
  
  (First, a necessary Preamble. Bear with me, please.)
  
  In my 73 years, I’ve had a writing goal:
  “Understand the differences and distinctions of words.”
  I am a writer.
  I can’t write without words.
  It becomes necessary for me to understand words in order to write effectively.
  
  Unless I truly distinguish what I say and think accurately when using words,
  - I am just making sounds that tickle the fancy.
  
  What can we agree about words?
  
  Some words describe real things. (Horse, dog, people).
  Other words describe feelings about non-things. (Truth, Beauty, Courage.)
  Still, other words create imaginary worlds in which deuces are wild.
  
  
  Mixing those three very different categories leads to CONFLATION of “meaning.”
  Define Conflation: Conflation is the merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, opinions, etc., into one, often in error.
  
  Mixing categories leads to Fallacy in our discussions.
  Define Fallacy: “A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is.”
  
  We don’t want to contradict ourselves by writing errors, confusing readers, misleading people with vagueness and empty opinions. Of course not!
  But - (this is vitally important) if the speaker or writer doesn’t realize conflation has happened - the writer is bloviating and misleading others - especially if the writer has talent and skill or credibility otherwise.
  _____
  
  This brings us to why the tool and skill of Logic was invented in the first place.
  
  LOGIC: the art of non-contradiction
  
  We don’t have to be stuffy to be logical.
  We just need to exercise care and precision as a matter of deliberate habit.
  True Statements do not contradict reality.
  
  If we give an opinion, we should fly that flag outright.
  
  A careful writer who understands what he writes and avoids conflation, illogic, and fallacy does no damage to the thinking of the reader.
  A confused and indoctrinated writer is dangerous at worst, persuasive and misdirecting at least.
  
  End of Preamble (whew!)
  Sorry about all that. It was absolutely necessary, however.
  
  _______________________
  
  Finally, CAN WE TALK ABOUT BEAUTY (without confusion)?
  
  I wish to write accurately by distinguishing my thoughts from my feelings.
  Let’s go!
  ________________________
  
  May I begin a discussion of BEAUTY by referencing the human face?
  Every person with eyesight has an opinion about the human face - whether a particular face is ugly / beautiful or in-between. Agreed?
  
  
  
  In a beauty contest, the Judges determine by vote who IS and who is NOT. (Winner).
  
  Aha!
  We are onto something!
  
  A Comedian who doesn’t make people laugh is being JUDGED by his audience.
  He isn’t funny until he makes them laugh. The practical test exemplified.
  
  Careful! Be cautious before you say, ‘Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder.”
  This can only mean no standard is possible except by consensus.
  
  A different set of judges, a different audience, a different Critic often arrive at startlingly
  contrary pronouncements.
  What yesterday’s Experts declared to be GREAT - may be decried by today’s Experts.
  
  What then?
  
  Take a deep breath. This gets deep.
  Ready?
  _______________
  PLATO (428 B.C.)

  The Philosopher Plato was very, very influential for thousands of years (even today)
  Plato’s influence, like parasites in drinking water, has infected everybody who drank.
  _________________
  
  What did Plato teach?
  
  Plato's Theory asserts that the physical realm is only a shadow, or image, of the true reality.
  Meaning?
  The abstract, perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space
  TRANSCEND everyday contact with objects.
  (*see below for an even more boring exploration)
  
  So what?
  Follow this trail of breadcrumbs with me …
  
  Plato was Greek. He was the teacher of Aristotle.
  Aristotle was the tutor of Alexander.
  Alexander the Great (the greatest Greek!) conquered the world
  taking Aristotle/Plato’s ideas to Jews and the Jew’s religious writings absorbed them.
  
  New Testament Jews writing about Jesus founded the Neo-Platonic Greek view into Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings, concept-wise.
  
  You may balk at this!
  You may be offended by this. Or you may shrug it off.
  Doesn’t matter. The evidence is there in text.
  
  PLATO ruined objectivity by conflating it with Subjectivity.
  
  Western Judeo-Christian minds had (unaware) accepted PLATO’s view - which is conceptually self-contradictory.
  
  The consequence is HUGE!
  
  Our greatest teachers, thinkers, religious writers CONFUSE non-reality with reality and inject immaterial “spirit” into concrete things - all the while insisting (Plato would be delighted) the physical realm is only a shadow, or image, of the true reality.
  
  Particularly interesting to me is the language of Colossians 2:17, which reads:
  
  “These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”
  This language of “shadow” (σκιὰ) and “substance” (σῶμα) mirrors the precise language used by Platonists (and later, neo-Platonists) to describe the human condition, imbued in shadows and seeking the true substance that can only be revealed by the enlightened.
  _______
  Where would Paul / Saul of Tarsus, absorb Neo-Platonic thinking?
  
  The Apostle Paul was born in Tarsus.
  The undefeated Grecian military leader Alexander the Great traveled through Tarsus with his massive army in 333 B.C.
  Tarsus was a “free-city” without Roman interference.
  It was well-known for its culture of Greek philosophy, literature and wealth. Its schools of learning rivaled and excelled even those found in Athens and Alexandria. Around 171 B.C. the city's library held 200,000 books, including a huge collection of Plato and Aristotle’s works.
  _______________________________________
  
  BUT WAIT!
  What does this have to do with BEAUTY?
  ___________________________
  ART
  ART may carry with it the exact intentions of the Artist - but - without the Viewer
  Who agrees, the Critic who nods, the collector who buys, and the AGREEMENT of those who write - where is the BEAUTY?
  
  To argue that BEAUTY is “there” (Art for Art’s sake) echoes Plato.
  "Art for art's sake" is the usual English rendering of a French slogan from the early 19th century, "l'art pour l'art", and expresses a philosophy that the intrinsic value of art, and the only "true" art, is divorced from any didactic, moral, politic, or utilitarian function.
  _____
  FINE ART
  
  

  Certain phrases in German or French that are used to categorize the works of art that in English are called works of fine art. In German the phrase is schone kunst; in French is beaux arts. Where, then, does the phrase "fine art" come from?

  
  

  Works of fine art are final in the sense that they are not to be used as means to ends beyond themselves, but rather to be enjoyed as ends in themselves. The useful is always a means; the enjoyable is an end. The fine arts are the arts productive of the enjoyable. When a Sheraton chair is put on a platform and behind ropes it is viewed as an enjoyable work of fine art. In addition to having originally been made as a useful means for sitting down. (Practical). ABSOLUTES in BEAUTY or ART In the final analysis, if we strip away any Platonic notions (insidious propaganda) that outside of the real world a shimmering IDEAL exists casting its Shadow, we are able to separate our Intellect from our Emotions for a few seconds. BEAUTY is a representative word standing in for our conceptual hunger for the topmost enjoyment of Life, the finest exemplification of talent, a crowning achievement of human effort. After all that - we step away from the real world and into a Poetic, Spiritual, Religious use of the word standing in for overwhelming emotions, strong feelings we can barely contain. FINALLY, we have the lower shelves, bottom of the rung, ground level use of BEAUTY to mean something any person of any talent INTENDS for others to regard has somehow SIGNIFICANT if only abstractly, politically, or as a charitable shrug of the shoulders “ Nice try, Dude.” _____ My apologies for all these distinctions. I couldn’t talk about Beauty or Art without them at my low level of skill :)

  
  
  
  (*Hebrews 8-10 Plato’s Allegory of the Cave)

  According to Plato’s “Theory of Forms” non-material ideas have a more fundamental reality than objects available to our senses. The idea of the chair is more real than the chair itself. You might even say that the physical chair is a “copy” of the idea of the chair.

  This philosophy is illustrated in Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave.”
  In the allegory, prisoners are chained in a cave, forced to look at a blank wall.
  Enough light shines into the cave to show shadows of the world outside the cave.
  These “shadows” are the only experience of reality that the prisoners have.

  In the allegory, the philosopher is the prisoner who escapes the cave to gain access to the real world, that is, the world of ideas.
  They can then return to the other prisoners and free them, allowing them to see the world as it really is, not just as it is perceived by their senses.

  The goal of the Greek philosopher was to understand the universals in the world of particulars.

  The Jewish philosopher Philo harmonized Jewish and Greek philosophy, applying the concept of forms, ideas, and allegories to Old Testament text and his exegetical method (the way he interpreted the Bible) was fundamental to some of the early church fathers.

  How influential was Philo? Could his philosophy have impacted any of the Biblical writers?

  This question comes to bear on Hebrews 8 – 10. In it, the writer says “[The priests] serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: ‘See to it that you make everything according to the pattern seen on the mountain” (8:5). He also says “When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not part of this creation” (9:11). And again, “It was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one, but he entered heaven itself, now to appear before us in God’s presence” (9:23-24).

  So how did the writer of Hebrews use the language of “copy,” “shadow,” “true,” and “heavenly?” Was he making a distinction between the physical world of particulars and the more enduring realities of ideas?
  PLATO had unduly influenced the intellect of the writer. Otherwise, we must accept that Plato’s guesswork was equally inspired by God four hundred years before Christ.
  ______________

  
  
  
  All of the above amounts to a Philosophical discussion of implications
  in language, thought and - cough cough - meaning when combined with Religion.