An essay, but on topic.

One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.

One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.

How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons.. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone..

If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.

Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.

Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks. I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people. Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.

Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone. Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> An essay, but on topic.
>
>
> One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
>
> One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
>
> How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
>
> If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
>
> Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
>
> Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks. I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people. Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
>
> Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone. Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.

Oh, are we goin' to play this again? I'm game, let's try it all over again and watch it crash 'n burn like last time around...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
Well then this would be my solution...

"The one eyed old man told me of a lake that no-one knows of.
where the end of the sky unites with the bottom countless feet down deep
And he told me when this world was young into it's depths his eye he had thrown
So that though one eyed, he could see more than can be seen.
I'll throw my eyes into the lake.
So that I will see from within
I'll throw my eyes into the lake
And when blind I will still see."
--'The Lake' ~~Bathory

I'm feeling generous, so I shall momentarily stay my ire over this essay transgression. Besides, I'm interested in presenting this fateful message to you...
P.S.: You didn't capitalize your title like you did last time...

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
>
> An essay, but on topic.
>
>
> One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
>
> One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
>
> How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
>
> If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
>
> Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
>
> Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks. I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people. Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
>
> Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone. Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.

Good read I.S.

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> An essay, but on topic.
>
>
> One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
>

You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.

> One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
>

I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:

"When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly."

You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.

When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).

> How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
>

You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.

Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.

> If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
>

I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.

Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):

https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023

Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.

And that is only one of many such organizations.

> Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.

This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.

There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.

> There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
>

What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?

Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.

> Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.

1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.

2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.

> I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
>

If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.

Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.

Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.

> Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.

Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.

>
> Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
>

I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.

Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!

> Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
>

While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao.. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > An essay, but on topic.
> >
> >
> > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> >
> You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness.. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> >
> I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
>
> "When people see some things as beautiful,
> other things become ugly."
>
> You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.

Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...

> When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> >
> You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
>
> Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> >
> I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.

> Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
>
> https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
>
> Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year..
>
> And that is only one of many such organizations.

Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.

> > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
>
> There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> >
> What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
>
> Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
>
> 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> >
> If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
>
> Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
>
> Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> >
> > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> >
> I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
>
> Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> >
> While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > An essay, but on topic.
> > >
> > >
> > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > >
> > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > >
> > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> >
> > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > other things become ugly."
> >
> > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > >
> > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> >
> > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > >
> > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
>
> > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> >
> > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> >
> > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> >
> > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> >
> > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > >
> > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> >
> > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> >
> > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > >
> > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> >
> > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> >
> > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > >
> > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > >
> > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> >
> > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > >
> > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
>

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > >
> > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > >
> > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > >
> > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > other things become ugly."
> > >
> > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > >
> > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > >
> > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > >
> > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> >
> > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > >
> > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > >
> > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > >
> > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain..
> > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > >
> > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > >
> > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > >
> > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > >
> > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > >
> > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > >
> > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > >
> > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > >
> > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > >
> > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > >
> > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > >
> > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> >
>

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > >
> > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > >
> > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > >
> > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > other things become ugly."
> > > >
> > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > >
> > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year.. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > >
> > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > >
> > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > >
> > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > >
> > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > >
> > > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > >
> > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > >
> > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > >
> > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people..
> > > > >
> > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > >
> > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > >
> > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > >
> > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > >
> > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > >
> > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > >
> > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > >
> >
>

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > >
> > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > >
> > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > > >
> > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > >
> > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > >
> > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > >
> > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > >
> > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > >
> > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong.. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them..
> > > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:49:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement.. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > > > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel.. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova.. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
Ilya Shambat got lost on the way to the second sentence in his essay.

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:49:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > > > > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> Ilya Shambat got lost on the way to the second sentence in his essay.

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:38:02 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:49:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > > > > > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > > > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person.. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > Ilya Shambat got lost on the way to the second sentence in his essay.
> Perhaps he was too busy attempting to shoot a saying?
Yes, and Beauty was to be "taken out." Taken out from where to where? He also hears "any number of" over-used sayings. Ilya needs to hang out with people who have a larger vocabulary.

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:38:02 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:49:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > > > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > > > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > > > > > > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > > > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > > > > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > > > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > Ilya Shambat got lost on the way to the second sentence in his essay.
> > Perhaps he was too busy attempting to shoot a saying?
> Yes, and Beauty was to be "taken out." Taken out from where to where? He also hears "any number of" over-used sayings. Ilya needs to hang out with people who have a larger vocabulary.
>

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 11:34:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:38:02 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:49:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > > > > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > > > > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > > > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > > > > > > > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > > > > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level..
> > > > > > > > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > Ilya Shambat got lost on the way to the second sentence in his essay.
> > > Perhaps he was too busy attempting to shoot a saying?
> > Yes, and Beauty was to be "taken out." Taken out from where to where? He also hears "any number of" over-used sayings. Ilya needs to hang out with people who have a larger vocabulary.
> >
> He needs to do a lot of things.
>
> The first of which is to learn how to structure an argument. He doesn't argue or support his claims, but rather lists tangential examples that are equally unsupported.
>
> The second of which is to acquaint himself with philosophy. Although he hints at a half-formed understanding of Platonic Ideals in the above, the extent of his knowledge appears to be based upon an equally misunderstood concept of Eastern religion, and the vaguely Christian views of those who've never bothered to read The Bible.
>
> The third thing is to take a course in advanced ESL. He seems to be laboring under the misconception that he writes English as fluently as though it were his native tongue.
>
> And, finally, he needs to find something worth writing about. While he picks potentially interesting topics, his essays quickly deteriorate into the same old tropes that he seems to be unable to break away or move on from: 1) that he was (or so he believes) a child prodigy in his native land (Russia), 2) that he had relationships with a string of beautiful Russian women who put American women to shame, 3) that these beautiful Russian women were constantly traumatized by Third Wave Feminists who hated them for being beautiful, and 4) that beautiful women go through life under a handicap because the evil Third Wave Feminists have influenced society at large to look down on beauty.
>
> I agree that he doesn't get out enough -- but keeps on reliving a handful of negative experiences that either he, or one of his beautiful Russian women, had suffered.
>

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:44:25 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 11:34:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:38:02 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:49:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > > > > > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > > > > > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > > > > > > > > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > Ilya Shambat got lost on the way to the second sentence in his essay.
> > > > Perhaps he was too busy attempting to shoot a saying?
> > > Yes, and Beauty was to be "taken out." Taken out from where to where? He also hears "any number of" over-used sayings. Ilya needs to hang out with people who have a larger vocabulary.
> > >
> > He needs to do a lot of things.
> >
> > The first of which is to learn how to structure an argument. He doesn't argue or support his claims, but rather lists tangential examples that are equally unsupported.
> >
> > The second of which is to acquaint himself with philosophy. Although he hints at a half-formed understanding of Platonic Ideals in the above, the extent of his knowledge appears to be based upon an equally misunderstood concept of Eastern religion, and the vaguely Christian views of those who've never bothered to read The Bible.
> >
> > The third thing is to take a course in advanced ESL. He seems to be laboring under the misconception that he writes English as fluently as though it were his native tongue.
> >
> > And, finally, he needs to find something worth writing about. While he picks potentially interesting topics, his essays quickly deteriorate into the same old tropes that he seems to be unable to break away or move on from: 1) that he was (or so he believes) a child prodigy in his native land (Russia), 2) that he had relationships with a string of beautiful Russian women who put American women to shame, 3) that these beautiful Russian women were constantly traumatized by Third Wave Feminists who hated them for being beautiful, and 4) that beautiful women go through life under a handicap because the evil Third Wave Feminists have influenced society at large to look down on beauty.
> >
> > I agree that he doesn't get out enough -- but keeps on reliving a handful of negative experiences that either he, or one of his beautiful Russian women, had suffered.
> >
>

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:34:24 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:38:02 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:49:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > > > > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > > > > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > > > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > > > > > > > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > > > > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level..
> > > > > > > > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > Ilya Shambat got lost on the way to the second sentence in his essay.
> > > Perhaps he was too busy attempting to shoot a saying?
> > Yes, and Beauty was to be "taken out." Taken out from where to where? He also hears "any number of" over-used sayings. Ilya needs to hang out with people who have a larger vocabulary.
> >
> He needs to do a lot of things.
>
> The first of which is to learn how to structure an argument. He doesn't argue or support his claims, but rather lists tangential examples that are equally unsupported.
Ilya Shambat is still thinking in Russian, rather than English. Russians not argue.
>
> The second of which is to acquaint himself with philosophy. Although he hints at a half-formed understanding of Platonic Ideals in the above, the extent of his knowledge appears to be based upon an equally misunderstood concept of Eastern religion, and the vaguely Christian views of those who've never bothered to read The Bible.
If he is Jewish, as he says he is, then he should at least be familiar with the Old Testament.

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:34:24 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:38:02 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:49:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > > > > > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > > > > > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > > > > > > > > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > Ilya Shambat got lost on the way to the second sentence in his essay.
> > > > Perhaps he was too busy attempting to shoot a saying?
> > > Yes, and Beauty was to be "taken out." Taken out from where to where? He also hears "any number of" over-used sayings. Ilya needs to hang out with people who have a larger vocabulary.
> > >
> > He needs to do a lot of things.
> >
> > The first of which is to learn how to structure an argument. He doesn't argue or support his claims, but rather lists tangential examples that are equally unsupported.
> Ilya Shambat is still thinking in Russian, rather than English. Russians not argue.
> >
> > The second of which is to acquaint himself with philosophy. Although he hints at a half-formed understanding of Platonic Ideals in the above, the extent of his knowledge appears to be based upon an equally misunderstood concept of Eastern religion, and the vaguely Christian views of those who've never bothered to read The Bible.
> If he is Jewish, as he says he is, then he should at least be familiar with the Old Testament.
> >
> > The third thing is to take a course in advanced ESL. He seems to be laboring under the misconception that he writes English as fluently as though it were his native tongue.
> Ilya still write Russlish.
> >
> > And, finally, he needs to find something worth writing about. While he picks potentially interesting topics, his essays quickly deteriorate into the same old tropes that he seems to be unable to break away or move on from: 1) that he was (or so he believes) a child prodigy in his native land (Russia), 2) that he had relationships with a string of beautiful Russian women who put American women to shame, 3) that these beautiful Russian women were constantly traumatized by Third Wave Feminists who hated them for being beautiful, and 4) that beautiful women go through life under a handicap because the evil Third Wave Feminists have influenced society at large to look down on beauty.
> We think that Ilya Shambat writes of how it should have gone, rather than how it actually did. Many beautiful women fell in love with a 5'5," 120 pound Russian who wrote laughable poetry for them? Nah.
> >
> > I agree that he doesn't get out enough -- but keeps on reliving a handful of negative experiences that either he, or one of his beautiful Russian women, had suffered.
> There don't seem to be any "new" essays. Ilya Shambat doesn't even correct the obvious typos that are pointed out. Russian people suffer great: that Russian fun.

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:49:40 AM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:34:24 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:38:02 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:49:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them.. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > Ilya Shambat got lost on the way to the second sentence in his essay.
> > > > > Perhaps he was too busy attempting to shoot a saying?
> > > > Yes, and Beauty was to be "taken out." Taken out from where to where? He also hears "any number of" over-used sayings. Ilya needs to hang out with people who have a larger vocabulary.
> > > >
> > > He needs to do a lot of things.
> > >
> > > The first of which is to learn how to structure an argument. He doesn't argue or support his claims, but rather lists tangential examples that are equally unsupported.
> > Ilya Shambat is still thinking in Russian, rather than English. Russians not argue.
> > >
> > > The second of which is to acquaint himself with philosophy. Although he hints at a half-formed understanding of Platonic Ideals in the above, the extent of his knowledge appears to be based upon an equally misunderstood concept of Eastern religion, and the vaguely Christian views of those who've never bothered to read The Bible.
> > If he is Jewish, as he says he is, then he should at least be familiar with the Old Testament.
> > >
> > > The third thing is to take a course in advanced ESL. He seems to be laboring under the misconception that he writes English as fluently as though it were his native tongue.
> > Ilya still write Russlish.
> > >
> > > And, finally, he needs to find something worth writing about. While he picks potentially interesting topics, his essays quickly deteriorate into the same old tropes that he seems to be unable to break away or move on from: 1) that he was (or so he believes) a child prodigy in his native land (Russia), 2) that he had relationships with a string of beautiful Russian women who put American women to shame, 3) that these beautiful Russian women were constantly traumatized by Third Wave Feminists who hated them for being beautiful, and 4) that beautiful women go through life under a handicap because the evil Third Wave Feminists have influenced society at large to look down on beauty.
> > We think that Ilya Shambat writes of how it should have gone, rather than how it actually did. Many beautiful women fell in love with a 5'5," 120 pound Russian who wrote laughable poetry for them? Nah.
> > >
> > > I agree that he doesn't get out enough -- but keeps on reliving a handful of negative experiences that either he, or one of his beautiful Russian women, had suffered.
> > There don't seem to be any "new" essays. Ilya Shambat doesn't even correct the obvious typos that are pointed out. Russian people suffer great: that Russian fun.
> Come to think of it, I haven't noticed any new ones either. Of course I do tend to skip over the majority of Ilya's posts -- mostly because they tend to be repeats.
Not only are they repeats, they are also very frequent repeats. Ilya Shambat too busy write new poems and manifestos. Beautiful Russian women keep Ilya Shambat busy.

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:42:36 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:49:40 AM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:34:24 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:38:02 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:49:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy.. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas.. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ilya Shambat got lost on the way to the second sentence in his essay.
> > > > > > Perhaps he was too busy attempting to shoot a saying?
> > > > > Yes, and Beauty was to be "taken out." Taken out from where to where? He also hears "any number of" over-used sayings. Ilya needs to hang out with people who have a larger vocabulary.
> > > > >
> > > > He needs to do a lot of things.
> > > >
> > > > The first of which is to learn how to structure an argument. He doesn't argue or support his claims, but rather lists tangential examples that are equally unsupported.
> > > Ilya Shambat is still thinking in Russian, rather than English. Russians not argue.
> > > >
> > > > The second of which is to acquaint himself with philosophy. Although he hints at a half-formed understanding of Platonic Ideals in the above, the extent of his knowledge appears to be based upon an equally misunderstood concept of Eastern religion, and the vaguely Christian views of those who've never bothered to read The Bible.
> > > If he is Jewish, as he says he is, then he should at least be familiar with the Old Testament.
> > > >
> > > > The third thing is to take a course in advanced ESL. He seems to be laboring under the misconception that he writes English as fluently as though it were his native tongue.
> > > Ilya still write Russlish.
> > > >
> > > > And, finally, he needs to find something worth writing about. While he picks potentially interesting topics, his essays quickly deteriorate into the same old tropes that he seems to be unable to break away or move on from: 1) that he was (or so he believes) a child prodigy in his native land (Russia), 2) that he had relationships with a string of beautiful Russian women who put American women to shame, 3) that these beautiful Russian women were constantly traumatized by Third Wave Feminists who hated them for being beautiful, and 4) that beautiful women go through life under a handicap because the evil Third Wave Feminists have influenced society at large to look down on beauty.
> > > We think that Ilya Shambat writes of how it should have gone, rather than how it actually did. Many beautiful women fell in love with a 5'5," 120 pound Russian who wrote laughable poetry for them? Nah.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that he doesn't get out enough -- but keeps on reliving a handful of negative experiences that either he, or one of his beautiful Russian women, had suffered.
> > > There don't seem to be any "new" essays. Ilya Shambat doesn't even correct the obvious typos that are pointed out. Russian people suffer great: that Russian fun.
> > Come to think of it, I haven't noticed any new ones either. Of course I do tend to skip over the majority of Ilya's posts -- mostly because they tend to be repeats.
> Not only are they repeats, they are also very frequent repeats. Ilya Shambat too busy write new poems and manifestos. Beautiful Russian women keep Ilya Shambat busy.
> >
> > I suppose he's pulling a Donkey: spamming his his old junk to various internet forums under the misconception that having one's name posted all over the internet amounts to some sort of fame.
> Ilya Shambat post lame translations to Internet. Make Ilya Shambat popular with beautiful Russian women.
> >
> > I've liked one or two of Ilya's poems. They were gushing, New Agey twaddle that didn't make a lick of sense, but there was an exhilarating feeling to them that caught me up in spite of myself. Had he only posted those poems, I would have considered him an unusual, but exciting poet. Unfortunately, the more of his translations, and especially his essays, that I see, the lower my opinion of his talents.
> Make reader think Ilya Shambat not fluent Russian or English.
> >
> > I'm not suggesting that Ilya only post his one or two good poems and disappear...
> Russian Government make Ilya Shambat disappear.
> > the best way to learn how to write is by writing. But reposting subpar work to various forums, again and again and again, is only going to run one's reputation into the ground.
> Ilya Shambat not care about reputation. Ilya Shambat only need self and beautiful Russian women.
>

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:49:40 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:34:24 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:38:02 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:49:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them.. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > Ilya Shambat got lost on the way to the second sentence in his essay.
> > > > > Perhaps he was too busy attempting to shoot a saying?
> > > > Yes, and Beauty was to be "taken out." Taken out from where to where? He also hears "any number of" over-used sayings. Ilya needs to hang out with people who have a larger vocabulary.
> > > >
> > > He needs to do a lot of things.
> > >
> > > The first of which is to learn how to structure an argument. He doesn't argue or support his claims, but rather lists tangential examples that are equally unsupported.
> > Ilya Shambat is still thinking in Russian, rather than English. Russians not argue.
> > >
> > > The second of which is to acquaint himself with philosophy. Although he hints at a half-formed understanding of Platonic Ideals in the above, the extent of his knowledge appears to be based upon an equally misunderstood concept of Eastern religion, and the vaguely Christian views of those who've never bothered to read The Bible.
> > If he is Jewish, as he says he is, then he should at least be familiar with the Old Testament.
> > >
> > > The third thing is to take a course in advanced ESL. He seems to be laboring under the misconception that he writes English as fluently as though it were his native tongue.
> > Ilya still write Russlish.
> > >
> > > And, finally, he needs to find something worth writing about. While he picks potentially interesting topics, his essays quickly deteriorate into the same old tropes that he seems to be unable to break away or move on from: 1) that he was (or so he believes) a child prodigy in his native land (Russia), 2) that he had relationships with a string of beautiful Russian women who put American women to shame, 3) that these beautiful Russian women were constantly traumatized by Third Wave Feminists who hated them for being beautiful, and 4) that beautiful women go through life under a handicap because the evil Third Wave Feminists have influenced society at large to look down on beauty.
> > We think that Ilya Shambat writes of how it should have gone, rather than how it actually did. Many beautiful women fell in love with a 5'5," 120 pound Russian who wrote laughable poetry for them? Nah.
> > >
> > > I agree that he doesn't get out enough -- but keeps on reliving a handful of negative experiences that either he, or one of his beautiful Russian women, had suffered.
> > There don't seem to be any "new" essays. Ilya Shambat doesn't even correct the obvious typos that are pointed out. Russian people suffer great: that Russian fun.
> Come to think of it, I haven't noticed any new ones either. Of course I do tend to skip over the majority of Ilya's posts -- mostly because they tend to be repeats.
>
> I suppose he's pulling a Donkey: spamming his his old junk to various internet forums under the misconception that having one's name posted all over the internet amounts to some sort of fame.
>
> I've liked one or two of Ilya's poems. They were gushing, New Agey twaddle that didn't make a lick of sense, but there was an exhilarating feeling to them that caught me up in spite of myself. Had he only posted those poems, I would have considered him an unusual, but exciting poet. Unfortunately, the more of his translations, and especially his essays, that I see, the lower my opinion of his talents.
>
> I'm not suggesting that Ilya only post his one or two good poems and disappear... the best way to learn how to write is by writing. But reposting subpar work to various forums, again and again and again, is only going to run one's reputation into the ground.

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 12:59:05 PM UTC, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:49:40 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:34:24 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:38:02 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:49:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy.. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas.. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ilya Shambat got lost on the way to the second sentence in his essay.
> > > > > > Perhaps he was too busy attempting to shoot a saying?
> > > > > Yes, and Beauty was to be "taken out." Taken out from where to where? He also hears "any number of" over-used sayings. Ilya needs to hang out with people who have a larger vocabulary.
> > > > >
> > > > He needs to do a lot of things.
> > > >
> > > > The first of which is to learn how to structure an argument. He doesn't argue or support his claims, but rather lists tangential examples that are equally unsupported.
> > > Ilya Shambat is still thinking in Russian, rather than English. Russians not argue.
> > > >
> > > > The second of which is to acquaint himself with philosophy. Although he hints at a half-formed understanding of Platonic Ideals in the above, the extent of his knowledge appears to be based upon an equally misunderstood concept of Eastern religion, and the vaguely Christian views of those who've never bothered to read The Bible.
> > > If he is Jewish, as he says he is, then he should at least be familiar with the Old Testament.
> > > >
> > > > The third thing is to take a course in advanced ESL. He seems to be laboring under the misconception that he writes English as fluently as though it were his native tongue.
> > > Ilya still write Russlish.
> > > >
> > > > And, finally, he needs to find something worth writing about. While he picks potentially interesting topics, his essays quickly deteriorate into the same old tropes that he seems to be unable to break away or move on from: 1) that he was (or so he believes) a child prodigy in his native land (Russia), 2) that he had relationships with a string of beautiful Russian women who put American women to shame, 3) that these beautiful Russian women were constantly traumatized by Third Wave Feminists who hated them for being beautiful, and 4) that beautiful women go through life under a handicap because the evil Third Wave Feminists have influenced society at large to look down on beauty.
> > > We think that Ilya Shambat writes of how it should have gone, rather than how it actually did. Many beautiful women fell in love with a 5'5," 120 pound Russian who wrote laughable poetry for them? Nah.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that he doesn't get out enough -- but keeps on reliving a handful of negative experiences that either he, or one of his beautiful Russian women, had suffered.
> > > There don't seem to be any "new" essays. Ilya Shambat doesn't even correct the obvious typos that are pointed out. Russian people suffer great: that Russian fun.
> > Come to think of it, I haven't noticed any new ones either. Of course I do tend to skip over the majority of Ilya's posts -- mostly because they tend to be repeats.
> >
> > I suppose he's pulling a Donkey: spamming his his old junk to various internet forums under the misconception that having one's name posted all over the internet amounts to some sort of fame.
> >
> > I've liked one or two of Ilya's poems. They were gushing, New Agey twaddle that didn't make a lick of sense, but there was an exhilarating feeling to them that caught me up in spite of myself. Had he only posted those poems, I would have considered him an unusual, but exciting poet. Unfortunately, the more of his translations, and especially his essays, that I see, the lower my opinion of his talents.
> >
> > I'm not suggesting that Ilya only post his one or two good poems and disappear... the best way to learn how to write is by writing. But reposting subpar work to various forums, again and again and again, is only going to run one's reputation into the ground.
> I once encouraged him to keep writing, but not keep repeating the mistakes he may make in the process-- no great writer, or the Beats, or any singer really achieved ultimate success without improving.

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:08:56 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 12:59:05 PM UTC, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:49:40 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:34:24 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:38:02 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:49:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct.. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet.. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ilya Shambat got lost on the way to the second sentence in his essay.
> > > > > > > Perhaps he was too busy attempting to shoot a saying?
> > > > > > Yes, and Beauty was to be "taken out." Taken out from where to where? He also hears "any number of" over-used sayings. Ilya needs to hang out with people who have a larger vocabulary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > He needs to do a lot of things.
> > > > >
> > > > > The first of which is to learn how to structure an argument. He doesn't argue or support his claims, but rather lists tangential examples that are equally unsupported.
> > > > Ilya Shambat is still thinking in Russian, rather than English. Russians not argue.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second of which is to acquaint himself with philosophy. Although he hints at a half-formed understanding of Platonic Ideals in the above, the extent of his knowledge appears to be based upon an equally misunderstood concept of Eastern religion, and the vaguely Christian views of those who've never bothered to read The Bible.
> > > > If he is Jewish, as he says he is, then he should at least be familiar with the Old Testament.
> > > > >
> > > > > The third thing is to take a course in advanced ESL. He seems to be laboring under the misconception that he writes English as fluently as though it were his native tongue.
> > > > Ilya still write Russlish.
> > > > >
> > > > > And, finally, he needs to find something worth writing about. While he picks potentially interesting topics, his essays quickly deteriorate into the same old tropes that he seems to be unable to break away or move on from: 1) that he was (or so he believes) a child prodigy in his native land (Russia), 2) that he had relationships with a string of beautiful Russian women who put American women to shame, 3) that these beautiful Russian women were constantly traumatized by Third Wave Feminists who hated them for being beautiful, and 4) that beautiful women go through life under a handicap because the evil Third Wave Feminists have influenced society at large to look down on beauty.
> > > > We think that Ilya Shambat writes of how it should have gone, rather than how it actually did. Many beautiful women fell in love with a 5'5," 120 pound Russian who wrote laughable poetry for them? Nah.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that he doesn't get out enough -- but keeps on reliving a handful of negative experiences that either he, or one of his beautiful Russian women, had suffered.
> > > > There don't seem to be any "new" essays. Ilya Shambat doesn't even correct the obvious typos that are pointed out. Russian people suffer great: that Russian fun.
> > > Come to think of it, I haven't noticed any new ones either. Of course I do tend to skip over the majority of Ilya's posts -- mostly because they tend to be repeats.
> > >
> > > I suppose he's pulling a Donkey: spamming his his old junk to various internet forums under the misconception that having one's name posted all over the internet amounts to some sort of fame.
> > >
> > > I've liked one or two of Ilya's poems. They were gushing, New Agey twaddle that didn't make a lick of sense, but there was an exhilarating feeling to them that caught me up in spite of myself. Had he only posted those poems, I would have considered him an unusual, but exciting poet. Unfortunately, the more of his translations, and especially his essays, that I see, the lower my opinion of his talents.
> > >
> > > I'm not suggesting that Ilya only post his one or two good poems and disappear... the best way to learn how to write is by writing. But reposting subpar work to various forums, again and again and again, is only going to run one's reputation into the ground.
> > I once encouraged him to keep writing, but not keep repeating the mistakes he may make in the process-- no great writer, or the Beats, or any singer really achieved ultimate success without improving.
> Ilya Shambat not need success. Ilya Shambat have beautiful Russian women and Internet.
> Ilya Shambat not need English course. Ilya Shambat have toadies named "Will" and "Zod" to tell him he's great poet.

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 12:55:15 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:08:56 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 12:59:05 PM UTC, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:49:40 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:34:24 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:38:02 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:49:31 PM UTC, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:21:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:39:15 AM UTC-4, Coco DeSockmonkey wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 9:34:27 AM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:38:09 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-4, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An essay, but on topic.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You speak of "beauty" as if it were a Platonic Ideal, yet fail to define it as such. And when you eventually get around to giving an example of "beauty," it turns out that you're only speaking about beauty as a cultural standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that this is the verse you are referring to:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When people see some things as beautiful,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other things become ugly."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of this statement. The Tao is saying that one concept cannot exist without its opposite. The concept of "Good" cannot exist without "Evil." This doesn't mean that one is *creating* "good" and "evil" (or "beauty" and "ugliness"). It means that the moment one *recognizes* the example of an existing concept, he becomes aware of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yep, you got to admire the old wisdom...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you describe what makes a woman "beautiful," you are tacitly describing what makes other women "not beautiful" (in that they would not possess the qualities you'd described).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're rambling rather incoherently here. If you are saying that "Beauty existed" from some unknown period in the prehistory of humankind, you are coming close to equating it with the Platonic Ideal of the same. Only instead of assigning the concept to an abstract plane, you are claiming that a common (shared) and unchangeable standard of "beauty" has existed from time immemorial. Yet you contradict this idea when you attack the "abuses of beauty" by "stupid teenagers" and "unethical plastic surgeons" who would be adhering to the societal standards of their time..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that a Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" exists independently of cultural standards? If so, you would be correct. However, Plato would have agreed that the concept of "Beauty" necessitates the concept of its opposite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've explained this to you before, but you seem to be as blockheaded as or resident Donkey. The United States offers many grants to fund artists, and State and Nationally funded art is created on a daily basis.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a 2023 news release from The National Endowment for the Arts (whose name alone renders your above claims incorrect):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/national-endowment-arts-announces-second-round-grants-fy-2023
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since I doubt that you'll read the article, $103,000,000.00 was allocated to art projects in what is the *second* round of grants released this year.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And that is only one of many such organizations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not just government grants, but private grants and the commercial sector funds so much more and the Internet is a hot bed of individual creativity, often funded by other individuals on the internet. Art funding back then was only done by the Church and nobility, often for their own personal gain.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is all too true. Some people are too stupid to investigate the validity of their claims before writing and posting them. Some people think that just because they haven't heard of any new art projects since the Sistine Chapel had its ceiling decorated, that no such projects exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a big, wide, wonderful world outside of your personal knowledge and experience, and you would do well to open your ears, eyes, and mind to what is out there before opining that no such things exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think that they aren't respected? Did some radical Third Wave Feminist say that Keats' poetry was lame?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Culture has accorded Keats a place of honor as one of the all-time great poets. Those who've attained such a position are not going to lose it because a handful of ignoramuses are incapable of seeing it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" was the catchphrase from an extremely successful ad campaign for Pantene. There no such people. The women in those commercials were actresses and models reading ad copy.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Your argument that "they are jerks" is childish at best. If you're going to be a successful philosopher (or social critic, etc.), you need to upgrade your vocabulary to a more respectable, adult level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you look or act like trash (if you were homeless and "massaging" your lower bowels in a public library, for instance), then people are going to identify you as such.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor is it deemed acceptable to approach women in certain social circles or situations without first having been properly introduced.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Accosting beautiful women with questions about beauty, could easily come across as you're being a pushy stranger attempting to hit on them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, their reaction depends on other factors. If they are not members of a social caste/circle where accosting women would be considered an offense, they would not have taken offense at your words.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think your intended "point" is that the Platonic Ideal of "Beauty" should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of (some) beautiful people. Fine, but has *anyone* ever attempted to dismiss or deny the concept of "Beauty" because a beautiful woman dismissed him as trash? He might say that the woman's "beauty" was only skin deep, but he would be an idiot to claim that Beauty did not exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess... it's those miserable Third Wave Feminists, again, isn't it? A pox upon them! They should be systematically stamped off the face of the earth!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While Beauty should certainly be respected (revered and adored!), this does not in any way negate the duality of concepts as expressed withing the Tao. For the concept of "Beauty" to exist, non-Beauty (Ugliness) must also exist. Without the existence of Ugliness, everyone (and everything) in this world would be "Beautiful." And, not having anything less beautiful to contrast it with, the concept would have no meaning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ilya Shambat got lost on the way to the second sentence in his essay.
> > > > > > > > Perhaps he was too busy attempting to shoot a saying?
> > > > > > > Yes, and Beauty was to be "taken out." Taken out from where to where? He also hears "any number of" over-used sayings. Ilya needs to hang out with people who have a larger vocabulary.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > He needs to do a lot of things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The first of which is to learn how to structure an argument. He doesn't argue or support his claims, but rather lists tangential examples that are equally unsupported.
> > > > > Ilya Shambat is still thinking in Russian, rather than English. Russians not argue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second of which is to acquaint himself with philosophy. Although he hints at a half-formed understanding of Platonic Ideals in the above, the extent of his knowledge appears to be based upon an equally misunderstood concept of Eastern religion, and the vaguely Christian views of those who've never bothered to read The Bible.
> > > > > If he is Jewish, as he says he is, then he should at least be familiar with the Old Testament.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The third thing is to take a course in advanced ESL. He seems to be laboring under the misconception that he writes English as fluently as though it were his native tongue.
> > > > > Ilya still write Russlish.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And, finally, he needs to find something worth writing about. While he picks potentially interesting topics, his essays quickly deteriorate into the same old tropes that he seems to be unable to break away or move on from: 1) that he was (or so he believes) a child prodigy in his native land (Russia), 2) that he had relationships with a string of beautiful Russian women who put American women to shame, 3) that these beautiful Russian women were constantly traumatized by Third Wave Feminists who hated them for being beautiful, and 4) that beautiful women go through life under a handicap because the evil Third Wave Feminists have influenced society at large to look down on beauty.
> > > > > We think that Ilya Shambat writes of how it should have gone, rather than how it actually did. Many beautiful women fell in love with a 5'5," 120 pound Russian who wrote laughable poetry for them? Nah.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree that he doesn't get out enough -- but keeps on reliving a handful of negative experiences that either he, or one of his beautiful Russian women, had suffered.
> > > > > There don't seem to be any "new" essays. Ilya Shambat doesn't even correct the obvious typos that are pointed out. Russian people suffer great: that Russian fun.
> > > > Come to think of it, I haven't noticed any new ones either. Of course I do tend to skip over the majority of Ilya's posts -- mostly because they tend to be repeats.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose he's pulling a Donkey: spamming his his old junk to various internet forums under the misconception that having one's name posted all over the internet amounts to some sort of fame.
> > > >
> > > > I've liked one or two of Ilya's poems. They were gushing, New Agey twaddle that didn't make a lick of sense, but there was an exhilarating feeling to them that caught me up in spite of myself. Had he only posted those poems, I would have considered him an unusual, but exciting poet. Unfortunately, the more of his translations, and especially his essays, that I see, the lower my opinion of his talents.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not suggesting that Ilya only post his one or two good poems and disappear... the best way to learn how to write is by writing. But reposting subpar work to various forums, again and again and again, is only going to run one's reputation into the ground.
> > > I once encouraged him to keep writing, but not keep repeating the mistakes he may make in the process-- no great writer, or the Beats, or any singer really achieved ultimate success without improving.
> > Ilya Shambat not need success. Ilya Shambat have beautiful Russian women and Internet.
> > Ilya Shambat not need English course. Ilya Shambat have toadies named "Will" and "Zod" to tell him he's great poet.
Ilya Shambat not need new essays. Ilya Shambat have dozen great essays on thoughts for world make better for beautiful Russian women and not good for stinky feminists who spit on Ilya Shambat.