Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="porco-dddio" data-source="post: 80377" data-attributes="member: 656">I was doing a mental experiment. What if thought coould be transmitted like some conspiracies say, and lets assume some truth is there and some idealistic notions of sharing primitive thoughts without usage of symbol and language can be done. I think it has implications for the way we framed art so far, because lots of what we consider art is done thru the transmuation of symbols. So could art be even possible if we were telepatically transfering ideas?Imagine, for the time being we are insects who communicate with chemical signals and we are not transmuting agents. Would that be romantic and good?The way I framed it art depends on transmutation of symbols. Transmission (communication) isnt it, and if we were simply transmitter-receiver I can only imagine an ant colony and ants can rarely be described as artists. In my Dungeon And Dragons framework, art exists because human beings are not transparent to one another. Perception remains always private. Time separates one from another. So the transmutation of symbols can exist in this context. I think telepathy can be framed as ultimate communication, and if it existed it would collapse all my previous ideas. This is how you can falsify my model. My question is: is that romantic? Thinking ourselves as transmitter-receiver. Or can we instead think ourselves as transmuter magicians? I think transmuter is more romantic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="porco-dddio, post: 80377, member: 656"] I was doing a mental experiment. What if thought coould be transmitted like some conspiracies say, and lets assume some truth is there and some idealistic notions of sharing primitive thoughts without usage of symbol and language can be done. I think it has implications for the way we framed art so far, because lots of what we consider art is done thru the transmuation of symbols. So could art be even possible if we were telepatically transfering ideas? Imagine, for the time being we are insects who communicate with chemical signals and we are not transmuting agents. Would that be romantic and good? The way I framed it art depends on transmutation of symbols. Transmission (communication) isnt it, and if we were simply transmitter-receiver I can only imagine an ant colony and ants can rarely be described as artists. In my Dungeon And Dragons framework, art exists because human beings are not transparent to one another. Perception remains always private. Time separates one from another. So the transmutation of symbols can exist in this context. I think telepathy can be framed as ultimate communication, and if it existed it would collapse all my previous ideas. This is how you can falsify my model. My question is: is that romantic? Thinking ourselves as transmitter-receiver. Or can we instead think ourselves as transmuter magicians? I think transmuter is more romantic. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread