Thread is now about Holist.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I do think that psychologically fucked up people almost always tend to make authentic music when their music is about their psychological imperfections. Which implies that, while they may be a long way away from becoming a robust and mature human being, and indeed some may never make it, the music tends to be authentic when it aids self-knowledge.

What the fuck does that even MEAN?

I'll break it down for you.

Psychologically fucked up (neurotic, self-harming, suicidal or just plain ill-adjusted) people can make authentic music. There are in fact many examples among my very favourites.

It is my observation that when this happens (psychologically fucked up people making authentic, genuine music) their music tends to be mostly about their psychological problems.

So in a way, while not mature or robust or flexible and well-adjusted, they are in many or even most cases using the creative activity (the making of the music) to articulate their feelings, to express their inner experience. Which is the same thing as increasing self-knowledge, a component of personal authenticity.

[Dildo Argentino]

BEing reasonably mature and flexible and emotionally robust is not an indispensable requirement, but it certainly helps

Um. You've just said that authentic¹ music doesn't have to be authentic¹.

Well let's just introduce Authentic^1a and Authentic^1b, shall we?

I think it's plenty clear enough, of course also plenty imprecise enough for anyone into splitting hairs.

There is a process by which human beings become better at being human beings, call it the intelligent processing of experience, or self-actualisation, or the development of autonomy or authenticity. The somewhat idealised end result of that process is that reasonably mature, flexible and emotionally robust human who is, to use a lyrical description, ready to die at any moment.

Art (including music) that is created as a part of that process, to the extent it is created as part of that process, is authentic, to roughly the same extent.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

 

[Dildo Argentino]

He isn't attempting to communicate. 

Wrong.

This was never about the exchange of ideas.

Wrong again. It was, in fact it still is, though you are making a hell of a noise.

He's attention-whoring. 

Wrong again.

Successfully.

I know I shouldn't say it this but I have to: you sound jealous.

[LMNO]

So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

[Dildo Argentino]

Holist, I'm gonna take one more crack at this before deciding whether or not to write you off as a last cause:

every time this happens, your position (regardless of the topic) ends up boiling down to "it doesn't matter that every single one of you took what I wrote in a particular way, I'm telling you that's not what I actually meant" and then you get butthurt that everyone won't just take your word that what you meant isn't what you said. And you feel that we treat you unfairly by responding to what we perceive in your communications rather than what you (apparently) actually mean to convey. And yet, you don't seem to grasp the part where it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that people are understanding you the way you wish to be understood.

Think on this before you respond please.

Maybe you'll write me off (you've done it before! ), but I disagree. I think the achievement of understanding in any communication is the shared responsibility of those participating. Understanding can be blatantly or clandestinely prevented by any party to communication. I don't see how you can make it exclusively the burden of the person expressing a view: wilful and hostile simplification, distortion and ridicule are not something that those wishing to be heard need to endure. I am sure you are already aware of this in other contexts (gender, race, class, etc.), but for some reason you are unwilling to apply it to PD.

The onus of being understood is upon the asshole that is saying something. That is kind of how communication actually works.

I am so sorry but I think you will find that communication requires a minimum of two at least minimally willing participants who are willing and able to do the minimum required in order to allow communication to take place at all.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

[Dildo Argentino]

So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Actually, GTFO

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Holist, I'm gonna take one more crack at this before deciding whether or not to write you off as a last cause:

every time this happens, your position (regardless of the topic) ends up boiling down to "it doesn't matter that every single one of you took what I wrote in a particular way, I'm telling you that's not what I actually meant" and then you get butthurt that everyone won't just take your word that what you meant isn't what you said. And you feel that we treat you unfairly by responding to what we perceive in your communications rather than what you (apparently) actually mean to convey. And yet, you don't seem to grasp the part where it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that people are understanding you the way you wish to be understood.

Think on this before you respond please.

Maybe you'll write me off (you've done it before! ), but I disagree. I think the achievement of understanding in any communication is the shared responsibility of those participating. Understanding can be blatantly or clandestinely prevented by any party to communication. I don't see how you can make it exclusively the burden of the person expressing a view: wilful and hostile simplification, distortion and ridicule are not something that those wishing to be heard need to endure. I am sure you are already aware of this in other contexts (gender, race, class, etc.), but for some reason you are unwilling to apply it to PD.

The onus of being understood is upon the asshole that is saying something. That is kind of how communication actually works.

I am so sorry but I think you will find that communication requires a minimum of two at least minimally willing participants who are willing and able to do the minimum required in order to allow communication to take place at all.

[LMNO]

So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Actually, GTFO

[Demolition Squid]

So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Ahahahah, fantastic. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So if it doesn't have to be authentic to be authentic, what's the fucking point of using authenticity as a measure of authenticity?

Ahahahah, fantastic. 

Holist is a Philosopher™.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm going to take that weirdo's posts, give them the treatment, and then send them to that whackjob who has been emailing me.

That's brilliant! 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Gee, I wonder why people react poorly to Holist... 

Do you ever wonder about it the other way? Why holist reacts poorly to people?

I already figured that out; it's because everyone else is wrong and Holist is a special misunderstood snowflake, like RWHN.