Babeletionity

Since God came down and confused man's speech we have been unable to understand each other without error. There will never be a one-world language by man's efforts. Language usage keeps fracturing down the ages. By connecting men's thought-machines (computers) the internet let us better show our neighbors +/ over a wider distance our minds. Yet this new method of connection makes no difference to preferences men have concerning what they think about and who they connect with so that overall connection is unaffected. Instead of knowing the guy down the block you know the guy in San Fran whose into the same whatever.

There're some traits of net-communication that have prompted some derivations:

1) Writing being dominant over talking. The writer's intonation is not in his words so he relies on crude facial representations ;) to convey some sense of mood. When men write to one another simultaneously they are unable to see each other's faces to know when someone else is about to communicate (though google chat helps this some with "_____ is typing"). It takes much less time to read than it does to type so the wait for longer messages to be sent is frustrating. Therefore messages tend toward brevity.

2) Writing is done with a keyboard. Unable to freehand (without a tablet and some app....) typers must rely on the symbols of the keyboard to augment their words. Thus l33tsp34k.

3) Availability versus committal. Internet users with broadband or better have more thoughts than we care about accessible in seconds. What keeps us on any single subject is sheer will. Like a man flipping through tv channels or iPod user who doesn't let a song complete we often succumb to desires for what we are interested but not currently engaged in. Consideration lasts for only a few sentences of thought. Hence, "that rocked!" comments on 8 minute movies.

What it is, jive Turkey

Art is the bracket in which are contained works rendered so well they're glorious. The criteria for entry into that bracket is inherent sensory input and spiritual implications. A work may be art because it meets requirements of the flesh (it pleases a sense or senses to a degree only possible for a synthetic rendered with great skill) or the spirit (the work provokes an idea in such a way that the method of deduction is exceptionally beautiful).

Work, however hard, does not become art because of the performance's difficulty or distinctness. Work that's wrought crudely according to sensory perception so questions are raised about art's nature is not by those traits merited so that it may be called art. Old age does not make a work better. Popularity does not make a work worse. The medium an idea is incarnated in has no bearing on its' artiness :)

Though men disagree there is true art.

Turn up this mic

Three things do I deduce doubtless:

1. I exist (whatever I am something exists which questions)

2. God exists (I had a start so I owe my existence to something else, something must exist which owes its' existence to nothing else)

3. Something else exist (however wrong I may be in my beliefs pertaining to this thing there is something I interact with not myself nor God)

In thinking well of the things I perceive, enjoying my interaction, I better infuse myself with that/those thing/s which is good in the pleasure it gives. Yet the other thing is transitional like myself so it is lesser to God. Therefore, my best, surest, greatest pursuit is (connection with)/(excitement over)/(love of) God.



If you want some things more mundane to consider, here you are:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=507


By Smellybug of ConceptArt.org