[mkirkpatrick]

A little theory of mine to put out for possible comment.I would propose that
when absolute motion meets absolute motionlessness,theyboth cancel each
other out,and bring about an equlibrium,a point of balance!Which then leads
me on to imagine thatthis point of balance,could well be a singularity,a point
where strange things seems to happen,like a full stop. there are three points
converging on onepoint!There is perfect equlibrium in the "middle of this dot
absolute motion,somehow "leaning" against the eqilibrium,and absolute motion-
lessness doing the same aswell!They would all be less than an atom apart!!
The weight of a universe spins on a single point?
Any comments folks!

kindest regards michael,

[TinyTree]

I am curious- what do you think "absolute motion" means? Is it something moving at the speed of light?

In a sense things moving at the speed of light are not moving- in their own perspective, time is not travelling. But externally, they are moving absolutely, so the two are meeting, from different time frames.

[harmonygirl]

I'm not sure I understand. Both Absolute motion and absolute motionless require a frame of reference, so how can they be absolute? (up is down and down is up, Alice!) Isn't this balance already universal and we dissect it to come up with our environment and language?

[Guille]

For me the point of balance is a variable. I mean, I agree with this, but I believe this 'perfect equilibrium' is in many different ranges and has different values for each condition (depending on energy, force, matter, mass, velocity, acceleration...). So when absolute motionless meets absolute motion the product is an equlibrium which is not ane xact quantity, it can be any, depending on the circumstances (which are defined by the concepts I wrote in the previous brackets).

Applying this to humans, we can talk of art. Rennaissance artists believed a piece is more artistic if it has more aesthetics. Present artists (abstract expressionists, popartists...) believe a piece is more aesthetic when it has more message. Their all wrong, probably because artists aren't that good at creating theories as philosophers. What is more artistic is a piece that finds the exact appropiate proportions of message and aesthetics, which varies with the circumstances (colours, what's being represented, the theme, the style...).

[mkirkpatrick]

I am not 100% sure ofyour meaning here,but it sounds good!

kind regards michael.

[harmonygirl]

I do not believe in "more artistic". Art is not competition. A piece either speaks the truth to you or it doesn't.

[Guille]

Thanks mkirkpatrik, it is a bit hard to understand but I consider mine a new philosophy of art which is better than those I've read.

Originally Posted by harmonygirl I do not believe in "more artistic". Art is not competition. A piece either speaks the truth to you or it doesn't.

Wait, art is all about falsity. Art is a representation of nature (truth) such that it never tells you the truth. I mean, it's based on truth, but it is not itself truth. I agree completelly that art is not a competition. I didn't mean more artistic in that, I meant that a piece of art gets nearer to perfection in art as it achieves the ideal proportion of aesthetics-message in according to the conditions. I agree the piece of art is to speak, but it is to speak itself (the ideal of art is narcisism), not truth.

[zeroca]

Motion takes place freely within absolute motionless!

But their connection, joint, junction, joining, combination – call it as you wish, is the essence of so called transcendental meditation, if the term - meditation is interpreted as any process, which exists within 3D space and time, and the term - transcendental as “existing” beyond bounds (i.e. non-existence, i.e. absolute motionless, i.e. zero). I’ll repeat the part of my recent post:

To illustrate the point let us imagine the universe in the form of the room (gravitation of the earth is ignored), that's full of small balls (the room-the universe, small balls-bodies, having mass). The small balls differ from each other in mass, solidity, proportions and so forth, and all of them make sort of regular movement, and each of them has its trajectory and kinetic energy. Let's imagine, that all of them are united with one another by the thread (each of them to adjacent one and so on. . .), (exactly all bodies are connected with each other by "invisible thread", as they are separate parts of a single whole). Each small ball affects next one, but doesn't affect or affects very little on an infinitely distant small ball. They seem to be thrown about in the room without control (all bodies in three-dimensional space of universe), but in case of fastening of one of them to the ceiling, i.e. to the immovable basis, the movement of every rest small balls (that's to say, without exception, even indefinitely distant ones) will be conditioned by fastened small ball. Their kinetics will change to harmony (i.e. each body will start to move with a minimal loss of energy like a drop of water, that "tries" to take a rounded shape during free fall) and if the fastening of a small ball ("fastening" of the whole universe through the one body) is continuing during the time, every rest small balls will strive to take up its natural place i.e. ultimately will move with the speed and trajectory, that will be the most suitable for their parameters (mass, capacity, consistence and so on. . .). One can compare the above with electrolyte: until the system isn't turned on, all ions move sporadically, but after its turning on each ion "knows where to go" according to its charge, and at a speed, succession and trajectory in accordance with their other parameters. The techniques of it isn’t touched here.
So mentioned above is the only mechanism to influence on universe in order to make it harmonic…

[mkirkpatrick]

What can I say Zeroca,you took the words
right out of my mouth! Thank you,my friend.
kindest regards michael.

[harmonygirl]

Originally Posted by <<>> Thanks mkirkpatrik, it is a bit hard to understand but I consider mine a new philosophy of art which is better than those I've read. Wait, art is all about falsity. Art is a representation of nature (truth) such that it never tells you the truth. I mean, it's based on truth, but it is not itself truth. I agree completelly that art is not a competition. I didn't mean more artistic in that, I meant that a piece of art gets nearer to perfection in art as it achieves the ideal proportion of aesthetics-message in according to the conditions. I agree the piece of art is to speak, but it is to speak itself (the ideal of art is narcisism), not truth.

Actually, Guille, my definition of art is quite different. Art reveals a fundamental aspect of truth, which is why, for me, La Giaconde (the Mona Lisa) is not art. I see no truth there. Proportional aesthetics is just technical purity, which for me, certainly does not define art. So according to my definition, a piece speaks truth. How could a piece help but speak itself, I don't understand your point here.