Isn't death an uplifting subject?

[knight66]

That is not a helpful remark, do try being helpful....for a change, you might like it.

Mike

[karlhenning]

At any rate, scarps, take a lesson from history:  it is not to the people that don't "get" a piece, that history gives evaluation rights.

[Renfield]

You went off on a tangent (that there are "deaths" in those games--duh!)

I said death is an issue, a theme, a motif in those games, to be exact. And incidentally, Scarpia began by commenting on creators' urges to include the theme of death in their creations, before revealing his point to actually be about how boring a string quartet is.

(Something which I have already pointed out previously in this thread.)

I also do not take kindly to comments that address anything other than the argument at hand, be they about age, sex, race, or anything of the such - and particularly when they are made "off-hand". I find it in bad faith, and in bad taste.

Finally, I continue to find your assessment of something the content of which you appear barely aware of entirely embarrassing as well; I would have said "juvenile", but apparently that would be most unbecoming of me.


I am not trying to "pick a fight", but apparently you are, by insisting on having the right to "put me back in my place". Under the laws of a few counties, I am an adult, and do take particular offence when others go out of their way to use my age as an excuse not to argue.

Still, I would hope you understand that I am not in this forum to argue about anything more or less than music, and in this context occasionally request of others to clarify their arguments (much as I strive to do myself).

I don't see how I should not comment when something rather obviously irrelevant to a musical discussion comes up; or how I should accept any position, whether about games, music or film, or anything else, that is unsupported by evidence or argument.

Then again, it must be my age. I apologise, sir, and will refrain from stepping out of bounds with regards to conversation with your person.


Let us please terminate this discussion, or continue it elsewhere: personal messages are an option.





Edit:

Let me display my age a bit further, now: does my post count say leet? Is this Rob's doing? Whom do I thank for the unexpected mood-lifter?

[Lethevich]

Edit:

Let me display my age a bit further, now: does my post count say leet? Is this Rob's doing? Whom do I thank for the unexpected mood-lifter?

A forum thing - it does it automatically. If you post again it'll be gone forever ;_:

[greg]

i meant to write this yesterday, but didn't get to post it 

Okay, i just finished listening to the quartet again.

My impressions-
1st movement is a really nice polyphonic medieval-sounding thing, though at nearly 12', a bit too long. Second movement starts with the fade-in violins, the only thing i remember about the movement (is this used somewhere else, too?)  . 3rd Movement a short wtf, 4th is just really dreamy stuff, floating accompaniment figures which move in opposite curves over a melody, 5th movement sounds like more filler, the last movement somewhat of a recap of the first. Overall, not my favorite but I don't think it's bad at all, just too long!

bad timing, of course

[scarpia]

At any rate, scarps, take a lesson from history:  it is not to the people that don't "get" a piece, that history gives evaluation rights.

You don't get it.  I get it, I just don't like it. 

[DavidRoss]

Mike--I thought that the point you made (quoted below) was worth addressing publicly, though not until after some time for reflection had passed:

I cannot recall a young person here who has responded positively to having their age used against them as a debating point.

But I do know of one, at least, who does not brandish adolescent defensiveness like a hair-triggered weapon, who does not mistake recognition of his relative inexperience as an attack or "debating point," and who's smart enough to understand that at 21 he doesn't know everything...yet.    Given these characteristics, it's no surprise that he often makes rather astute observations revealing wisdom beyond his years.  He has the advantage of knowing that he doesn't know, which makes it possible for him to learn, and thus to develop informed and considered opinions. 

The fellow I'm thinking of also has the advantage of being reasonably bright, though I don't understand why it seems to require genius-level intelligence for a twenty-year-old to understand that he still has a lot to learn.  The math can't be that difficult!  Is it unreasonable to expect most kids to be smart enough to reflect on their own history, recognize how much they've learned since puberty, and then imagine the growth that lies ahead?  Could it be that some have trouble with this concept simply because they've hardly grown at all since the short curlies started coming in?

[knight66]

David,

You describe a young Marcus Aurelius; and there are not many of those to the pound. I recall many years ago going to a new job within the government department I was working in. As a preparation, I was to learn the ropes at a lower grade, itself a complex job. At the end of three weeks my boss called me in and asked whether I was now up to speed. My reply was that I did not know what I did not know.

So, knowing at a young age what you don't know is a fair step ahead of me.

My original remark was serious; though in its brevity I dropped it hoping it would simply act as a break rather than resolve the annoyances.

To take the thought further though. Setting aside the individuals involved here; there is always the temptation for the young stags to lock antlers with the older ones. Especially if there is a perceived slight. They extend themselves to prove themselves. I see this often within my family. I observe energy being expended to no good result. To an extent it is the way of the world.

The getting of wisdom is often a later learned quality. To observe it in the young indicates something beyond the normal, to be admired, but hardly expected.

So, assuming most will puff out the chest when crossed; it is up to those older heads to decide whether to indulge the young ones with a dust up, or decide it is not worth the effort and reserve authority for the ground worth fighting about.

This is not any rebuke; I am merely following my train of thought. I am grateful that my remark gave rise to a thoughtful response.

Mike

[Renfield]

At this stage, I feel it will be both important and useful for me to clarify some things, in response to more than a specific provocation (to the concept of which I am still far from immune; maybe in later years I will conquer that skill, which I never claimed to possess, to begin with).


Firstly, I respect Corey very much, but not because of his erudition, his astuteness or his refinement, all three of which I do not deny. I respect him for having had the courage, the proverbial "guts" to make choices where others use their years as an excuse to postpone them.

And that has little to do with whether he reads Thomas Mann, or whether he is particularly stoic. Nor do I envy him, or would have him envy me. We all have our virtues and vices, often from even before we leave the womb - much less after over two decades.


Likewise, and this leads to my second point, do I greatly respect Greg, for having had the courage to make certain choices of his when he could have opted not to, regardless of whether I think (or can have an opinion on if) they are wise; his or mine.

Because make no mistake, my being callous (a shortcoming of my personality I am happy to accept) and have a "hair-trigger" on some subjects (which I do) does not mean I have ever claimed the wisdom to know if and when I am wise myself.

I never will have that, and I don't want it. If your world-view contains the possibility of knowing if and when you are wise, then so be it. Mine does not; yet for some reason (peculiarly, as I am not a modest person) I still do not feel the need to trumpet that fact.


Thirdly, on the aforementioned and aptly worded "hair-trigger", a known issue for those few people who know me well: do you remember my mentioning that what I was responding to was "in bad faith, and in bad taste"?

That, or more specifically my (perhaps flawed) perception of that having occurred, is what triggered my reaction.

It is not the age issue per se, but rather the use of the "age excuse" in any of its forms, which I consider off-limits in my discussions with others. I think the reason should be obvious, but I will nonetheless briefly explain:

In a nutshell, I strive for formal perfection. I go out of my way to purge my own arguments of anything that would distract someone from the argument itself. That is both a side-effect of my primary occupation, which I would like to think is philosophy (and with your permission ask to be allowed to maintain that illusion until proven wrong), and a part of how my personality, regardless of my age, is constructed.

Therefore. among other things, I cannot understand unclarity in argument, and, as my neuronal circuitry would have it, am instinctively offended by others' "adding it to the mix", consciously, deliberately or otherwise.

And since the most obvious way of bringing external factors to an argument with me from an older person's point of view is to reference my age, this is a prime casus belli for me, at the moment. Later on, when this might not be an issue anymore, something else might replace it.


Thus, I find the use of the "age" card in the poker game that is all discussion ("from my distorted personal viewpoint", you may freely add) to be distasteful, in the same way others find vulgarity distasteful, and I do not. The playing fields switch from "argument vs. argument" to "argument vs. person making argument"; the water is muddled. Likewise for the comment that began this debate, which provoked me in its being ill-informed. That's why I stay out of any philosophical or religious discussion in this forum, and should have stayed out of this one too.

I fully realise I might be taking this far too seriously, but this is simply how I am; I also take phenomenology seriously, and I've yet to receive any complaints. Certainly, though, I do not claim any universal power guides my hand in the judgement of others. I don't even claim to judge anyone: at the very worst (and best), I judge arguments, points made, evidence or lack thereof to support them.

And I seek of others to respond in kind; sometimes more testily than their sensibilities would accommodate, but then I also have my own sensibilities to take into consideration and cater to. No more, no less. Is this a simpler expression of my views and position on this issue?


Really, I detest making such a high-strung speech on things people visiting the forum should not have to concern themselves with.

This discussion should have simply been about our arguments; things like age should not never have been brought into play. Is it entirely irrational of me to seek to keep certain things out of where they do not belong? I wonder...


Hair-trigger warning.

Indeed,, if nothing else, for decency's sake: this is an internet forum about classical music! Is it only a problem when the irrelevant or inappropriate content is obvious? And we call ourselves refined?

Should that be the case, by all means, the next time a person decides to argue with me using comments directed at my person, rather than my argument, please add an insult like "you are an idiot", so it might be more obvious that I should be unsettled.

As it should seem that maturity is only "obviously" attached to the absolute number of days one has consciously existed in the world, as well. Otherwise it is "not obvious", and therefore "not the case", as this reasoning would have one think... See my point?


And make sure to ask me about my view in 20 years, if I'm around then, so as for me to be able to put the same opinion in an older man's terms, or come to realise I've lost my proverbial marbles, and forgotten elementary lessons of logic and reasoning.

Until then, I'd have you reserve your judgement.

...........................................................................................


Also, since I seem to have already turned this post into a personal F.A.Q., please refrain from assuming I ever imply anything as serious as a personal insult with my tone, other than a reflection of my mood at a given moment.

Had I wanted to insult, I would have done so obviously (note that "chide" and "insult" are things I consider markedly different).

And had I wanted to discipline myself into writing entirely passively, I likely could, but I reject the notion that participation in an online forum need entail such a constant self-oppression as would be required. If that is an issue, I will happily terminate my participation here.


I think that is about all the issues I can think of that may likely arise, or have arisen, with regards to my person in this forum. Since I have taken the time to type out all this, I would appreciate it if anyone wanting a clarification or further discussion PMed me.

The whole idea is, after all, not to derail even one more discussion on classical with a discussion on Renfield; or Corey; or Mike; or DavidRoss.



P.S.: I really wish we'd actually been discussing "death as an uplifting subject", in fact, as per the topic. Then again, I've no idea how many people, even here, would seriously commit themselves to such a discussion. Yet I don't complain. I didn't join this forum to talk Heidegger.

[Don]

Is it unreasonable to expect most kids to be smart enough to reflect on their own history, recognize how much they've learned since puberty, and then imagine the growth that lies ahead? 

I think it's unreasonable.

[Gurn Blanston]

I think it's unreasonable.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but so do I. When I was 20, I was not only immortal, but I also knew everything. Now I realize that I am probably mortal...




----------------
Listening to:
Bavarian State Orchestra / Fricsay  Clara Haskil - K 595  Concerto #27 in Bb for Piano 1st mvmt - Allegro

[Renfield]

I think it's unreasonable.

And incidentally, since the topic seems to have shifted properly to an entirely different issue, I agree.

However, I also strongly doubt most 40-year-olds could tell 20-year-olds apart. Because that's just how dangerous the word "most" is: dangerous in terms of the presumptions and needless, uncouth generalisation it can lead to.


In general (pun unintended), I have not met a single individual in their early twenties that does not appear to, at best, gravitate between different extremes, with respect to their (our) appraisals and responses to external events.

As for internal events, suffice to say that it seems to be an issue of responding or not to them at all. Certainly "most" do not; while even those who do seem to be introspective only as a result of personality traits that are "triggered" by external stimuli at (in)appropriate times.

Then again, in combination with available time for such introspection, this could be proposed as a general mechanism for maturity.


Either way, this is thankfully not as simple as "most" would have it be; gives people like me* something to spend our time on!


* My second primary occupation is psychology. Not to say that gives me any privileges in my relations with others (quite the contrary), and - behold distinctly 20-year-old insecurity - I certainly do not intend this note towards self-advertisement, before anyone cries "wolf!".

[scarpia]

Is it unreasonable to expect most kids to be smart enough to reflect on their own history, recognize how much they've learned since puberty, and then imagine the growth that lies ahead?  Could it be that some have trouble with this concept simply because they've hardly grown at all since the short curlies started coming in?

No more unreasonable than to think that the old codgers among us will do the math and realize that their life energy is mostly spent and that they will never amount to any more than they have already.  The ones I see lecturing the young on their lack of modesty seem to be those who have accrued the years without acquiring their portion of wisdom.

[Renfield]

In general (pun unintended), I have not met a single individual in their early twenties that does not appear to, at best, gravitate between different extremes, with respect to their (our) appraisals and responses to external events.

As for internal events, suffice to say that it seems to be an issue of responding or not to them at all. Certainly "most" do not; while even those who do seem to be introspective only as a result of personality traits that are "triggered" by external stimuli at (in)appropriate times.

For anyone who might have attempted to read this post, I'd like to elaborate that the "extremes" I refer to are in the self-esteem scale - something I forgot to mention, and thus my observation probably made little sense. My apologies for that.

[some guy]

...old codgers among us...their life energy...mostly spent

Hahaha, now there's funny.

So suggesting that young person may not have sufficient experience is bad and rude and insulting and strongly to be deprecated, at length, but calling older people names and saying genuinely insulting things about them is OK?

(I'd say more about this, but my life energy is nearly spent, doncha know, and I need a nap....)

[Renfield]

So suggesting that young person may not have sufficient experience is bad and rude and insulting and strongly to be deprecated, at length, but calling older people names and saying genuinely insulting things about them is OK?

"Not have sufficient modesty" is closer to what he said, to be precise. (Not that I agree with his manners.)

Edit: I realise every second response in this thread seems to be mine. It must be the result of my constantly scanning GMG for new posts while I think something irrelevant over, and in any case I think I'd best stop it.

[karlhenning]

Mmm . . . a nap.

[Don]

Mmm . . . a nap.

Don't do it!!!  You might never wake up.

[karlhenning]

Anyway, napping is strongly discouraged in the office. Somehow.

[Szykneij]

Youth is such a wonderful thing. What a crime to waste it on children.
                                                     --George Bernard Shaw--

Usually paraphrased as "Youth is wasted on the young."