It's a pity they don't have the patience or bravery to drop the music and shakycam and just allow more of the process to be filmed in a more traditional manner. If anything this show doesn't really celebrate the artisan at all.

Velocity5 sounds like one of the "people" who wrote the helpful suggestions to mankind found on the Georgia Guidestones.....

Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
Unite humanity with a living new language.
Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
Balance personal rights with social duties.
Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

I have a suggestion there for ya, sparky?? Perhaps what you perceive as some career or discipline that benefits mankind would be perceived as detrimental to the planet for someone else....What if your concept of reality is based on perceptive dysfunction distilled in you through an engineered psycho-cybernetic mind-fuck in order to create a member of the machine who sees only practical application and duty to the whole as beneficial?

The world needs insects. They carry out dutifully, tasks necessary to the functioning of systems....
She also needs artisans, musicians, and quantum theorists, eh? There's a balance to consider here Chim-Chim....Thank God for people working in refineries and perky chicks poppin' flips, so I may continue my tenure here on "PLANET PRACTICAL" with some relief from the CORN-COB-UP-ASS types determined to make it uncomfortable and boring.
Rather be here than in the Terminator world, Slim!

Um - No...,
Visual media and propaganda of Heaven and Hell was around long before Television and motion pictures. Artisans through the ages have depicted them throughout history. At one point, the Catholic church controlled what could be painted and what could not. An artist had to have the churches stamp of approval before they could release the painting and/or profit by it. To go against this edict was by default blasphemy. The Catholic Church commissioned and controlled all visual media the people saw and used it as a tool of control. (much like corporations use modern-day media)

If anything, the prophesying of Hell for sinners and the horrors within hell was more effective before modern cinematography. People are always more afraid of what they can picture in their own mind than fear someone else's depiction. I think the Satire of modern day cinema has softened the blow and made many people re-examine Hell, what it is and what it represents, and look on it as a man made experience instead of a wrath of God/Devil experience.


>> ^sfarias40k:

I really believe that most peoples view of hell don't come from a church but from TV & movies, like almost everything else.

I mean to say that money is what the rich(ie kings and the catholic church) had so that they could afford to commission great works of art from genius artists and artisans. Very few "great artists" ever profited from their own work.

So, @hpqp I agree wholeheartedly but I just didnt word it right.

What is disappointing is people like you that perpetuate the idea that love has boundries.

This young, strong, healthy man (who is at this moment fighting for YOUR rights while YOU judge him from your saggy armchair eating cheesy poofs) is scared to admit a part of his heart to his father that loves him unconditionally. All because of hateful thoughts from close-minded strangers who feel the need to spew their mean opinions about a subject that truly does not involve them.
And thankfully his father hasn't listened to people like you, with stereotypical ideals about what is to be expected from loved ones.

Even our most accomplished of artisans can't define the amazingly vast facets of love. Yet something as crude as genitalia defines it perfectly for you.

Don't spread your poisonous thoughts all over a such a beautiful, human, bare-naked emotional moment such as this one was.

>> ^lantern53:

That's got to be a big disappointment.

>> ^marbles:

Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority.

This is your premise, it is also your conclusion. You have failed to demonstrate it at all. You have not made an argument. You have simply made a flurry of self contradicting statements, and insisted that they are true, and that any counter argument is false by definition. Do you really expect anybody to take you seriously?

>> ^marbles:

I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.


Marx advocated only the abolition of capital, not of workers rights to what they produce, he believed that capitalism had already destroyed that right:

>> ^Karl_Marx:

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing
the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a
man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork
of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the
property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of
property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to
abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent
already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.


>> ^marbles:

the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.
So where does production come from again?



To restate: where does the producing of articles having exchange value. come from

Lets see, how many ways can I interpret this?

1) Where do produced items come from : They are made of other things + energy, conservation of M/E
2) Where does the idea of production come from : The social contract of market societies
3) Where does the exchange value of objects come from : Somewhat arbitrary cultural valuation
4) ??? : what you secretly mean probably goes here, how about cluing us in?

>> ^marbles:

I did just clearly demonstrate it.

Where?

>> ^marbles:

Care to prove it false?

State your case and I'll give it a whirl.

>> ^marbles:
Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?

Because the logical consistency of your ideology depends on the ability to bootstrap a property system with the ownership (as in what they word usually means) of self. Dispensing with that when it gets inconvenient makes the whole thing fall apart.

Without actual self ownership, you have no logically necessary ownership claim to the value produced by self, and so you can not build you system on property only. You must start adding more first principles in order to get there. If libertarians have been purposely obfuscating their ideology as you claim, then they have been hiding the weakness in their argument, and making a false case.

I take most libertarians at there word that they actually meant what they said. Your position now significantly diverges from that put forth in the video, and requires you to make a different argument to bootstrap your personal libertarian-derived view.

What new first principle are you introducing to bootstrap ownership from only figurative ownership of self?

>> ^marbles:

I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract?

You used its existence as an argument. You want to back peddle and say you didn't mean it? Then do so.

>> ^marbles:

I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.

And then, as an example, argued that I was wrong because what I suggested would not work in my property arrangement, read the transcript.

>> ^marbles:

And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

possession ≠ fee-simple

Possession is fact, who has current physical control of a thing is not an issue for philosophy, but only of physicality. If I hold a pen in my hand I possess it, irrespective of any ownership claims on the pen. To take the pen from me without my consent requires the initiation of actual physical force against me, based on the physics.

If you own the pen, I don't have to interact with you in any way to use it, or take it home with me. There is no way to know if you own the pen, or if anybody does.

There is no demonstrable physical consequence of fee-simple property, possession, on the other hand in a matter of facts. My acceptance of both the fact and historical relevance of possession, does not get you within miles of fee-simple.

Böttger was a German Alchemist held against his will and forced to turn lead to gold - since he obviously couldn't do it - He discovered porcelain when he was stalling in order to save his life. He spent most of his years in prison and was forced to work.

Any money he made was stolen from him and his Porcelain discoveries were also stolen.
When he was finally released, he died from yet-unrealized sub-standard lab environments and exposure to poisonous chemicals such as lead and cobalt.

The point is, as an Alchemist (the oldest Philosophy in the world today that out-dates ancient Egypt and even the Chinese dynasties), Böttger was forced to life imprisoned for that Philosophy and inadvertently discovered the arcanum, or secret formula, for making porcelain.

Read the book - It's a good read:
The Arcanum: The Extraordinary True Story
See link above...
>> ^bareboards2:

Upvoting for minute one and later -- loved seeing the artisans work.
As for this being on the philosophy channel?? What percentage of Sifters understand German enough to know if that is true or not?

Upvoting for minute one and later -- loved seeing the artisans work.

As for this being on the philosophy channel?? What percentage of Sifters understand German enough to know if that is true or not?

>> ^gorillaman:
Let's glance back first to dark history and the rise of the mob. If we want to imagine democracy as a response to plutocracy, we can hear the democrats' call to arms clearly: "We're tired of these plutocrats shitting on us. Let's all shit on each other instead!"

Actually it was more of a "we're tired of power being concentrated in the hands of a few, unaccountable, self-centered, self-important people, let's disperse that power amongst everyone!"

That form of democracy still has yet to be tried, but from where I sit, the closer a society's government hews to that principle, the better off the society.

>> ^gorillaman:
Where voters are held to no standard they vote their own interests and prejudices, at any cost to others, at any cost to society. Democracy necessarily admits no standard. No standard for truth, no standard for justice but what the electors, palsied twitching monkeys that they are, can conjure. What's more, oligarchy is inevitable in any system, and oligarchs inevitably reflect the system that created them. A culture of selfish idiots trying to rip each other off produces an elite of the same.

Awesome argument for abolishing markets and capitalism...you know, the system that rewards amoral selfish idiots who succeed in ripping others off. For abolishing democracy, not so much.

>> ^gorillaman:
So, the future. Less important to define a superior system than to recognise the corruption of our current thinking, but the path seems clear. Democracy is evil and evil is stupidity. The antidote to both evil and democracy is wisdom. Establish a sovereignty of reason and power flows to the rational. Selfishness, all forms of corruption are irrational, could only be opposed by such rulers. Plato, relatively fascistic though he was, agreed with me even a couple of thousand years ago. After all that time you're still trying to hold us back. All that time wasted.

So your bold new plan for the future...is Aristocracy.

Tell me, do you think yourself a philosopher-king, an artisan, or an auxiliary? No faux modesty here, please.

Date: April 27th, 2010

The Forgotten Man

By Robert Ringer

Why have the combined mudslinging voices of the media (so called), Congressional Democrats, and the thin-skinned boy wonder who occupies the Oval Office not been able to turn the tide against the tea partiers? If you look at the poll numbers, the answer is obvious: Most Americans are tea partiers.

However, most of them are not yet in enough pain to skip a day at the ball park and stand in a crowd of thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) and listen to tea-party speakers. That’s a shame, but it doesn’t change the fact that they identify with the tea-party movement.

So, what is the common bond with which they identify? Taxes? Healthcare? Financial regulation? I thought about this question as I was rereading Amity Shlaes’ landmark book, The Forgotten Man. In it, she quotes Yale philosopher William Graham Sumner, who, clear back in 1883, explained the crux of the moral problem with progressivism as follows:

”As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine … what A, B, and C shall do for X.”

Shlaes goes on to add: ”But what about C? There was nothing wrong with A and B helping X. What was wrong was the law, and the indenturing of C to the cause. C was the forgotten man, the man who paid, ‘the man who never is thought of.”’

In other words, C is the guy who isn’t bothering anyone, but is forced to supply the funds to help the X’s of the world, those whom power holders unilaterally decide have been treated unfairly and must be compensated.

FDR, however, did a switcheroo on Sumner’s point by removing the moniker of ”the forgotten man” from C and giving it to X – ”the poor man, the old man, labor, or any other recipient of government help.” Very clever … very Obamanistic. As I recall, FDR originally used the phrase the forgotten man to refer to the victims of the dust bowl in the 1930s. Zap! Just like that, Sumner’s forgotten man was transformed into the opposite of what he was meant to be.

Today, I believe it is the tea-party people who represent Sumner’s Forgotten Man. They are taxed and told what they must do and what they must give up in the way of freedom and personal wealth every time a new law is passed. I believe it is this reality that bonds the tea-party people together.

Put another way, it is not healthcare or any other single issue the tea-party people are most angry about. It is all of the issues combined that have to do with impinging on their individual liberty. Above all, they are outraged by the fact that immoral politicians and bureaucrats not only violate their God-given right to live their lives as they please, they dismiss them as ”extremists.” Collectively, the tea-party people are today’s Forgotten Man.

In his essay (http://mises.org/books/forgottenman.pdf), Sumner went on to say:

”All history is only one long story to this effect: men have struggled for power over their fellow-men in order that they might win the joys of earth at the expense of others and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others. It is true that, until this time, the proletariat, the mass of mankind, have rarely had the power and they have not made such a record as kings and nobles and priests have made of the abuses they would perpetrate against their fellow-men when they could and dared.

”But what folly it is to think that vice and passion are limited by classes, that liberty consists only in taking power away from nobles and priests and giving it to artisans and peasants and that these latter will never abuse it! They will abuse it just as all others have done unless they are put under checks and guarantees, and there can be no civil liberty anywhere unless rights are guaranteed against all abuses, as well from proletarians as from generals, aristocrats, and ecclesiastics.”

Sumner was a man of great insight. He saw the absurdity of assuming that the poor man is morally superior to the rich man. This is where I believe that sincere revolutionaries go wrong. While their initial intentions (to help ”the poor”) may, at least in their own minds, be well-meant, they begin with a false premise (that the misfortunes of those at the bottom of the economic ladder are a result of the evil actions of those who are more successful) and, from there, leap from one false conclusion to another.

Which is why politicians who pose as conservatives to get elected so often take the Mush McCain-Lindsey Graham-Charlie Crist route and continually rush to the aid of their progressive Democratic pals. I believe that these philosophically lost souls do the bidding of the intimidating left because they have never given any serious thought to the possibility that the very premise of progressivism is morally wrong.

As a result, they have no feeling for the (perceived) rich man. In plotting their do-gooder schemes, he is easy to forget. They see nothing whatsoever wrong with society’s sacrificing his liberty for the ”public good.” Bring out the guillotine! As Montaigne said, ”Men are most apt to believe what they least understand.”

What gave birth to the tea parties is that the Forgotten Man syndrome is like a metastasizing disease. As politicians long ago realized, there aren’t enough rich people to support all of the X’s. As the number of X’s (i.e., those who live off the surpluses of others) increases, a lot of A’s and B’s must, by necessity, be reclassified as C’s. And that is when they become candidates for joining the tea-party movement.

Put simply: When A’s and B’s are transformed into C’s, they mysteriously lose their enthusiasm for new laws to help out X. Put even more simply, they suddenly realize that they are now the Forgotten Man. And that realization is what automatically qualifies them as tea-party people. No recruitment necessary, thank you.

>> ^entr0py:

It's not necessarily a waste of money, I bet they're going for a cultural victory.


Baba Yetu fountain gives Dubai 3 artisans and prompts a great artist birth

The socio-genetic experiment has worked well-Gone are the days of bashing people over thehead with mallets and blowing them up with TNT-I watched Sesame Street for the musical numbers-The best cartoons were ones with no message whatsoever rather, the renderings and animation always held preeminence over the scripting. Mornings before public school programming were spent with the 3 stooges and Bugs, Woody Woodpecker and re-runs of Twilight zone and Outer Limits at night...

I grew up listening to music more that suckling of of the cathode ray nipple-Lot's of Zappa, obscure garage bands, and selective pop. Television was clear as a fucking bell to me- An insidious programming glow for those whose minds were already forming into a mass of putty easily manipulated and influenced to do the bidding of the advertisers, financiers, and criminal politicians bent on turning everyone into easily managed robots.(I did watch every Charlie's Angels episode each week, and had posters of all of em, on the wall opposite the black light posters!)

Fast-forward to the now and it would seem that the shit worked better than expected. The last couple of generations are as gullible and susceptible as ever to the machine.

Art, music, performance, and the artisan trades are dying-the third-world is polluting the first(by design), and regurgitated, hackneyed scripts have replaced what was once a higher more inspired art.

More power to ya BF, as you do battle in the exclusive arena you have chosen....The passion is what is important.

"Computational Artisan" will be my next professional title. It has to be.

Artisanal coffee belongs in *cooking, IMO

Just because one is wrong, doesn't mean the other one is right. They are both wrong.

>> ^Pprt:
So Jewish people are the ones blowing themselves up in foreign countries and intentionally killing civilians, while the Muslims are prosperous inventors and artisans? That's news to me.