Imagine there are no books..and no movies..

[Gadget Girl]

Life with no modern stuffs like we have now will make life a living hell. I don't know, I like the way it is now. Maybe if I haven't known of these things, then maybe I will choose the simple life with no worries, no TV, no cinemas, no books. But as the time goes on, the world evolves. It is becoming more and more complicated and so problematic than the times in the past. I long for those, but we cannot bring it back. Yeah it will be so relaxing, but we are just going to go with the flow, you know. Enjoy life as it is and be merry.

[blazeofglory]

Life with no modern stuffs like we have now will make life a living hell. I don't know, I like the way it is now. Maybe if I haven't known of these things, then maybe I will choose the simple life with no worries, no TV, no cinemas, no books. But as the time goes on, the world evolves. It is becoming more and more complicated and so problematic than the times in the past. I long for those, but we cannot bring it back. Yeah it will be so relaxing, but we are just going to go with the flow, you know. Enjoy life as it is and be merry.

I like the way you put forth all that you have to say. This is indeed a positive way of looking at things, and of course you and me and the rest can not imagine living without the stuffs we are stuffed with. It is impossible indeed.

Yet Gadget Girl, we all are secretly feeling sad at all that goes on today. We distaste war, we repulse extreme modernism. Of course we want to save fewer moments for ourselves in seclusion and aloneness in nature. Don't we?

[mazHur]

Life existed without books and movies in the past, it will continue to do so in future even if these things were not there any more.

[blazeofglory]

Life existed without books and movies in the past, it will continue to do so in future even if these things were not there any more.

Yes MazHur, imagine how different it will be without books and movies, life will not be confined within rooms and libraries. Life will be so wildly in the open, not in the confinement. Of course people will indulge themselves in different things from what they do. People will live simpler lives.

Of course I often romanticize that kind of life.

[mazHur]

I totally agree with you.
Notwithstanding its blessings, modern science has pulled us away from nature and its beauty. Life has become so artificial and bland.

[Gadget Girl]

I like the way you put forth all that you have to say. This is indeed a positive way of looking at things, and of course you and me and the rest can not imagine living without the stuffs we are stuffed with. It is impossible indeed.

Yet Gadget Girl, we all are secretly feeling sad at all that goes on today. We distaste war, we repulse extreme modernism. Of course we want to save fewer moments for ourselves in seclusion and aloneness in nature. Don't we?

Yes, we are indeed, Blaze. That's the disadvantage of life today. It's full of problems and everything. We can hardly have time to breathe.

[Midas]

"........Yes, we are indeed, Blaze. That's the disadvantage of life today. It's full of problems and everything. We can hardly have time to breathe..........."

But you had the time, ability (through books and reading), and opportunity from modern technology, to express your thoughts here.

A little 'openmindedness' (my word), and less misplaced sentimentality would permit the 'sufferers' of this malady to have a far more objective view of life to permit them to fully enjoy the era in which they are living - it comes but once, and flits away all too quickly.

[mazHur]

It reminds me of how Wordsworth felt when he saw ppl engrossed in reading books ( now internet) and got away from the beauty of nature. Here is his poem and would quite appeal to minds if read in modern context:

Wordsworth
The tables turned

Up! up! my friend, and quit your books;
Or surely you'll grow double:
Up! up! my friend, and clear your looks:
Why all this toil and trouble?

The sun, above the mountain's head,
A freshening lustre mellow
Through all the long green fields has spread,
His first sweet evening yellow.

Books' 'tis a dull and endless strife:
Come, hear the woodland linnet,
How sweet his music! on my life,
There's more of wisdom in it.

And hark! how blithe the throstle sings!
He, too, is no mean preacher:
Come forth into the light of things,
Let Nature be your teacher.

She has a world of ready wealth,
Our minds and hearts to bless -
Spontaneous wisdom breathed by health,
Truth breathed by cheerfulness.

One impulse from a vernal wood
May teach you more of man,
Of moral evil and of good,
Than all the sages can.

Sweet is the lore which Nature brings;
Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:-
We murder to dissect.
Enough of Science and of Art;
Close up those barren leaves;
Come forth, and bring with you a heart
That watches and receives.

[Midas]

And how he conveniently forgot how he could have written that poem, or allowed others to share his walk 'beside the lake and beneath the trees' to see his crowd of daffodils 'fluttering and dancing in the breeze', had he not read books, and wrote down his experiences to be published. And, of course we also being able, and wanting, to read.

Not being in his head at the time, I cannot know for sure (nor can anyone else) but perhaps he was drawing attention to us maintaining a balance in life. For which I agree, as this was a lesson passed to me by my father.

Read, write, do many things, but always maintain a balance so that we can keep in touch with nature, and friends. Otherwise, how can we share our esperiences with others.

Wordsworth, and others apparently did both.

[mazHur]

We OUGHT to keep BALANCE but how many of us are REALLY doing that?

BTW Most of the great writers, thinkers,sages and prophets never read any book ---Plato did not even bother to write one---yet they contributed greatly to us, to this world of ours.

[Midas]

Plato was not a writer? .....think you had better check that.

Some people who have influenced our life may not have been writers themselves - Christ was one, and Socrates another,but they had scribes, or as in Socrates case, a student (Plato), who made written records either at the time, or later, from what was passed down, or supposedly passed down, as being their thinking and/or teaching.

In others words, it was from someone's writing, and being printed and published, that we, today, have been influenced.

[mazHur]

you ssem to go round,,,,,,
I meant to say that none of them went to universities or received proper education either through books or whatever,,,,

Scribes gave us a second hand information that eventually led to myriads of controversies ,,,,,, moreover, there is no record of Jesus's early life,,,,,,,
Hitler, for example, was not a WRITER yet he wrote!

[Midas]

You meant to say...? I am wondering what that is. In fact it reminds me of a book by Lewis Carroll in which there was a kind of 'mad' tea party.

".......Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.

`I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'

`Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. `You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!'

`You might just as well say,' added the March Hare, `that "I like what I get" is the same thing as "I get what I like"

`You might just as well say,' added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, `that "I breathe when I sleep" is the same thing as "I sleep when I breathe"!'

`It IS the same thing with you,' said the Hatter, and here the conversation dropped, and the party sat silent for a minute, while Alice thought over all she could remember about ravens and writing-desks, which wasn't much......"

I will leave it there. Either you get it, or you don't.

[NikolaiI]

Saying what you mean and meaning what you say ARE (virtually) the same thing, however.-IF you've said something, that is.

I didn't say what I meant.
I didn't mean what I said.

So they mean virtually the same thing, except in the first sentence you could have not said anything. (I didn't say what I meant. I meant to say something, but I never said it. OR it could mean the second sentence: what I said is not what I meant.) In the second sentence, you did SAY something, but it definitely WASN'T what you meant to say. You see the bigger flaw here is not to say those are the same (which they very slightly aren't) but to say that TO SAY they're the same is the SAME as saying all those other sentences. Do you see?

Oh; but Maz, I would call mostly anyone who's written a book a writer; and Hitler wrote Mein Kampf so I'd call him a writer as well as a mass-murderer, etc., and all his other titles.

As long as we're having so much fun; what reason do you have to believe Plato wrote anything? I mean to believe it's true? Just because he's listed as the author of the book? Or because certain/many historians have studied analyzed it an said it's historically accurate? Which I don't even know that they have or anything; but even if they had, it's still not reason at all for me to think this. Perhaps there were 50 people working in collaboration on the project. Or 10. Etc., etc.

[Midas]

Nicholai As you feel it is just 'fun' which, of course, it could well be,. Do I, therefore, assume that you really do mean what you say?

If so, then I must tone my response in a like manner and not take your disjointed argument too seriously, in fact, not at all seriously.

But then again, you might not say what you mean, well not always that is, even though you maintain that they both mean the same. And I could extend that statement and run us round in a never ending circle. but that can lead us into another argument that will have you putting forward a premise that a circle can have an end - for instance, when it's a social circle.

However allow me just one serious comment. I mean it to be serious, and that applies whether I am saying what I mean, or meaning what I say. (which, as you say, could well mean the same if.......only let's not go round that tree again.

You say:-

'Oh; but Maz, I would call mostly anyone who's written a book a writer; and Hitler wrote Mein Kampf so I'd call him a writer as well as a mass-murderer, etc., and all his other titles.'

Here (accepting you mean what you say) that you are accepting Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. So I return the question you posed to me. How do you know he wrote it? Assuming you are not over 60 years old, how do you know anything about him except what you have read, have seen presented on the movies, TV, or told to you by some grandparent who may have been alive at the time, but still not have met him personally. I too, only know anything about him from the same source so will decline argument.

All I know is that there are always two sides to the same coin. (I know that as being factual from personal observation, as well as it being generally, and mathematically, accepted).

One day Saddam is our friend and ally against Iran, the next he is the 'beast of Baghdad'. And we will dutifully echo how we are programmed.

With regards to 'meaning' Carroll himself wrote the following to a friend in America, when being asked about the meaning of 'The Hunting of the Snark':

"I'm very much afraid I didn't mean anything but nonsense. Still, you know, words mean more than we mean to express when we use them; so a whole book ought to mean a great deal more than the writer means. So, whatever good meanings are in the book, I'm glad to accept as the meaning of the book." (source: Collingwood, "The Life and Letters of Lewis Carroll")

This could apply to 'Alice in Wonderland' and to many books, and, I guess, in the same way with abstract art.

"If any one of them can explain it," said Alice, "I'll give him sixpence. I don't believe there's an atom of meaning in it."

However, I maintain it is impossible to write without meaning, because no matter how much nonsense one writes, there is always some meaning to that which motivated it because writing takes effort.

The meaning may be just the writer saying I have confused thoughts, and my reasoning is faulty, as you proved in your humorous (?) view presented in your above response where you question how I accepted someone as being a writer, yet, at the same time, you presented an example which works against your argument, or else, perhaps, you do not consider it applies to you.