London Olympic Ceremony

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You are not quite there JS357, in fact, there was nothing specific about it at all, it was
merely an abstraction, a reaction to seeing the reaction of those to a kind of neon
spectacle, man made in its entirety. I myself only caught a glimpse and have still not
seen the ceremony. That FMF and others thought that it must be religious is rather ...[text shortened]... ne offers any
type of definitive meaning, the symbolism loses its potency in a way, me thinks.

Over on Culture there is a discussion of "Genuine Art" that this reminds me of, in that one view is that the artist is the sole determiner of whether how a work is to be seen. By analogy to that, given that you chose the particular lyric to post in this discussion of the London Olympic Ceremony, you might be considered the sole determiner as to how that lyric, in this context, is to be taken.

But this will not prevent readers from speculating on "What does it mean?" and "What did Robbie mean by that?" This can be useful to you (or anyone who posts things that foster speculation on meaning.) You can gain knowledge from what we say, about our perceptions of you, regardless of whether we agree with what you say about it.

I think you are right to say that stating the meaning of something that speaks symbolically will dilute its potency, but only for people who, to some extent, "get" its potency.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not hoping for anything FMF, sorry to disappoint you, but your posts really are a
reflection of you, rather than anything to do with me.

Are you watching the Olympic games?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Interesting details about the sound of silence but once again, as soon as one offers any
type of definitive meaning, the symbolism loses its potency in a way, me thinks.

Well I think the point of this discussion we are having is that the "symbolism" you have been trying to introduce does not have any "potency" at all. If you think it does, then you are fumbling it in a peculiar way. If anything, you seem to want to distance yourself from it.

Here you are now insisting that you find the interpretation that your 'observation' about the Olympic opening ceremony is that it is a quasi-religious event is a "rather amusing" interpretation, even though the song excerpt talks of a God, prophets, praying .

You say "One could go on about the nationalism, the sacrifices to sport at the exclusion of all else, the national anthems as hymns in an idolatrous cathedral, luminaries in the guise of sports stars". So tell us, is that what you think Simon's song lyric is all about? About nationalism, sport excluding "all else", national anthems being performed in a public domain you refer to as a "cathedral"? Is this what you mean? When you say "cathedral" do you mean it to have nothing to do with religion or nothing to do with some quasi-religious concept?

You might think you have offered something "intellectual", which has "potency", to this discussion, but all I am getting from you is a baffling refusal to say what you mean. Your evasiveness and vagueness isn't as interesting as a forthright expression of your views would be. I don't much care about the "definitive meaning" of Simon's song. What is the "definitive meaning" of your thoughts on the subject of this thread?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not hoping for anything FMF, sorry to disappoint you, but your posts really are a
reflection of you, rather than anything to do with me.

My posts are about trying to get you to explain what you mean by what you have written in your posts, so in that respect my posts on this matter have everything to do with you.

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you watching the Olympic games?

i have already explained i am busy. I watched some highlights on my PC.

Originally posted by FMF
Well I think the point of this discussion we are having is that the "symbolism" you have been trying to introduce does not have any "potency" at all. If you think it does, then you are fumbling it in a peculiar way. If anything, you seem to want to distance yourself from it.

Here you are now insisting that you find the interpretation that your 'observation' ...[text shortened]... "definitive meaning" of your thoughts on the subject of this thread?

I laugh at your attempts to find some target when in fact there is nothing to aim at.

Originally posted by FMF
My posts are about trying to get you to explain what you mean by what you have written in your posts, so in that respect my posts on this matter have everything to do with you.

They are a reflection not of me, but of you.

Originally posted by JS357
Over on Culture there is a discussion of "Genuine Art" that this reminds me of, in that one view is that the artist is the sole determiner of whether how a work is to be seen. By analogy to that, given that you chose the particular lyric to post in this discussion of the London Olympic Ceremony, you might be considered the sole determiner as to how that lyric, ...[text shortened]... lly will dilute its potency, but only for people who, to some extent, "get" its potency.

Indeed ill check it out and many thanks for remaining open minded.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I laugh at your attempts to find some target when in fact there is nothing to aim at.

Target? We are just in a discussion that's all. You seem to reject my interpretation that you are criticizing the ceremony for being quasi-religious in nature, and yet here you are choosing to describe one aspect of the ceremony as being "hymns in an idolatrous cathedral". Why the quasi-religious reference? Does the fact that you say the event is "man made" [as opposed to supernaturally-based, in some way] count against it? Does this apply to all events that you see as "man made in [their] entirety"?

You suggest that the points I am making are mere "attempts", but I think I am being quite clear.

Originally posted by JS357
No, I "think it's pretty obvious" that his posting those lyrics means [b]he thinks the opening ceremony represents "worship of mammon". I am telling you what I think he meant by it, partly to see if he would agree or disagree that I was understanding him correctly.[/b]

Well robbie is not responding to your admirably polite and gently repeated requests for him to perhaps explain what he meant. On page 3 robbie said "There is nothing in my [quoting of the Paul Simon lyric] to suggest anything of right and wrong, if it suggests to you [FMF] that there is a quasi religious aspect to the London Olympics opening ceremony then good and well, if not, then that is also fine."

This does not seem consistent with your suggestion about "worship of mammon" [robbie: "There is nothing in [the lyric] to suggest anything of right and wrong"? Doesn't sound like robbie talking about the 'evil influence of wealth' to me] orhis rather odd but unmistakably religious reference to 'national anthems as hymns in an idolatrous cathedral".

On page 5, robbie very specifically referred to his quoting of the Simon song as "an intellectual argument" while berating divegeester for being "incapable" of addressing the said argument. Here is what he said: This type of post for which you seem incapable of improving upon seeks to reduce an intellectual argument to a tabloid one, focusing not on the actual
issue nor the content, but the personality behind it and belongs in some spam repository.

Yes, "an intellectual argument" - robbie's own words. And yet here he is telling you "...That FMF and others thought that it must be religious is rather amusing, that they think i am being cryptic or intellectual is funnier still."

He claims his citing of Sound Of Silence is "an intellectual argument" at one point and yet later he says that my suggestion that he was trying to use the lyric as "an intellectual argument" is "amusing". One wonders, which is it to be?

To me, it clearly doesn't add up and all sounds rather flubbed. Maybe he'll try to explain the contradictions to you. We'll see.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have already explained i am busy. I watched some highlights on my PC.

No doubt accidentally I assume... I think FMF's assessment is correct about your initial post and I remain convinced that you allow his presumption to remain because your vanity allows you to enjoy the pseudo- enigmatic pose your deflection provides.

Originally posted by divegeester
No doubt accidentally I assume... I think FMF's assessment is correct about your initial post and I remain convinced that you allow his presumption to remain because your vanity allows you to enjoy the pseudo- enigmatic pose your deflection provides.

As i stated both yours and his posts are a reflection not of me, but of you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As i stated both yours and his posts are a reflection not of me, but of you.

Does the fact that you say the Olympic opening ceremony is "man made" - as opposed, presumably, to being supernaturally-based in some way - count against it? Does this apply to all events that you see as "man made in [their] entirety"?

Originally posted by FMF
Does the fact that you say the Olympic opening ceremony is "man made" - as opposed, presumably, to being supernaturally-based in some way - count against it? Does this apply to all events that you see as "man made in [their] entirety"?

No it doesn't count against it, how else shall one put on a display, one cannot rely upon
the Aurora Borealis, it is what it is. In my mind when one contrasts the exquisite
beauty inherent in nature, there is nothing artificial about it. Many times I have looked
for gaudiness, there is nothing, in contrast to this, events like the Olympic opening
ceremony, the world cup opening ceremony, certain chess events opening ceremonies,
appear to me to be contrived by comparison, relying upon gimmickry with an air of
artificiality about them, of course, how else could it be.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No it doesn't count against it, how else shall one put on a display, one cannot rely upon
the Aurora Borealis, it is what it is. In my mind when one contrasts the exquisite
beauty inherent in nature, there is nothing artificial about it. Many times I have looked
for gaudiness, there is nothing, in contrast to this, events like the Olympic ope ...[text shortened]... ying upon gimmickry with an air of
artificiality about them, of course, how else could it be.

You mentioned "nationalism" and "national anthems". Do you think that by quoting the Paul Simon lyrics you are communicating a point of view on "nationalism" and "national anthems"?