The New Stuff......................

[dean]

AndyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly, and the trend these days is to use polls
> and focus groups to stay as close as possible to
> the safe middle ground. If you use evolution as an
> analogy, you can't have progress without
> mutations. Every once in a while, one of them
> proves hugely successful.
>

Which is funny, because a movie such as Saw makes alot of money, and everyone goes 'hang on, we can now make cheap horror and make bundles', so now we get flooded with copycat genre pieces which don't have the energy or creativity of what they are copying, and eventually that format gets stagnant and becomes boring until the new 'next big thing' comes along.

[Fearless Freep]

Or as Anselm woud say something to the effect that God exist because we can image God existing. These are not exact quotes from Anselm and Plato, but you get the idea.

Supposedly the "experts" have determined Anselm's theory wrong.

Anselm started with the premise that actual existance is greater than theoeretical existance and therefore that since God can be defined as the greatest thing in existance then, by definition, he *must* exist because to actually exist would be greater than to be speculated to exist.  This is known as the Onotological Argumment (argument from being) for the existance of God (and I'm sumerising it pretty brutally)

The counter argument is to say that actual existance is not really greater than believed existance, so you simply can't say God exists 'by definition', or 'by being'.

Like all logical arguments for the existance of God, there is always one argument in the total proof that you have to take to be true that cannot be proven.  If you think it's true, then the argument proves, at least to you, that God exists.  If you think it's false, then it doesn't.  Often however to take the given argument as fals leads you into other metaphysical directions that may not be any more intellectually palateble (like the Cosmological Argument). So most people have given up with logical proofs and keep it at the point of 'rationale' as in 'does this make a belief in God a rational thing to believe' and that usually hinges on that *one* argument in the proof; not as to whether it is true or not but simply is it 'reasonable'.  If the argument is reasonable, then the whole proof will stand and thus it can be said  that while God cannot be proved to exist, it can be argued that to belive so is at least a reasonable, or rational, belief.  If that one argument in the whole proof is not reasonable, than it's is not reaonable to believe God exists based on that given 'proof'

[Scott]

God exist because All Things Exist.

If you can imagine something then it does exist somewhere.

[Scott]

I forgot to tell you Fearless Freep that your post was very good and informative on the subject of Anselm.

For more info on the subject go to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/

[Menard]

Our environment is much more media rich than it has ever been. With such a demand for media, it may appear as though less creative output is coming forth, but that can be misleading, as there is a lot of creative takes on old content as well original ideas, as much as there ever was, but the amount of canned and copied content has increased that much more to meet the demand of a media junkie consumer market that it appears as though less creative content is being done due to it being drowned amid a flurry of copycats.

There is a story often quoted, which is not actually true, about a U.S. Patent Office official wanting to close the office because "everything that can be invented has been invented". The year in question was 1899. Despite how far advanced we think we are, or how much creativity has come before, there is always, and will always be, something new just around the corner.

[Scott]

I agree with your statement Menard about media being even larger today. Entertainment is such a big part of our economy as we send it out to the world. With more and more media outlets and channels to sell content (owned by the mega companies). Strange how mediocre the entertainment is during  this evolution in media. Maybe soon the fruit will come to bare, but for now it seems lost.

Hollywood is pandering to what will connect with the world. This seems to be non-stop action and explosions over story and characters as they must consider it a universal language or something. Also they are to afraid to step on anybody's toes as they might loose an audience because of it.

Can't speak much for music and where it's going, but watch out for the new music coming from Japan. It's well done and really bizarre. I forget what they call it over there, but I think it's coming to America soon.

[LH-C]

Isn't strange that with all of the newest of new movies, we are all trying to get caught up on old movies that we weren't even aware of or not allowed to watch when we were younger?

[Scott]

There are some good new movies out today, but as a film ages it takes on new dimensions and even greater appeal than when they first played.

Wait 30 years and see how much more interesting MATRIX is with the black outfits, movie concept, and action. MATRIX and other films will have taken on new nuances in 30 years for the more sophisticated viewer.