marieltrokan

I'm expressing dissatisfaction. How can I express dissatisfaction without communicating? I'm against the Brexit campaign, but if they didn't communicate they'd have no referendum. Speaking of referendums, I have one of my own: World referendum - should nations exist? I believe in the principle of treating others the way I want to be treated - because I would never want others to refer to me as a squatter, I'll never use the word.

I think artistic meaning doesn't exist. Not that the artist doesn't intend meaning, but that objectively art isn't real - reality is meaning, and therefore art as an expression of reality can't be real. I've watched Scream all my life, and to me the movie's meaning has more power depending on how I exist. If I became a politician, and said that all people on Earth are the meaning of Scream, Scream would then have more power than some other movie which, while relative to its own artist had more meaning, is now less powerful.

I think that the United Nations should say that all life forms on Earth be individually known as the Universe.

I know reality is real - I'm asking if it's right that a nation be ended because of a life form if it's right that the Middle East shouldn't be ended because of Lindsay Lohan.

Why is that?

What does that mean?

If reality is existence of economy (graded and downgraded by the IMF), and a status-economy needs hierarchy, but people oppose hierarchy, isn't that reality needing contradiction to exist? I'm of the position that life having meaning has to mean that no nations should be because of any life form.

And what do you think that is significant of, if anything - the very existence of influence? Is influence in need of hierarchy, in effect meaning that not all life forms are equal? Eva Green's performance on Penny Dreadful is a reality for millions of people, as is the meaning of The Nightmare, or Scooby-Doo or Star Wars, but what about the conflict of shared realities being because of hierarchy?

No. I mean that because people use contradiction as a source of criticism, I'm asking if contradiction is wrong to be opposed if reality can't exist without it. If contradiction is a source of criticism, meaning it can be opposed, but reality needs contradiction, where does that leave the life forms that need reality? If the Middle East should never be ended because of Lindsay Lohan, that then means no country should ever be ended because of anyone shouldn't it? Or would you disagree?

Thanks for the link. There is relevance to your point about knowledge: for some time I perceived Halloween The Curse of Michael Myers in very particular ways, but through reading about its production history, that perception changed. If reality recreates art, that suggests that art is meant to exist - which I suppose is the real question. Is art meant by God, if God exists? Halloween 6. The Nightmare painting. Ridley Scott's Alien. The writings of Tolkien. The tv show Saved by the Bell. Are these things equal in that they're all meant by God?

In my mind, the message of the artist is important, but I understand that reality being freedom extends to how art should be interpreted; what's your perception of the contrast between a painting of a forest and pop music?

What are your own thoughts on this?

Do you think this has happened to you - that you've experienced a movie perhaps that you felt meant something different than intended?

The problem with this issue, is the idea that to oppose contradiction is to oppose reality's ability to exist.

I'm completely lost with what the truth is surrounding the meaning of art.

I agree. Political leaders should say in public that people shouldn't use the words - but more importantly exist so that the words aren't needed.

Thanks to all who have so far commented. Naturally, ending the use of such words would mean ending nations too, and the economy insofar as being about status - so no more grading and downgrading from the IMF. Remember: people who lived 1,000 years ago would've had these exact sorts of discussion, so the world should exist so that no one 1,000 years from now has to think that what they're currently talking about was mirrored today.

I don't believe in either economics or politics. And why should a belief in free housing, free healthcare and food and beverage and education mean not being educated in politics or economics? I believe that all life forms on Earth should be individually known as the Universe.

The reality isn't to ban, but just if some political leader said in public that the world should exist without such words - and then the world makes the effort to exist without needing such words.

Thanks for replying. Why do you feel that way?

To clarify on striker: I'm not being anti-the rights of people to strike, I'm anti the need of anyone to strike - which is to say that civilisation is wrong to exist such that people need to form unions. Housing, healthcare, education and food and beverages should all be free, able to be free because people make the effort to build the correct foundation.

I don't know how valid communism is; the global status quo means repetition (which is anti-perfection), so the question is would socialism on a global scale mean the eventual cease of repetition?

The perfect government is not the absence of structure, but the absence of hierarchy; all must not exercise power.

The research I've carried out isn't philosophy.

Truth can't be represented. The topic of my research has been the opposite of reality (or the source of existence). I wouldn't call it philosophy, because philosophy is reality. Reason and difference are exactly what anyone would think of them: my aim is to separate reason from difference without committing the error of reason or difference existing more than once - that's what I mean, about truth being anti-representation (to be truth means to be anti-existence, which is what representation requires). The latest data is that the need of reason is to act, but the problem is that to act means to duplicate need.