Guess all that transcendental meditation isn't that helpful if you're throwing tantrums like a child at the ripe age of 75. but yeah, lynch is le hella epic bros
The way of men across the world.
mātrā-sparśās tu kaunteya
śītoṣṇa-sukha-duḥkha-dāḥ
āgamāpāyino ’nityās
tāṁs titikṣasva bhārata >the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.
Kind of cringe refusing to embrace emotion tbqh.
You can be all taoist about it by just experiencing the emotion from a third person perspective and not let it linger, but just coping and seething while pretending emotion doesn't affect you "because... It just doesn't, ok!?" makes you seem like a small boy
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's not the meaning of that passage. I don't believe they're describing non-feeling. Rather, it's about bringing awareness to the transience of one's emotional state (hence the weather analogy).
Yeah I like his movies, but Lynch reminds me of a lot of old dudes I met in my life. I have a feeling he wouldn't be that great to be around especially if he's working
No one claimed that transcendental meditation is going to make you a saint. Rather the opposite is claimed that you'll get demonized and all the literature do that indicate that you get angrier, get night terrors, lose your mind, even experts and teachers of meditation experience those.
They already know. One of their biggest shills on youtube, with a massive channel, the bald guy already tells you all I told you and worse. He says it's ok that you're to start to howl, lose control over your conscious self and all that.
Anons have no idea how frustrating it can be working with bossy producers who couldn't create a decent film if their life depended on it.
Btw Lynch has actually said that he doesn't think becoming an advanced practitioner of meditation is good for an artist because creating art requires too much conflict. He's well aware he's not a saint, and he's not trying to be.
Lynch is a fool then. Meditation doesnt remove conflict. What it should remove is the tendency to act like a b***hy girl and cry about things that arent to your liking.
You're right, meditation doesn't remove conflict. The idea is to make conflict easier to deal with - and if you possess the ability to be relatively content under any circumstances, you're going to have less incentive to create art.
>if you possess the ability to be relatively content under any circumstances, you're going to have less incentive to create art.
Why? This is complete bullshit. The fact that we still know Marcus Aurelius and his book MEDITATIONS proves this concept wrong.
If your meditation removes your creativity, then you are doing a very bad form of meditation.
What will stifle creativity is volatility and not being able to persist due to circumstantial events.
If you feel a total sense of fulfillment, why would you have a desire to create? You create because you feel something is lacking.
>The fact that we still know Marcus Aurelius and his book MEDITATIONS proves this concept wrong
If you can prove to me that Marcus Aurelius was totally content, I'll be happy to concede.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>If you feel a total sense of fulfillment
Why this if? I never said "total sense of fulfillment", and neither do any of the other things I have quoted.
Be abler to tolerate and deal with stress doesnt mean "total sense of fullfilment".
It means you make your art, and you dont scream and cry if something presents an obstacle.
You have created a strawman of "total fulfillment" when no one but you is suggesting anything of the sort.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I never said "total sense of fulfillment", and neither do any of the other things I have quoted.
In order to be free from internal conflict (or at least close to it), one must possess a sense of fulfillment. This should go without saying.
>You have created a strawman of "total fulfillment" when no one but you is suggesting anything of the sort.
I said "total" to highlight my point. If *total" fulfillment is required for 0 internal conflict, then a lack of it would make internal conflict inevitable.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying meditation will ruin an artist. I'm saying it *could* end up being a hindrance to one's creativity.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>free from internal conflict
Nothing I have quoted says this. Stop arguing with the phantoms in your head. >I'm not saying meditation will ruin an artist. I'm saying it *could* end up being a hindrance to one's creativity.
Then you arent saying anything at all.
Everything COULD be a hindrance to creativity.
Just as everything COULD be a creative inspiration.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Nothing I have quoted says this
The ultimate goal of meditation (or spirituality in general) is to be free of conflict. If one becomes advanced in meditation to the point where one feels free from internal conflict, this is going to remove the incentive to create art.
Think harder. I shouldn't have to spell everything out for you.
>Just as everything COULD be a creative inspiration
I don't believe enlightenment would serve as artistic inspiration.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The ultimate goal of meditation (or spirituality in general) is to be free of conflict.
No.
Meditation is not spirituality, though many traditions meant to give one spirituality have meditation in them.
Meditation does not have any one single goal.
Meditation is deliberate focus of awareness. That's it.
There are styles of meditation offered with goals in mind, but there is no one meditation for one goal.
Boxers will use a style of meditation in order to gain confidence in their upcoming match. Nothing whatsoever to do with contentment or spirituality.
Still meditation.
You are layering strawmen so your assumed conclusion can have meaning. >I don't believe enlightenment would serve as artistic inspiration.
Then you have never bothered to look for what those considered enlightened have made.
It really sounds like you've been fed a lot of dogma from one tradition and think that applies to everyone.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Meditation is not spirituality
Yes. It is.
Whether you define it as simply elevating your spirits or an explicit goal of achieving salvation/enlightenment, meditation is a spiritual endeavor.
>Meditation does not have any one single goal
Not that you're aware of. You may have a thousand different goals in mind, but the ultimate purpose is to realize the optimal state of being.
>Then you have never bothered to look for what those considered enlightened have made
"Considered" is the key word. Most of the great artists have been colossal buttholes.
Based on what I understand enlightenment to be, I don't think it's conducive to artistic output.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Whether you define it as simply elevating your spirits or an explicit goal of achieving salvation/enlightenment, meditation is a spiritual endeavor.
It isnt defined as either.
Meditation is deliberate focus of awareness. >the ultimate purpose is to realize the optimal state of being.
Wrong. You have confused meditation with the religious traditions that emphasize meditation. >"Considered" is the key word. Most of the great artists have been colossal buttholes.
But I didnt say "great artists".
Again you cannot address wehat I said, so you switch to a strawman of "great artists were buttholes."
I said the enlightened have made great art, and you decided to avoid this. >Based on what I understand enlightenment to be, I don't think it's conducive to artistic output.
And we've all seen the results of your understanding as seriously lacking.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>it isn't defined as either
I was referring to the purpose of meditation, not the act itself. I suppose I should've been more clear.
And yes, the purpose is spiritual.
>I said the enlightened have made great art, and you decided to avoid this
Prove to me they were enlightened. You'll find it as difficult as proving Aurelius was content.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I was referring to the purpose of meditation, not the act itself.
And again you are wrong. Meditation can have MANY purposes. You confuse the goal of the religion a the goal of meditation.
A person meditating on info to pass a test isnt trying to achieve some religious ultimate state.
They are still meditating. >Prove to me they were enlightened.
Prove to me that such a thing as enlightenment exists.
There are those widely considered enlightened.
If you want to argue they arent, then fine - we can remove enlightenment as a possibility altogether.
It's bullshit, and no one is ever enlightened. Happy?
Still doesnt remove the fact that those considered to be enlightened made good art.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>A person meditating on info to pass a test isnt trying to achieve some religious ultimate state.
Lol why is the meditation effective? Think! It's because it allows them to feel a greater sense of peace and focus - it is SPIRITUAL.
>Prove to me that such a thing as enlightenment exists.
I believe enlightenment is a feeling of oneness (total plenitude). It's a state of pure understanding and contentment.
Can I prove it exists? Of course not. It has to be experienced to be known.
>Still doesnt remove the fact that those considered to be enlightened made good art.
Who are "those"?
Earlier, I said "great artists" to highlight a point (another one you missed). If most of the universally acclaimed artists (Bach, Beethoven, Caravaggio, Michaelangelo, Hemingway, Joyce, etc etc) were considered to be narcissistic buttholes (or at least deeply troubled individuals), this would reinforce my position that art requires internal conflict to some degree.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>why is the meditation effective?
Because deliberate focus of awareness is powerful. That is why it helps in spiritual endeavors. >I believe enlightenment
No one cares about your beliefs. Prove to me enlightenment exists. >Can I prove it exists? Of course not.
And yet you demand I prove that it exists. Dishonest. >Who are "those"?
Admit you have never even bothered to look, and I will give examples. > I said "great artists" to highlight a point
No, you did it to hide the fact that you couldnt respond to the those considered enlightened making good art. >If most of the universally acclaimed artists are considered to be narcissistic buttholes
You are still trying to argue against a strawman. Meditation does not automatically remove narcissism.
Most that meditate show the exact opposite and think they are better than everyone else.
You now are confusing stoicism with meditation.
Kind of cringe refusing to embrace emotion tbqh.
You can be all taoist about it by just experiencing the emotion from a third person perspective and not let it linger, but just coping and seething while pretending emotion doesn't affect you "because... It just doesn't, ok!?" makes you seem like a small boy
>refusing to embrace emotion
Tolerance of happiness and distress is not refusing to embrace emotion.
What you dont understand is having a mind under control and regulated, as opposed to being under the control of your mind.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Because deliberate focus of awareness is powerful
This is utterly superficial.
It's powerful because it allows you to manage energy more efficiently, which ultimately reduces stress, depression, anxiety... CONFLICT.
>No one cares about your beliefs. Prove to me enlightenment exists.
I thought I made myself clear on this.
>And yet you demand I prove that it exists.
... you asked me to prove it, not the other way around.
>Admit you have never even bothered to look
Look where? What are you talking about?
>No, you did it to hide the fact that you couldnt respond to the those considered enlightened making good art
Because I don't know who you're talking about. Maybe be more specific.
>Meditation does not automatically remove narcissism
Speaking of straw men.
I'm not saying meditation automatically removes narcissism. I'm saying, if meditation increases your sense of fulfillment to the degree where you feel a total (or near-total) sense of peace and contentment, you're not going to have much incentive to great art, much less be willing to put in the immense effort required to make a masterpiece.
I'm about to give up on you, so your next post better make more sense. Maybe cool it with the attitude and just address my points.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
*much incentive to *make* art
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>it allows you to manage energy more efficiently
this is such a vague and useless application of the term "energy". No better than calling it powerful. >you asked me to prove it, not the other way around.
Lie. >If you can prove to me that Marcus Aurelius was totally content >Prove to me they were enlightened.
That is what you said, and it was only after this that I demanded you prove enlightenment exists.
I am glad to remove the entire concept, since you are the one to bring it up.
You only brought it up because your religious dogma made you think the entire and only goal of meditating is to achieve it.
You are wrong. >Look where? What are you talking about?
And now you cant remember simple things.
I will remind you. >I don't believe enlightenment would serve as artistic inspiration. >Then you have never bothered to look for what those considered enlightened have made.
You have concluded a lack due entirely to your refusal to inquire. >I'm not saying meditation automatically removes narcissism.
You said narcissism is a sign that artists do not meditate. The ONLY reason that would be a sign is if meditation is incompatible with narcissism.
Which is false. >I'm about to give up on you.
You can run away any time you want.
You will still be wrong.
You are wrong about Lynch.
you are wrong about meditation.
You are wrong about it's effects on creativity.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>this is such a vague and useless application of the term "energy"
Because you say so? What do you think mental distress or discontent arises from? It's based on energy - and if the use of energy is inefficient, it's going to result in a prolonged state of mental distress. This is not up for debate.
>Lie
You: "Prove to me that such a thing as enlightenment exists".
>That is what you said, and it was only after this that I demanded you prove enlightenment exists.
"Prove *insert individual* is enlightened" =/= "prove that enlightenment exists".
I have defined what I believe enlightenment is, and I've acknowledged that it's impossible to prove that this state of consciousness exists. I asked you to prove that certain people were enlightened or content to make a point - the point being, it's impossible to get into another person's mind and experience what they experience.
>You have concluded a lack due entirely to your refusal to inquire.
Lol should I Google "enlightened artists"? Why don't you just tell me which artists you believe might have been enlightened?
>You said narcissism is a sign that artists do not meditate
Where did I say that? And be careful here. I don't want you to set yourself up.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Oh you stuck around. Guess my posts are suddenly worthy of your time again. And they have been for hours. Dont pretend to flounce away if its just going to make you look weak and unable to follow through. >Because you say so?
Yes. Same support you gave your statements. >It's based on energy
A completely useless statement.
Rape is based on energy. Death is based on energy.
Your statement is USELESS. >You: "Prove to me that such a thing as enlightenment exists".
Said AFTER you demanded proof of an enlightened person.
You demand proof of an enlightened person, I demand you first prove enlightenment exists. >I've acknowledged that it's impossible to prove that this state of consciousness exists.
Which is why you are dishonest to demand that I prove it. >should I Google "enlightened artists"? Why don't you just tell me which artists you believe might have been enlightened?
Admit you have never even bothered to look, and I will give examples. >Where did I say that?
Indirectly.
You have FALSELY said enlightenment is not conducive to creativity.
You have FALSELY said the academically appreciated artists were all narcissists.
It is very easy to interpolate and conclude you seeing narcissism as antithetical to enlightenment.
Are you saying otherwise?
Yes or no - an enlightened person can be a narcissistic butthole?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Rape is based on energy
Yes, an inefficient use of it, i.e. mental distress and the resulting act. >death is based on energy
Not an inefficient use of it.
>Said AFTER you demanded proof of an enlightened person.
This was AFTER you said enlightened artists might have produced great art.
>Which is why you are dishonest to demand that I prove it.
If you're going to say that great art has been made by enlightened beings, it's only fair to ask for proof that these individuals were enlightened. The fact that I can't prove enlightenment exists doesn't make my question unfair, given that I've defined enlightenment and acknowledged that it's impossible to prove empirically.
The bottom line is, we'll never know for sure whether an enlightened being outside of ourselves exists (and even then, you run into logical issues), much less whether an enlightened being would have a desire to produce art.
>Admit you have never even bothered to look
I'll ask again: look where?
>You have FALSELY said enlightenment is not conducive to creativity
Prove it's false. I haven't claimed proof of anything. >You have FALSELY said the academically appreciated artists were all narcissists
I never said "all"
>It is very easy to interpolate and conclude you seeing narcissism as antithetical to enlightenment
Narcissism could be a sign of all kinds of things, but I wouldn't include the lack of meditation as one of them since the vast majority of people don't meditate - I also wouldn't include the lack of acupuncture or mineral salt baths or green tea in your diet.
>Yes or no - an enlightened person can be a narcissistic butthole?
Not as I defined it.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Yes.
Glad you agree what you said is completely useless. >This was AFTER you said enlightened artists might have produced great art.
Which was AFTEr you said enlightenment is not conducive to art.
YOU brought up enlightenment as if it were a thing.
I am HAPPY to drop it completely, either as irrelevant to the discussion or as something that does not exist.
Either way - you brought it up, you were wrong, and now you want to run away from it. >If you're going to say that great art has been made by enlightened beings
If you're going to say enlightenment is not conducive to creativity, then you have to prove enlightenment exists first. >I'll ask again: look where?
Admit you have never even bothered to look, and I will give examples. >Prove it's false.
Prove enlightenment exists. If it does not, then it is obviously false to say it affects creativity. >I never said "all"
So you admit that the few people you mentioned - ignoring the fact that you have no proof the ones mentioned are narcissist buttholes - are not a good sample and do not make any sort of point about art or creativity being linked to narcissism or assholishness. >Not as I defined it.
So you are saying an enlightened person
(Which you cannot prove even exists)
would not be a narcissist.
And you say these artists are narcissists.
So what was your point, if not to connect6 these two?
Alright - let's separate them then.
Nothing above would logically come to the conclusion that enlightenment
(which you cannot prove exists)
would not be conducive to creativity.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Glad you agree what you said is completely useless
You lack reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.
>Which was AFTEr you said enlightenment is not conducive to art
Correct, and there's no logical inconsistency between my statement and the request that I made of you.
>Either way - you brought it up, you were wrong, and now you want to run away from it
You don't seem to understand what proof consists of. And no, I'm not running away from it - I'm simply elucidating the matter in a logical fashion.
>If you're going to say enlightenment is not conducive to creativity, then you have to prove enlightenment exists first
I defined enlightenment and explained why this state of consciousness would not be conducive to creativity. This is a matter of logic, not empirical evidence, and you haven't done a single thing to support your position that my logic is flimsy.
>Admit you have never even bothered to look, and I will give examples
Lol Google? My backyard? The toilet? At least point me in the right direction, geez.
>Prove enlightenment exists. If it does not, then it is obviously false to say it affects creativity.
See: my earlier point about enlightenment
>So you admit that the few people you mentioned....
No, I don't admit that.
1. By all accounts, all the artists I mentioned were either colossal pricks or deeply troubled - just read about them.
2. If the Giants of art are more prone to narcissistic, butthole behavior, it strengthens my case that internal conflict is essential for producing art.
>So you are saying an enlightened person
(Which you cannot prove even exists)
would not be a narcissist
An enlightened person as I defined it, yes.
>Nothing above would logically come to the conclusion that enlightenment
(which you cannot prove exists)
would not be conducive to creativity
Then you suck at logic. I mean, you really do suck at logic. And no, this isn't dodging your point - just read what I've already written, and think harder.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The ultimate goal of meditation (or spirituality in general) is to be free of conflict.
It's not.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It is. You're just shortsighted.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
NTA but it seems to me you are misunderstanding meditation as a way of propping up your asinine point about creativity.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Have fun with your Creative TM 2000, bro. May you create many masterpieces on your journey.
lol he's always been a misogynisitc, narcissistic boomer hothead. the TM shit is just his autism at play. the only reason he bent the knee and blurred out countess laura harring's bush in mulholland dr is because he got the call from her ex-husband, a high-level german politician
>hire people to keep you on track and plan your shoot >"so how are we gonna do this shoot, Ronnie?" >"well I think with the way things are going with this one scene we might hav-" >"NO WHAT THE FRICK, RONNIE. YOU CAN'T DO A FRICKIN SCENE AROUND HERE WITH SOMEONE TELLING YOU THAT'S IT TOO LONG I WANT TO MAKE IT DREAMY WHAT THE FRICK IS IT WITH YOU GUYS TELLING ME I HAVE TO STAY ON TRACK WITH THE SHOOTING PLAN"
The reality is some artists need to be reigned in and some artists need to be let loose. Lynch is the kind that needs to be let loose. He doesn't need a producer of all people telling him how to do things.
Here, you want it in Christian? >God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
That is stoicism. Every root of civilization understands this as the proper way for men to act.
Lynch has a bad history of being told to cut down scenes from idiot execs over Dune. Now imagine some dumb b***h tries to do the same for your pet project id be pissed too.
>makes shitty movies (except elephant man which was ghost directed) >makes shitty tv series >makes shitty shitty shitty "art" exhibitions >someone finally tries to help him >has a hissy fit whiney
seems legit
>get full creative control of a project >some stupid fricking producer tries to weasel you into changing something
Lynch was right to be angry, especially considering how fricking moronic the shooting schedule was for the entire production. If a scene is too long, it can be fixed in editing anyway.
Guess all that transcendental meditation isn't that helpful if you're throwing tantrums like a child at the ripe age of 75. but yeah, lynch is le hella epic bros
you're allowed to meditate and still express every emotion in life you effeminate, eunuched gaylet
>expresses every emotion
>calls other effeminate
stoischism
The way of men across the world.
mātrā-sparśās tu kaunteya
śītoṣṇa-sukha-duḥkha-dāḥ
āgamāpāyino ’nityās
tāṁs titikṣasva bhārata
>the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.
Good morning sir
In how many more roots of civilization do you need to see this concept laid out?
Good morning sar, you've reincarnated as a subhuman but next life it'll be happy cow dung fly.
Very legit.
Kind of cringe refusing to embrace emotion tbqh.
You can be all taoist about it by just experiencing the emotion from a third person perspective and not let it linger, but just coping and seething while pretending emotion doesn't affect you "because... It just doesn't, ok!?" makes you seem like a small boy
That's not the meaning of that passage. I don't believe they're describing non-feeling. Rather, it's about bringing awareness to the transience of one's emotional state (hence the weather analogy).
Yeah I like his movies, but Lynch reminds me of a lot of old dudes I met in my life. I have a feeling he wouldn't be that great to be around especially if he's working
How many of the actresses in his movies do you think he porked? I'll put $10 on at least Dern.
Defs Denny Hopper
Isabella Rossellini is the obvious one.
No one claimed that transcendental meditation is going to make you a saint. Rather the opposite is claimed that you'll get demonized and all the literature do that indicate that you get angrier, get night terrors, lose your mind, even experts and teachers of meditation experience those.
The creatives do it for "inspiration".
>all the literature do that indicate that you get angrier, get night terrors, lose your mind
Someone should tell the TM practicioners.
They already know. One of their biggest shills on youtube, with a massive channel, the bald guy already tells you all I told you and worse. He says it's ok that you're to start to howl, lose control over your conscious self and all that.
From TM.org
Anons have no idea how frustrating it can be working with bossy producers who couldn't create a decent film if their life depended on it.
Btw Lynch has actually said that he doesn't think becoming an advanced practitioner of meditation is good for an artist because creating art requires too much conflict. He's well aware he's not a saint, and he's not trying to be.
Lynch is a fool then. Meditation doesnt remove conflict. What it should remove is the tendency to act like a b***hy girl and cry about things that arent to your liking.
You're right, meditation doesn't remove conflict. The idea is to make conflict easier to deal with - and if you possess the ability to be relatively content under any circumstances, you're going to have less incentive to create art.
>if you possess the ability to be relatively content under any circumstances, you're going to have less incentive to create art.
Why? This is complete bullshit. The fact that we still know Marcus Aurelius and his book MEDITATIONS proves this concept wrong.
If your meditation removes your creativity, then you are doing a very bad form of meditation.
What will stifle creativity is volatility and not being able to persist due to circumstantial events.
If you feel a total sense of fulfillment, why would you have a desire to create? You create because you feel something is lacking.
>The fact that we still know Marcus Aurelius and his book MEDITATIONS proves this concept wrong
If you can prove to me that Marcus Aurelius was totally content, I'll be happy to concede.
>If you feel a total sense of fulfillment
Why this if? I never said "total sense of fulfillment", and neither do any of the other things I have quoted.
Be abler to tolerate and deal with stress doesnt mean "total sense of fullfilment".
It means you make your art, and you dont scream and cry if something presents an obstacle.
You have created a strawman of "total fulfillment" when no one but you is suggesting anything of the sort.
>I never said "total sense of fulfillment", and neither do any of the other things I have quoted.
In order to be free from internal conflict (or at least close to it), one must possess a sense of fulfillment. This should go without saying.
>You have created a strawman of "total fulfillment" when no one but you is suggesting anything of the sort.
I said "total" to highlight my point. If *total" fulfillment is required for 0 internal conflict, then a lack of it would make internal conflict inevitable.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying meditation will ruin an artist. I'm saying it *could* end up being a hindrance to one's creativity.
>free from internal conflict
Nothing I have quoted says this. Stop arguing with the phantoms in your head.
>I'm not saying meditation will ruin an artist. I'm saying it *could* end up being a hindrance to one's creativity.
Then you arent saying anything at all.
Everything COULD be a hindrance to creativity.
Just as everything COULD be a creative inspiration.
>Nothing I have quoted says this
The ultimate goal of meditation (or spirituality in general) is to be free of conflict. If one becomes advanced in meditation to the point where one feels free from internal conflict, this is going to remove the incentive to create art.
Think harder. I shouldn't have to spell everything out for you.
>Just as everything COULD be a creative inspiration
I don't believe enlightenment would serve as artistic inspiration.
>The ultimate goal of meditation (or spirituality in general) is to be free of conflict.
No.
Meditation is not spirituality, though many traditions meant to give one spirituality have meditation in them.
Meditation does not have any one single goal.
Meditation is deliberate focus of awareness. That's it.
There are styles of meditation offered with goals in mind, but there is no one meditation for one goal.
Boxers will use a style of meditation in order to gain confidence in their upcoming match. Nothing whatsoever to do with contentment or spirituality.
Still meditation.
You are layering strawmen so your assumed conclusion can have meaning.
>I don't believe enlightenment would serve as artistic inspiration.
Then you have never bothered to look for what those considered enlightened have made.
It really sounds like you've been fed a lot of dogma from one tradition and think that applies to everyone.
>Meditation is not spirituality
Yes. It is.
Whether you define it as simply elevating your spirits or an explicit goal of achieving salvation/enlightenment, meditation is a spiritual endeavor.
>Meditation does not have any one single goal
Not that you're aware of. You may have a thousand different goals in mind, but the ultimate purpose is to realize the optimal state of being.
>Then you have never bothered to look for what those considered enlightened have made
"Considered" is the key word. Most of the great artists have been colossal buttholes.
Based on what I understand enlightenment to be, I don't think it's conducive to artistic output.
>Whether you define it as simply elevating your spirits or an explicit goal of achieving salvation/enlightenment, meditation is a spiritual endeavor.
It isnt defined as either.
Meditation is deliberate focus of awareness.
>the ultimate purpose is to realize the optimal state of being.
Wrong. You have confused meditation with the religious traditions that emphasize meditation.
>"Considered" is the key word. Most of the great artists have been colossal buttholes.
But I didnt say "great artists".
Again you cannot address wehat I said, so you switch to a strawman of "great artists were buttholes."
I said the enlightened have made great art, and you decided to avoid this.
>Based on what I understand enlightenment to be, I don't think it's conducive to artistic output.
And we've all seen the results of your understanding as seriously lacking.
>it isn't defined as either
I was referring to the purpose of meditation, not the act itself. I suppose I should've been more clear.
And yes, the purpose is spiritual.
>I said the enlightened have made great art, and you decided to avoid this
Prove to me they were enlightened. You'll find it as difficult as proving Aurelius was content.
>I was referring to the purpose of meditation, not the act itself.
And again you are wrong. Meditation can have MANY purposes. You confuse the goal of the religion a the goal of meditation.
A person meditating on info to pass a test isnt trying to achieve some religious ultimate state.
They are still meditating.
>Prove to me they were enlightened.
Prove to me that such a thing as enlightenment exists.
There are those widely considered enlightened.
If you want to argue they arent, then fine - we can remove enlightenment as a possibility altogether.
It's bullshit, and no one is ever enlightened. Happy?
Still doesnt remove the fact that those considered to be enlightened made good art.
>A person meditating on info to pass a test isnt trying to achieve some religious ultimate state.
Lol why is the meditation effective? Think! It's because it allows them to feel a greater sense of peace and focus - it is SPIRITUAL.
>Prove to me that such a thing as enlightenment exists.
I believe enlightenment is a feeling of oneness (total plenitude). It's a state of pure understanding and contentment.
Can I prove it exists? Of course not. It has to be experienced to be known.
>Still doesnt remove the fact that those considered to be enlightened made good art.
Who are "those"?
Earlier, I said "great artists" to highlight a point (another one you missed). If most of the universally acclaimed artists (Bach, Beethoven, Caravaggio, Michaelangelo, Hemingway, Joyce, etc etc) were considered to be narcissistic buttholes (or at least deeply troubled individuals), this would reinforce my position that art requires internal conflict to some degree.
>why is the meditation effective?
Because deliberate focus of awareness is powerful. That is why it helps in spiritual endeavors.
>I believe enlightenment
No one cares about your beliefs. Prove to me enlightenment exists.
>Can I prove it exists? Of course not.
And yet you demand I prove that it exists. Dishonest.
>Who are "those"?
Admit you have never even bothered to look, and I will give examples.
> I said "great artists" to highlight a point
No, you did it to hide the fact that you couldnt respond to the those considered enlightened making good art.
>If most of the universally acclaimed artists are considered to be narcissistic buttholes
You are still trying to argue against a strawman. Meditation does not automatically remove narcissism.
Most that meditate show the exact opposite and think they are better than everyone else.
You now are confusing stoicism with meditation.
>refusing to embrace emotion
Tolerance of happiness and distress is not refusing to embrace emotion.
What you dont understand is having a mind under control and regulated, as opposed to being under the control of your mind.
>Because deliberate focus of awareness is powerful
This is utterly superficial.
It's powerful because it allows you to manage energy more efficiently, which ultimately reduces stress, depression, anxiety... CONFLICT.
>No one cares about your beliefs. Prove to me enlightenment exists.
I thought I made myself clear on this.
>And yet you demand I prove that it exists.
... you asked me to prove it, not the other way around.
>Admit you have never even bothered to look
Look where? What are you talking about?
>No, you did it to hide the fact that you couldnt respond to the those considered enlightened making good art
Because I don't know who you're talking about. Maybe be more specific.
>Meditation does not automatically remove narcissism
Speaking of straw men.
I'm not saying meditation automatically removes narcissism. I'm saying, if meditation increases your sense of fulfillment to the degree where you feel a total (or near-total) sense of peace and contentment, you're not going to have much incentive to great art, much less be willing to put in the immense effort required to make a masterpiece.
I'm about to give up on you, so your next post better make more sense. Maybe cool it with the attitude and just address my points.
*much incentive to *make* art
>it allows you to manage energy more efficiently
this is such a vague and useless application of the term "energy". No better than calling it powerful.
>you asked me to prove it, not the other way around.
Lie.
>If you can prove to me that Marcus Aurelius was totally content
>Prove to me they were enlightened.
That is what you said, and it was only after this that I demanded you prove enlightenment exists.
I am glad to remove the entire concept, since you are the one to bring it up.
You only brought it up because your religious dogma made you think the entire and only goal of meditating is to achieve it.
You are wrong.
>Look where? What are you talking about?
And now you cant remember simple things.
I will remind you.
>I don't believe enlightenment would serve as artistic inspiration.
>Then you have never bothered to look for what those considered enlightened have made.
You have concluded a lack due entirely to your refusal to inquire.
>I'm not saying meditation automatically removes narcissism.
You said narcissism is a sign that artists do not meditate. The ONLY reason that would be a sign is if meditation is incompatible with narcissism.
Which is false.
>I'm about to give up on you.
You can run away any time you want.
You will still be wrong.
You are wrong about Lynch.
you are wrong about meditation.
You are wrong about it's effects on creativity.
>this is such a vague and useless application of the term "energy"
Because you say so? What do you think mental distress or discontent arises from? It's based on energy - and if the use of energy is inefficient, it's going to result in a prolonged state of mental distress. This is not up for debate.
>Lie
You: "Prove to me that such a thing as enlightenment exists".
>That is what you said, and it was only after this that I demanded you prove enlightenment exists.
"Prove *insert individual* is enlightened" =/= "prove that enlightenment exists".
I have defined what I believe enlightenment is, and I've acknowledged that it's impossible to prove that this state of consciousness exists. I asked you to prove that certain people were enlightened or content to make a point - the point being, it's impossible to get into another person's mind and experience what they experience.
>You have concluded a lack due entirely to your refusal to inquire.
Lol should I Google "enlightened artists"? Why don't you just tell me which artists you believe might have been enlightened?
>You said narcissism is a sign that artists do not meditate
Where did I say that? And be careful here. I don't want you to set yourself up.
Oh you stuck around. Guess my posts are suddenly worthy of your time again. And they have been for hours. Dont pretend to flounce away if its just going to make you look weak and unable to follow through.
>Because you say so?
Yes. Same support you gave your statements.
>It's based on energy
A completely useless statement.
Rape is based on energy. Death is based on energy.
Your statement is USELESS.
>You: "Prove to me that such a thing as enlightenment exists".
Said AFTER you demanded proof of an enlightened person.
You demand proof of an enlightened person, I demand you first prove enlightenment exists.
>I've acknowledged that it's impossible to prove that this state of consciousness exists.
Which is why you are dishonest to demand that I prove it.
>should I Google "enlightened artists"? Why don't you just tell me which artists you believe might have been enlightened?
Admit you have never even bothered to look, and I will give examples.
>Where did I say that?
Indirectly.
You have FALSELY said enlightenment is not conducive to creativity.
You have FALSELY said the academically appreciated artists were all narcissists.
It is very easy to interpolate and conclude you seeing narcissism as antithetical to enlightenment.
Are you saying otherwise?
Yes or no - an enlightened person can be a narcissistic butthole?
>Rape is based on energy
Yes, an inefficient use of it, i.e. mental distress and the resulting act.
>death is based on energy
Not an inefficient use of it.
>Said AFTER you demanded proof of an enlightened person.
This was AFTER you said enlightened artists might have produced great art.
>Which is why you are dishonest to demand that I prove it.
If you're going to say that great art has been made by enlightened beings, it's only fair to ask for proof that these individuals were enlightened. The fact that I can't prove enlightenment exists doesn't make my question unfair, given that I've defined enlightenment and acknowledged that it's impossible to prove empirically.
The bottom line is, we'll never know for sure whether an enlightened being outside of ourselves exists (and even then, you run into logical issues), much less whether an enlightened being would have a desire to produce art.
>Admit you have never even bothered to look
I'll ask again: look where?
>You have FALSELY said enlightenment is not conducive to creativity
Prove it's false. I haven't claimed proof of anything.
>You have FALSELY said the academically appreciated artists were all narcissists
I never said "all"
>It is very easy to interpolate and conclude you seeing narcissism as antithetical to enlightenment
Narcissism could be a sign of all kinds of things, but I wouldn't include the lack of meditation as one of them since the vast majority of people don't meditate - I also wouldn't include the lack of acupuncture or mineral salt baths or green tea in your diet.
>Yes or no - an enlightened person can be a narcissistic butthole?
Not as I defined it.
>Yes.
Glad you agree what you said is completely useless.
>This was AFTER you said enlightened artists might have produced great art.
Which was AFTEr you said enlightenment is not conducive to art.
YOU brought up enlightenment as if it were a thing.
I am HAPPY to drop it completely, either as irrelevant to the discussion or as something that does not exist.
Either way - you brought it up, you were wrong, and now you want to run away from it.
>If you're going to say that great art has been made by enlightened beings
If you're going to say enlightenment is not conducive to creativity, then you have to prove enlightenment exists first.
>I'll ask again: look where?
Admit you have never even bothered to look, and I will give examples.
>Prove it's false.
Prove enlightenment exists. If it does not, then it is obviously false to say it affects creativity.
>I never said "all"
So you admit that the few people you mentioned - ignoring the fact that you have no proof the ones mentioned are narcissist buttholes - are not a good sample and do not make any sort of point about art or creativity being linked to narcissism or assholishness.
>Not as I defined it.
So you are saying an enlightened person
(Which you cannot prove even exists)
would not be a narcissist.
And you say these artists are narcissists.
So what was your point, if not to connect6 these two?
Alright - let's separate them then.
Nothing above would logically come to the conclusion that enlightenment
(which you cannot prove exists)
would not be conducive to creativity.
>Glad you agree what you said is completely useless
You lack reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.
>Which was AFTEr you said enlightenment is not conducive to art
Correct, and there's no logical inconsistency between my statement and the request that I made of you.
>Either way - you brought it up, you were wrong, and now you want to run away from it
You don't seem to understand what proof consists of. And no, I'm not running away from it - I'm simply elucidating the matter in a logical fashion.
>If you're going to say enlightenment is not conducive to creativity, then you have to prove enlightenment exists first
I defined enlightenment and explained why this state of consciousness would not be conducive to creativity. This is a matter of logic, not empirical evidence, and you haven't done a single thing to support your position that my logic is flimsy.
>Admit you have never even bothered to look, and I will give examples
Lol Google? My backyard? The toilet? At least point me in the right direction, geez.
>Prove enlightenment exists. If it does not, then it is obviously false to say it affects creativity.
See: my earlier point about enlightenment
>So you admit that the few people you mentioned....
No, I don't admit that.
1. By all accounts, all the artists I mentioned were either colossal pricks or deeply troubled - just read about them.
2. If the Giants of art are more prone to narcissistic, butthole behavior, it strengthens my case that internal conflict is essential for producing art.
>So you are saying an enlightened person
(Which you cannot prove even exists)
would not be a narcissist
An enlightened person as I defined it, yes.
>Nothing above would logically come to the conclusion that enlightenment
(which you cannot prove exists)
would not be conducive to creativity
Then you suck at logic. I mean, you really do suck at logic. And no, this isn't dodging your point - just read what I've already written, and think harder.
>The ultimate goal of meditation (or spirituality in general) is to be free of conflict.
It's not.
It is. You're just shortsighted.
NTA but it seems to me you are misunderstanding meditation as a way of propping up your asinine point about creativity.
Have fun with your Creative TM 2000, bro. May you create many masterpieces on your journey.
The point of TM is creative inspiration, not calmness
That's not what TM says.
>you show negative emotions?
>you lose!
lol he's always been a misogynisitc, narcissistic boomer hothead. the TM shit is just his autism at play. the only reason he bent the knee and blurred out countess laura harring's bush in mulholland dr is because he got the call from her ex-husband, a high-level german politician
This is the same mindset as corporations.
>Negative emotions le bad, hide them!
did you really think TM was supposed to chill you out so much that you end up caring about nothing? or are you just first post trolling to get (You)s?
I *will* marry Margaret and she *will* let me call her Peggy.
>Angry guy shouldn't try to learn self control
>Artistic guy should be a doormat to moneyman
Both dimensions of your argument are AIDS
tfw you can't go dreamy
I would never accept to work anywhere where there's a woman with a valley's girl accent, with a cracking voice.
I think he got pretty dreamy anyway
What an arrogant piece of shit, what happened to his humble nice guy act?
>nooooo you can't just care about your work and want to do it better
>because... YOU JUST CAN'T, OKAY???
>*dilates*
>You should deliberately frick yourself over in an unnecessary way
>No, frick off
Yeah, real arrogant.
I don't see a problem with that
no wonder all his shit is junk
dreamy. fricking homosexual. storyboard it, get it in the can. next
amateur
>hire people to keep you on track and plan your shoot
>"so how are we gonna do this shoot, Ronnie?"
>"well I think with the way things are going with this one scene we might hav-"
>"NO WHAT THE FRICK, RONNIE. YOU CAN'T DO A FRICKIN SCENE AROUND HERE WITH SOMEONE TELLING YOU THAT'S IT TOO LONG I WANT TO MAKE IT DREAMY WHAT THE FRICK IS IT WITH YOU GUYS TELLING ME I HAVE TO STAY ON TRACK WITH THE SHOOTING PLAN"
This was when he was filming The Return, are you just now hearing about it? He was correct, anyway.
>instagram
have a nice day
frick you
>Tfw Lynch will never throttle you
Why breathe?
>David lashes out at Sherilyn for being a b***h.
She nearly derailed The Return, so she deserved it.
The reality is some artists need to be reigned in and some artists need to be let loose. Lynch is the kind that needs to be let loose. He doesn't need a producer of all people telling him how to do things.
isn't the producer his boss?
no one is your boss when you are a legend
In the sense that you're the boss of the plumber you hired
Here, you want it in Christian?
>God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
That is stoicism. Every root of civilization understands this as the proper way for men to act.
i talked to a woman at my work like this, only difference is I stormed off and gave up the high ground.
Lynch has a bad history of being told to cut down scenes from idiot execs over Dune. Now imagine some dumb b***h tries to do the same for your pet project id be pissed too.
>makes shitty movies (except elephant man which was ghost directed)
>makes shitty tv series
>makes shitty shitty shitty "art" exhibitions
>someone finally tries to help him
>has a hissy fit whiney
seems legit
>"what is it with you people?"
What did Lynch mean by this?
>”you people”
>is named “lynch”
What did he mean by this?
More like david lunch, fat moron
Is this a real quote?
If that's losing it, I've permanently lost it.
>The scene is too long.
>WHO GIVES A FRICKING SHIT HOW LONG A SCENE IS?!!?
Clearly you do, Mr Lynch.
>A dumb corpo roastie c**t distracting an artist at work to give dumb corpo roastie c**t opinion.
Many such cases.
The word around town is if the female producers speak without being spoken to, or look him in the eye, he gets extremely violent very quickly
>get full creative control of a project
>some stupid fricking producer tries to weasel you into changing something
Lynch was right to be angry, especially considering how fricking moronic the shooting schedule was for the entire production. If a scene is too long, it can be fixed in editing anyway.