Not realizing that art and imagination is the only route to a meaningful and rich life

So which one is religion? art or imagination? I'm gonna go with imagination. I agree with you for the most part, except that science can give you some world changing perspectives; like the fact that we all come from different exploded stars dust.

Why is it superior to construct your own worldview instead of listening to someone you recognise as smarter or more educated?
Why not build on what others have already found out instead of being stuck in phase 1, repeating age-old mistakes and never getting anywhere?
What is meaningful about consuming anything?

How so? To mean this truthfully is to claim to be nourished by the invisible invisible. A double focus on language (and its tricks) and one's own observation in both reading and in life is far more profitable. Not that science hasn't a place in this. It does. But one of many.

What you're describing is life before technology. You're not clever, you're not witty for this. You're just a normal person becoming an adult who is perhaps aware that this hyperconnected world isn't sustainable because either a) the world as is runs on privacy, and that's a Mary Shelly's monster at this point; or b) everyone will become slaves to each other, and that slavery will be marketed, as it already is.

I know this is bait, but I'll bite.

If everyone believed in this and applied it to their life, nothing would get done. We wouldn't have computers and we would still be using coal (lol).

Science is a beautiful art, but is ultimately destroying us a species under the grips of business AND religion. Science shouldn't be an answer, but a screwdriver--not a rocket ship.

>still be using coal
What did he mean by this?

>Why is it superior to construct your own worldview instead of listening to someone you recognise as smarter or more educated?
This question answers itself.
Why not build on what others have already found out instead of being stuck in phase 1, repeating age-old mistakes and never getting anywhere?
I agree.

This misses the point of literary writing. First (you) stew yourself in the past by reading- science too. Then keep your eyes open, detect change, difference. Become an awake child of your time. Write it.

Most of our modern world only exist to provide comfort for those who are too weak to thrive in nature.

Because of pic related. It's the greatest struggle of isolated existence in my eyes--realizing what's true is ambiguous of truth. Truth is neutrality, and either true are it's wings.

Read my follow up .

I already do this. You take stones from great towers of the past, but all you have is a pile of bricks unless you be the machine you are. My point was contained within the point of your reply.
I play neutrality on this board. The post both dismisses and affirms the OPs post because either is valid.

>How so?
At which statement is this directed? It happens that I find more originality in science, especially when it concerns nature, then I find in art. In my experience most art is cliché and uses similar tropes.
>To mean this truthfully is to claim to be nourished by the invisible invisible.
I am not sure what this means.
>A double focus on language (and its tricks) and one's own observation in both reading and in life is far more profitable.
I am not sure what this means either. Besides it is impossible to let my own experiences not slip in how I see the world. And my aesthetics are informed by reading fiction, watching movies or listening to certain music, though they are also heavily based on science.

And heck, there surely is some bias in what science I read. Some of it is not even consensus science but all kinds of hypotheses that have not been thoroughly tested, and some are highly speculative.

I think common culture comes up with all kinds of creativity such as metaphors, sayings and so on and so on, but some of it is really plain or just wrong (but sometimes useful).

Interesting. I do more or less the same. My next point was to be 'the program's' unavoidability. Despite what's said 'literary writing' remains the same. Good or not. My other post concerns the book recs supra. They may interest (you) as well. Serious.

>>consuming
>tfw to smart too only consume

I unironically want to cuddle with her and have her whisper philosophical truths in my ear while I slowly slide my cock into her butt

i live near Amherst we can hook up with some shovels and miner hats and go to town on the skeleton one night

You down?

Tell me that next time you seem someone contract smallpoxs.

You're comparing an isolated instance that only argues half my point. I'm not disparaging. I'm simply saying we're turning away from our planet and ourselves in favor of technology. We should be using it to grow ourselves with our planet and not expect it to save us from our planet when we waste it away as a byproduct.

Room for one more, boys?

The grave is rather exposed (if I recollect cottectly). In a field behind the house.

>caring about a 'rich and meaningful life'
Letzter Mensch
>reality of logic
Systematics are not important or labourous. Stop ego-stroking.
Science is not beautiful.
Nice try

>using science as a religion
Why is it that irreligious science wouldn't cure diseases? Or was it the economy aspect of it?

>le 'neutral and objective' science meme
Eat shit, ideologue.

Science beyond taxonomy necessarily breaks down useful imageries, pursues its facts beyond the realm of the raw senses one relies upon when writing non-scientifically.
If one wants to write, it only makes sense to study writing first, and the correlative arts that also rest at least traditionally on 'raw sense data,' as opposed to say 'formulae'.
A knowledge of favored sciences (I sky-watch, like birds and trees and know quite a bit about local flora and fauna) though certainly useful, will not aid (you) ultimately in becoming a solid non-scientific writer as certainly as a knowledge of the non-scientific arts will. A knowledge of science can't hurt ones desire to practice law, for instance, but if one wants to become a lawyer one reads law, there's no real way around this.
I think it's a mistake to take writing for granted. In writing 'images' are visible invisibilities-- a red oak, its dark bark as seen from a distance, the acorn in your shoe. The formula for photosynthesis, even if it could be properly visualized, lends itself only to repetition. At any rate true science in its twin journeys toward the infinite and the infinitesimal is anti-imagistic and therefore thoroughly anti-imagination at least in the way the imagination is generally 'used' by the arts inclusive of writing.
Okay. I'm through misreading. If science is what in fact inspires (you) then read on, of course.

>useful
useful to what and who and why

stopped reading right there, atheist prole blah blah blah assured

Oh, brother. It has more than a single meaning. In context it means 'informative,' which is what knowing the names of things is, dope.

>implying growing up in a pisspoor household in a dead town and getting a poor education won't stop you from being successful
You've got a complex of some sort, user.