Where are the great 'thinkers' and 'creators' salons today?

[speakingtohe]

I have enough contradictory ideas and opinions of my own to make me avoid worrying about those that others hold.

Vegetarianism, abortion, genetic selection etc. There are no 100% clear cut answers that I can see.

Whether a person's actions and stance are consistent is not as important to me as the fact that they are trying to do what they think is right. But then there are times when I think a person or group has taken a moral stance simply for the pleasure of bludgeoning others over the heads with their feelings of moral superiority.

But this is off topic I am sure

Thinking back I have been present at several gatherings of like minded people, artists, academia, poets and authors, newspaper people, musicians, and even politicians and lawyers, and was unimpressed overall, but they all seemed impressed with themselves and each other, so in 50 years perhaps others will be asking the same question referring back to gatherings of today.



Helen

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

But then there are times when I think a person or group has taken a moral stance simply for the pleasure of bludgeoning others over the heads with their feelings of moral superiority.

Being superior is a heavy burden.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by wizwor

3. Luminiferous aether: Assumed to exist for much of the 19th century, the theory held that a “medium” of aether pervaded the universe through which light could propagate. The celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 was the first to provide hard evidence that aether did not exist, and the theory lost all popularity among scientists by the

The aether was never disproven. It was proven unnecessary for the theoretical physics of the time. A completely different issue.

To answer all the disagreements on this point, let me show the work.

Michaelson/Morley showed that the speed of light did not vary in any direction. No argument. This caused a major stir in late 19th century physics. Another physicist (FitzGerald) provided a mathematical basis for this anomaly. He proposed the space contracted/expanded at the same rate that the aether would cause a difference in the speed of light, so you could never see the difference in the speed of light caused by the aether, if it was there. Since you could never measure it (according to the FitzGerald Contraction), aether was eventually dropped as something that existed. (The FitzGerald contraction fit into the mathematics of Relativity perfectly, so once relativity was accepted, the aether went away.)

However, none of this has disproved the existence of aether. Arguments could be made that the existence of permeability and permittivity of a vacuum are aspects of aether. but be careful saying that, as "everybody knows" there is no aether...

[Prestidigitweeze]

One thing I'd be interested in knowing is whether people make any distinction between creative and polemical thinkers (which is not to say it's impossible for a thinker to be both).

Much as I love Dawkins and the author of What's the Matter with Kansas?, I wouldn't want to listen to either of them in the midst of a creative project because they're reacting to stupidity in the present and I'm trying to channel a pronounced lack of stupidity which (ideally) is timeless.

As necessary (and thankless) as Dawkins' mission might be, I wouldn't find his writing inspiring in a time in which people were not actually behaving like twits.

Also: To say that internet conversations are interchangeable with ones that occur face to face is to discount all of the esoteric aspects of our physical being. Nostalgia for printed books as opposed to ebooks is frequently ridiculous when the layout is superfluous and a simple flow of text is the only true medium. But personal interaction -- visual, auditory, emotional, visceral, even spiritual -- can be so complex and multifaceted that it can give participants what a forum exchange cannot.

Forums are tremendous resources, of course. Clearly, for people with our post counts to deny that would be hypocritical.

But for me to say that forums lack certain of the benefits of face-to-face interaction with brilliant people is not to undervalue those forums but to understand their limitations.

A forum exchange can be more exacting than a conversation in a bar and thus might be more useful to refer to in terms of (for example) diagnostic steps. But a bar conversation can inspire and validate participants in ways that help to fuel their work for a lifetime.

The Rivington School was a group of New York sculptors who met in bars, garages, galleries and studios. Once they stopped doing that, their school ceased to exist.

Imagine spending a New Year's Eve drinking with a few breathtakingly brilliant people. Now contemplate spending the next New Year's talking to those same people on Facebook while being physically alone. Which night is likely to yield more inspiring memories throughout your life?

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Also: To say that internet conversations are interchangeable with ones that occur face to face is to discount all of the esoteric aspects of our physical being. Nostalgia for printed books as opposed to ebooks is frequently ridiculous when the layout is superfluous and a simple flow of text is the only true medium. But personal interaction -- visual, auditory, emotional, visceral, even spiritual -- can be so complex and multifaceted that it can give participants what a forum exchange cannot.

The chief loss that I see in online communication is empathy. It's a lot easier to be cruel to the faceless nonentity floating in the mist. Which is why I'm an online pacifist. Maybe I'm just a wuss who hates arguments.

Imagine spending a New Year's Eve drinking with a few breathtakingly brilliant people. Now contemplate spending the next New Year's talking to those same people on Facebook while being physically alone. Which night is likely to yield more inspiring memories throughout your life?

I hate parties, but I also hate Facebook. I don't know that either experience would inspire me for a lifetime. A party, even a small one, would be much more draining, however. Like being the only living dude at a vampire convention.

I don't really see the fascination with smart people. Maybe I've just never met anyone who was smart enough to blow me away. I'm much happier to be around kind people. And even they can be a drain.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

It's a lot easier to be cruel to the faceless nonentity floating in the mist. Which is why I'm an online pacifist. Maybe I'm just a wuss who hates arguments.

I despise being cruel to people, yet my family instilled a horrible facility for it, hence my nights of colorful self-flagellation.

A party, even a small one, would be much more draining, however.

I don't consider four friends to constitute a party.

I don't really see the fascination with smart people.

Everything's more fun when you're with creative people -- insights about things you've experienced, brainstorming, volleys of free association, etc.

I'm much happier to be around kind people.

Most of the smart people I know are also the kindest. The few who aren't contort themselves while attempting to justify their cruelty, which often means they're altruism's agnostics -- ineradicably empathetic people who don't yet believe in the primacy of empathy.

[Penforhire]

I see our discussion ran off the rails a bit. I expect the greatest concentration of thinkers to be located in our universities. That is the environment that most values thinking over producing, aside from "publish or perish" which is just thinking in the written form.

It is a sad truth that pure industrial research is a shadow of its former self in the USA since the heydays of Bell Labs. I see some current efforts, such as at Google or DARPA grants, but I'm not seeing the same intensity or output, IMO.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I have to ask - what is a great thinker?

Because how you define "great thinker" determines what "subset of great thinkers" you are interested in. An area of thought? A level of fame? Expertise, general or specific?

They may be all around you, but if they don't fit your pigeonhole, you'll never notice them. Don't dismiss the idea - think of all the jokes about the great wise man/woman/other at the top of the inaccessible mountain. Maybe he went there because he determined that nobody was interested in his style of wisdom.

It takes a special kind of person to want to have their mind stretched. unfortunately, in this day and age, fewer and fewer people seem to want to do so...

"What is a great thinker?" Mmmmm ........

Still thinking through that question, but I just watched an intro to the making of 10 Canoes (Aus flic set in isolated regions of Northern Aus) and realised that the Aboriginal men discussing not only if they wanted a film made with an Aboriginal theme, but what the theme should be, was a really 'great' conversation.

The movie started as an idea between the actor Gulpilil and the producer Rolf de Heer. Over a period of time insitu at various northern remote sites, they discussed whether a movie could be made and what it should be about.

The thinking was circular, spoken in low tones and conceptually far reaching. Essentially they tried to identify/assess how the traditional culture of that area could be represented in a way that did not demean the culture, the individuals, the belief systems or the appearance of locals or the actors brought in to fill specific roles.

They wanted their cultural norms to be treated respectfully, not just now - but in any future timeframe.

So, I think that great thinking has an element of time and place, of sharing an idea/s in a way that is understandable to the immediate audience and is of a quality that endures.

Actually, as questions go - I think I'll be thinking about 'what is great thinking' for some time ....

[Lynx-lynx]

At the top of my previous post is a green arrow .... it doesn't do anything, you can't click on it, but I haven't seen it before.

What is it?

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

I don't consider four friends to constitute a party.

I'm massively introverted, though.

Everything's more fun when you're with creative people -- insights about things you've experienced, brainstorming, volleys of free association, etc.

My brain is too stormy as it is. Riddled with volleys.

Most of the smart people I know are also the kindest. The few who aren't contort themselves while attempting to justify their cruelty, which often means they're altruism's agnostics -- ineradicably empathetic people who don't yet believe in the primacy of empathy.

Agnostics? I don't know if I believe in them.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

At the top of my previous post is a green arrow .... it doesn't do anything, you can't click on it, but I haven't seen it before.

What is it?

It's the Cabal! Run! Run Lynx RUN!!!!!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

...

Imagine spending a New Year's Eve drinking with a few breathtakingly brilliant people. Now contemplate spending the next New Year's talking to those same people on Facebook while being physically alone. Which night is likely to yield more inspiring memories throughout your life?

Depends....many personalities, many types....I'm a loner, I despise parties and crowds so the party, new years eve thing would do me more harm than good, but reading inspirational writing (such as Loren Eiseley, Carl Sagan and others) can definitely trip my trigger as can certain on-line discussions or blog posts.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

"What is a great thinker?" Mmmmm ........

Still thinking through that question, but I just watched an intro to the making of 10 Canoes (Aus flic set in isolated regions of Northern Aus) and realised that the Aboriginal men discussing not only if they wanted a film made with an Aboriginal theme, but what the theme should be, was a really 'great' conversation.

The movie started as an idea between the actor Gulpilil and the producer Rolf de Heer. Over a period of time insitu at various northern remote sites, they discussed whether a movie could be made and what it should be about.

The thinking was circular, spoken in low tones and conceptually far reaching. Essentially they tried to identify/assess how the traditional culture of that area could be represented in a way that did not demean the culture, the individuals, the belief systems or the appearance of locals or the actors brought in to fill specific roles.

They wanted their cultural norms to be treated respectfully, not just now - but in any future timeframe.

So, I think that great thinking has an element of time and place, of sharing an idea/s in a way that is understandable to the immediate audience and is of a quality that endures.

Actually, as questions go - I think I'll be thinking about 'what is great thinking' for some time ....

Looks like I have succeeded in stretching your mind.

<Mission Accomplished>

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Looks like I have succeeded in stretching your mind.

<Mission Accomplished>

I thought we were having a chat ..... didn't realise you were on a 'mission'

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

I thought we were having a chat ..... didn't realise you were on a 'mission'

Ralph's ALWAYS on a mission.