generic image
Processing...
  • Games
  • Catalog
  • Develop
  • Robux
  • Search in Players
  • Search in Games
  • Search in Catalog
  • Search in Groups
  • Search in Library
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
  • Games
  • Catalog
  • Develop
  • Robux
   
ROBLOX Forum » Role-Playing
Home Search
 

ooc; forum party?

Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
ThaCruelLlama is not online. ThaCruelLlama
Joined: 13 Sep 2010
Total Posts: 11750
15 Jul 2013 08:16 PM
rather bored and honestly not doing much at the moment (lolwhatasurprise).
not sure where to go but post on here for party invite. if late then go ahead and follow us once we pick a place.
if no then i'll go back to playing Shogun 2 on Steam.

"Sir, w-w-we need 50% of the 99% a-and the support o-of at least 1% of the 1% if you're gonna have 42% of the 100% to get 50%."
Report Abuse
jackson61 is not online. jackson61
Joined: 12 May 2008
Total Posts: 5516
15 Jul 2013 08:17 PM
memememememememememememmeeme
we shall play roblox now instead of tf2
Report Abuse
ThaCruelLlama is not online. ThaCruelLlama
Joined: 13 Sep 2010
Total Posts: 11750
15 Jul 2013 08:30 PM
early bump.

"Sir, w-w-we need 50% of the 99% a-and the support o-of at least 1% of the 1% if you're gonna have 42% of the 100% to get 50%."
Report Abuse
TaiWolf1234 is not online. TaiWolf1234
Joined: 16 May 2010
Total Posts: 23207
15 Jul 2013 08:33 PM
Are you gonna go to a Roblox game?
Report Abuse
jackson61 is not online. jackson61
Joined: 12 May 2008
Total Posts: 5516
15 Jul 2013 08:34 PM
Yes we are.
Report Abuse
Revolvulation is not online. Revolvulation
Joined: 26 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 1612
15 Jul 2013 08:48 PM
I want in.
Report Abuse
kaleb105 is not online. kaleb105
Joined: 03 Oct 2008
Total Posts: 1520
15 Jul 2013 08:49 PM
im in
Report Abuse
ThaCruelLlama is not online. ThaCruelLlama
Joined: 13 Sep 2010
Total Posts: 11750
15 Jul 2013 09:16 PM
at natural disaster survival
feel free to follow

"Sir, w-w-we need 50% of the 99% a-and the support o-of at least 1% of the 1% if you're gonna have 42% of the 100% to get 50%."
Report Abuse
CreativeMystery is not online. CreativeMystery
Joined: 29 May 2012
Total Posts: 18749
15 Jul 2013 09:30 PM
If you played League you wouldn't be bored so much.
Report Abuse
alpha8 is not online. alpha8
Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Total Posts: 22625
15 Jul 2013 09:33 PM
Creative.

WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL ME YOU PLAY LEAGUE EARLIER

hnnngh
Report Abuse
fathat121 is not online. fathat121
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
Total Posts: 1926
15 Jul 2013 10:15 PM
You guys are talking about League of Legends, right? A fellow student once told me that he could only beat the tutorial on that.

Virtually every day we all see in the media or meet in personal life certain types of people: the capitalist who specializes in swallowing up companies and in the name of efficiency firing half the workers, attempting to get rid of any unions and rolling back benefit packages of the remaining workers, all the while threatening them with the specter of foreign workers who toil for a dollar a day; the spurned lover who stalks and murders his former lover because if she cannot belong to him she cannot belong to another; the blustering right-winger who tells a panhandler to get a job and who blames the people in the ghetto for their poverty; the person at work who substitutes power manipulation for relationship, who backstabs and hides his or her self-regard under the guise of duty or the importance of the organization, telling a worker that she cannot attend to her dying mother or sick child until she gets her work done; the athlete who crashes into the sidelines, knocking over spectators and photographers but not bothering to apologize or check to see if anyone is hurt; the pundit on television who blandly discusses the U.S. economic embargo of Iraq in terms of power politics without mentioning that the embargo kills tens of thousands of Iraqi children, old and sick people every year.
What do all these people have in common? They all lack imagination. Being egocentric, solipsistic, self-involved, or whatever term one cares to use, they never think of other people, for other people with their individual needs and desires are not important, not real to them—hence the violation of Kantian ethics (the practical imperative, never to treat another human being as a means to an end but always as a end in him- or herself). They are evil too, for what is evil but this very violation of Kantian ethics? And yet since at its most fundamental level imagination is seeing what isn’t there, they are not totally unimaginative; it is only that they have a warped and perverted imagination that only serves their selfishness and greed. In a brilliant passage in Essay on the Principles of Human Action, the English Romantic writer William Hazlitt makes the connection between self-centeredness and the possibility of wider human sympathy and solidarity when he states that the only way to know the future is by a projection of the imagination. The same mental power, that is to say, that a greedy, selfish man uses to dream up his schemes for getting rich and gaining power is the same faculty of imagination that makes him capable of sympathetic identification with others. I could not love myself, Hazlitt concludes, if I were not capable of loving others.
We do not often see such thinking in modern-day America; instead we see glorified the capitalist who swallows up companies and the athlete who scores the touchdown at any price. The self-involved, unimaginative man, however, is like a black hole. His soul has shriveled into a tiny dense point that gives off no light and which distorts everyone who comes into contact with him. He is not to whom Hamlet was referring when he exclaimed, “What a piece of work is a man!” Capitalistic societies, as always innately hostile to any visions of oneness and solidarity, stimulate the imagination that everyone possesses in selfish ways, trying to make people not see the unity and oneness of humanity by deflecting this most human attribute into dreams of getting rich, having money and power, big cars and stuff, always stuff. It feeds not the spiritual hunger for peace and unity but the selfish, materialistic, grasping desire to have things so that (the ads make us hope) we will be loved and admired. As a result it produces in abundance dreadful, miserable excuses for human beings.
The polar opposite of the human being as black hole is the person with empathic imagination. He or she can see all people on their own terms, as beings imbued with personalities, histories, wants and desires, fears and phobias. Such imagination allows us to participate more fully in humanity, to experience life at a wider and deeper level. Imagination is also the most human attribute we have. Every other human characteristic is shared in some degree with our fellow mammals and other creatures, but the ability to imagine worlds that don’t exist in reality or to see life from another’s eyes is uniquely human. The fullest realization of our human nature, then, is found in those with the most imagination. Exercising it is liberating; it widens one’s view of the world so that one sees unity and similarity instead of atomistic individuals and hierarchies.
The fact that all human beings have imagination and are at least potentially capable of entering into the life of another person is what makes literature innately moral and ethical. One antidote to the sickeningly self-regarding culture that inundates us, then, is literature, or it should be. Literature opens minds, stimulates the empathic/sympathetic imagination by allowing readers to see the world through other eyes than their own. Just as a workout in a gym strengthens muscles, a workout with a poem or story strengthens the imagination. But the dominant literary movements of our day, modernism and postmodernism, perversely parallel capitalistic values in their ethos. Modernism has so distorted the cultural heritage of the west that it has made artistic duty nothing more than to exalt the self, and it does this at the expense of imagination, the one thing that all human beings have (and writers should have in abundance) that leads to human solidarity. The characteristic emphasis of modernism is to see the writer as special, as a being above the ordinary human realm. Even in works where this attitude is not explicit, the reader can still sense the repellent sense of superiority. The writer is regarded as one who is not subject to the same human duties and limitations as mere citizens, and disdain for bourgeois values widens into contempt for working people. Such writers, in short, ally themselves with capitalistic values and carefully observe hierarchies of worth. The only use for a poor bedraggled beggar is that he might make an aesthetically pleasing subject for a painting, but his presence in a poem by Pound or Eliot or in a Bloomsbury novel is only an occasion for superiority and contempt. With its emphasis on form and experimentation, its inspiration not from life but from other literary works, the spirit of modernism is essentially critical, not creative, not imaginative. There are of course exceptions where life wins out over theory (Joyce’s Ulysses being the best example, but even some of the passages in The Waste Land), but essentially modernism smells of the lamp. Instead of being an imaginative and creative response to life, its practitioners show in their works (Pound’s poetry, for example) that they are more interested in playing the role of a writer or a poet than in being a human being responding to the multitudinous wonder of the world and being a writer. Coming up with a new form is never imaginative unless the new form is the only way to express a new way of seeing the world such as Walt Whitman did in Leaves of Grass, but what insight does the long rant of the Cantos offer?Virtually every day we all see in the media or meet in personal life certain types of people: the capitalist who specializes in swallowing up companies and in the name of efficiency firing half the workers, attempting to get rid of any unions and rolling back benefit packages of the remaining workers, all the while threatening them with the specter of foreign workers who toil for a dollar a day; the spurned lover who stalks and murders his former lover because if she cannot belong to him she cannot belong to another; the blustering right-winger who tells a panhandler to get a job and who blames the people in the ghetto for their poverty; the person at work who substitutes power manipulation for relationship, who backstabs and hides his or her self-regard under the guise of duty or the importance of the organization, telling a worker that she cannot attend to her dying mother or sick child until she gets her work done; the athlete who crashes into the sidelines, knocking over spectators and photographers but not bothering to apologize or check to see if anyone is hurt; the pundit on television who blandly discusses the U.S. economic embargo of Iraq in terms of power politics without mentioning that the embargo kills tens of thousands of Iraqi children, old and sick people every year.
What do all these people have in common? They all lack imagination. Being egocentric, solipsistic, self-involved, or whatever term one cares to use, they never think of other people, for other people with their individual needs and desires are not important, not real to them—hence the violation of Kantian ethics (the practical imperative, never to treat another human being as a means to an end but always as a end in him- or herself). They are evil too, for what is evil but this very violation of Kantian ethics? And yet since at its most fundamental level imagination is seeing what isn’t there, they are not totally unimaginative; it is only that they have a warped and perverted imagination that only serves their selfishness and greed. In a brilliant passage in Essay on the Principles of Human Action, the English Romantic writer William Hazlitt makes the connection between self-centeredness and the possibility of wider human sympathy and solidarity when he states that the only way to know the future is by a projection of the imagination. The same mental power, that is to say, that a greedy, selfish man uses to dream up his schemes for getting rich and gaining power is the same faculty of imagination that makes him capable of sympathetic identification with others. I could not love myself, Hazlitt concludes, if I were not capable of loving others.
We do not often see such thinking in modern-day America; instead we see glorified the capitalist who swallows up companies and the athlete who scores the touchdown at any price. The self-involved, unimaginative man, however, is like a black hole. His soul has shriveled into a tiny dense point that gives off no light and which distorts everyone who comes into contact with him. He is not to whom Hamlet was referring when he exclaimed, “What a piece of work is a man!” Capitalistic societies, as always innately hostile to any visions of oneness and solidarity, stimulate the imagination that everyone possesses in selfish ways, trying to make people not see the unity and oneness of humanity by deflecting this most human attribute into dreams of getting rich, having money and power, big cars and stuff, always stuff. It feeds not the spiritual hunger for peace and unity but the selfish, materialistic, grasping desire to have things so that (the ads make us hope) we will be loved and admired. As a result it produces in abundance dreadful, miserable excuses for human beings.
The polar opposite of the human being as black hole is the person with empathic imagination. He or she can see all people on their own terms, as beings imbued with personalities, histories, wants and desires, fears and phobias. Such imagination allows us to participate more fully in humanity, to experience life at a wider and deeper level. Imagination is also the most human attribute we have. Every other human characteristic is shared in some degree with our fellow mammals and other creatures, but the ability to imagine worlds that don’t exist in reality or to see life from another’s eyes is uniquely human. The fullest realization of our human nature, then, is found in those with the most imagination. Exercising it is liberating; it widens one’s view of the world so that one sees unity and similarity instead of atomistic individuals and hierarchies.
The fact that all human beings have imagination and are at least potentially capable of entering into the life of another person is what makes literature innately moral and ethical. One antidote to the sickeningly self-regarding culture that inundates us, then, is literature, or it should be. Literature opens minds, stimulates the empathic/sympathetic imagination by allowing readers to see the world through other eyes than their own. Just as a workout in a gym strengthens muscles, a workout with a poem or story strengthens the imagination. But the dominant literary movements of our day, modernism and postmodernism, perversely parallel capitalistic values in their ethos. Modernism has so distorted the cultural heritage of the west that it has made artistic duty nothing more than to exalt the self, and it does this at the expense of imagination, the one thing that all human beings have (and writers should have in abundance) that leads to human solidarity. The characteristic emphasis of modernism is to see the writer as special, as a being above the ordinary human realm. Even in works where this attitude is not explicit, the reader can still sense the repellent sense of superiority. The writer is regarded as one who is not subject to the same human duties and limitations as mere citizens, and disdain for bourgeois values widens into contempt for working people. Such writers, in short, ally themselves with capitalistic values and carefully observe hierarchies of worth. The only use for a poor bedraggled beggar is that he might make an aesthetically pleasing subject for a painting, but his presence in a poem by Pound or Eliot or in a Bloomsbury novel is only an occasion for superiority and contempt. With its emphasis on form and experimentation, its inspiration not from life but from other literary works, the spirit of modernism is essentially critical, not creative, not imaginative. There are of course exceptions where life wins out over theory (Joyce’s Ulysses being the best example, but even some of the passages in The Waste Land), but essentially modernism smells of the lamp. Instead of being an imaginative and creative response to life, its practitioners show in their works (Pound’s poetry, for example) that they are more interested in playing the role of a writer or a poet than in being a human being responding to the multitudinous wonder of the world and being a writer. Coming up with a new form is never imaginative unless the new form is the only way to express a new way of seeing the world such as Walt Whitman did in Leaves of Grass, but what insight does the long rant of the Cantos offer?Virtually every day we all see in the media or meet in personal life certain types of people: the capitalist who specializes in swallowing up companies and in the name of efficiency firing half the workers, attempting to get rid of any unions and rolling back benefit packages of the remaining workers, all the while threatening them with the specter of foreign workers who toil for a dollar a day; the spurned lover who stalks and murders his former lover because if she cannot belong to him she cannot belong to another; the blustering right-winger who tells a panhandler to get a job and who blames the people in the ghetto for their poverty; the person at work who substitutes power manipulation for relationship, who backstabs and hides his or her self-regard under the guise of duty or the importance of the organization, telling a worker that she cannot attend to her dying mother or sick child until she gets her work done; the athlete who crashes into the sidelines, knocking over spectators and photographers but not bothering to apologize or check to see if anyone is hurt; the pundit on television who blandly discusses the U.S. economic embargo of Iraq in terms of power politics without mentioning that the embargo kills tens of thousands of Iraqi children, old and sick people every year.
What do all these people have in common? They all lack imagination. Being egocentric, solipsistic, self-involved, or whatever term one cares to use, they never think of other people, for other people with their individual needs and desires are not important, not real to them—hence the violation of Kantian ethics (the practical imperative, never to treat another human being as a means to an end but always as a end in him- or herself). They are evil too, for what is evil but this very violation of Kantian ethics? And yet since at its most fundamental level imagination is seeing what isn’t there, they are not totally unimaginative; it is only that they have a warped and perverted imagination that only serves their selfishness and greed. In a brilliant passage in Essay on the Principles of Human Action, the English Romantic writer William Hazlitt makes the connection between self-centeredness and the possibility of wider human sympathy and solidarity when he states that the only way to know the future is by a projection of the imagination. The same mental power, that is to say, that a greedy, selfish man uses to dream up his schemes for getting rich and gaining power is the same faculty of imagination that makes him capable of sympathetic identification with others. I could not love myself, Hazlitt concludes, if I were not capable of loving others.
We do not often see such thinking in modern-day America; instead we see glorified the capitalist who swallows up companies and the athlete who scores the touchdown at any price. The self-involved, unimaginative man, however, is like a black hole. His soul has shriveled into a tiny dense point that gives off no light and which distorts everyone who comes into contact with him. He is not to whom Hamlet was referring when he exclaimed, “What a piece of work is a man!” Capitalistic societies, as always innately hostile to any visions of oneness and solidarity, stimulate the imagination that everyone possesses in selfish ways, trying to make people not see the unity and oneness of humanity by deflecting this most human attribute into dreams of getting rich, having money and power, big cars and stuff, always stuff. It feeds not the spiritual hunger for peace and unity but the selfish, materialistic, grasping desire to have things so that (the ads make us hope) we will be loved and admired. As a result it produces in abundance dreadful, miserable excuses for human beings.
The polar opposite of the human being as black hole is the person with empathic imagination. He or she can see all people on their own terms, as beings imbued with personalities, histories, wants and desires, fears and phobias. Such imagination allows us to participate more fully in humanity, to experience life at a wider and deeper level. Imagination is also the most human attribute we have. Every other human characteristic is shared in some degree with our fellow mammals and other creatures, but the ability to imagine worlds that don’t exist in reality or to see life from another’s eyes is uniquely human. The fullest realization of our human nature, then, is found in those with the most imagination. Exercising it is liberating; it widens one’s view of the world so that one sees unity and similarity instead of atomistic individuals and hierarchies.
The fact that all human beings have imagination and are at least potentially capable of entering into the life of another person is what makes literature innately moral and ethical. One antidote to the sickeningly self-regarding culture that inundates us, then, is literature, or it should be. Literature opens minds, stimulates the empathic/sympathetic imagination by allowing readers to see the world through other eyes than their own. Just as a workout in a gym strengthens muscles, a workout with a poem or story strengthens the imagination. But the dominant literary movements of our day, modernism and postmodernism, perversely parallel capitalistic values in their ethos. Modernism has so distorted the cultural heritage of the west that it has made artistic duty nothing more than to exalt the self, and it does this at the expense of imagination, the one thing that all human beings have (and writers should have in abundance) that leads to human solidarity. The characteristic emphasis of modernism is to see the writer as special, as a being above the ordinary human realm. Even in works where this attitude is not explicit, the reader can still sense the repellent sense of superiority. The writer is regarded as one who is not subject to the same human duties and limitations as mere citizens, and disdain for bourgeois values widens into contempt for working people. Such writers, in short, ally themselves with capitalistic values and carefully observe hierarchies of worth. The only use for a poor bedraggled beggar is that he might make an aesthetically pleasing subject for a painting, but his presence in a poem by Pound or Eliot or in a Bloomsbury novel is only an occasion for superiority and contempt. With its emphasis on form and experimentation, its inspiration not from life but from other literary works, the spirit of modernism is essentially critical, not creative, not imaginative. There are of course exceptions where life wins out over theory (Joyce’s Ulysses being the best example, but even some of the passages in The Waste Land), but essentially modernism smells of the lamp. Instead of being an imaginative and creative response to life, its practitioners show in their works (Pound’s poetry, for example) that they are more interested in playing the role of a writer or a poet than in being a human being responding to the multitudinous wonder of the world and being a writer. Coming up with a new form is never imaginative unless the new form is the only way to express a new way of seeing the world such as Walt Whitman did in Leaves of Grass, but what insight does the long rant of the Cantos offer?Virtually every day we all see in the media or meet in personal life certain types of people: the capitalist who specializes in swallowing up companies and in the name of efficiency firing half the workers, attempting to get rid of any unions and rolling back benefit packages of the remaining workers, all the while threatening them with the specter of foreign workers who toil for a dollar a day; the spurned lover who stalks and murders his former lover because if she cannot belong to him she cannot belong to another; the blustering right-winger who tells a panhandler to get a job and who blames the people in the ghetto for their poverty; the person at work who substitutes power manipulation for relationship, who backstabs and hides his or her self-regard under the guise of duty or the importance of the organization, telling a worker that she cannot attend to her dying mother or sick child until she gets her work done; the athlete who crashes into the sidelines, knocking over spectators and photographers but not bothering to apologize or check to see if anyone is hurt; the pundit on television who blandly discusses the U.S. economic embargo of Iraq in terms of power politics without mentioning that the embargo kills tens of thousands of Iraqi children, old and sick people every year.
What do all these people have in common? They all lack imagination. Being egocentric, solipsistic, self-involved, or whatever term one cares to use, they never think of other people, for other people with their individual needs and desires are not important, not real to them—hence the violation of Kantian ethics (the practical imperative, never to treat another human being as a means to an end but always as a end in him- or herself). They are evil too, for what is evil but this very violation of Kantian ethics? And yet since at its most fundamental level imagination is seeing what isn’t there, they are not totally unimaginative; it is only that they have a warped and perverted imagination that only serves their selfishness and greed. In a brilliant passage in Essay on the Principles of Human Action, the English Romantic writer William Hazlitt makes the connection between self-centeredness and the possibility of wider human sympathy and solidarity when he states that the only way to know the future is by a projection of the imagination. The same mental power, that is to say, that a greedy, selfish man uses to dream up his schemes for getting rich and gaining power is the same faculty of imagination that makes him capable of sympathetic identification with others. I could not love myself, Hazlitt concludes, if I were not capable of loving others.
We do not often see such thinking in modern-day America; instead we see glorified the capitalist who swallows up companies and the athlete who scores the touchdown at any price. The self-involved, unimaginative man, however, is like a black hole. His soul has shriveled into a tiny dense point that gives off no light and which distorts everyone who comes into contact with him. He is not to whom Hamlet was referring when he exclaimed, “What a piece of work is a man!” Capitalistic societies, as always innately hostile to any visions of oneness and solidarity, stimulate the imagination that everyone possesses in selfish ways, trying to make people not see the unity and oneness of humanity by deflecting this most human attribute into dreams of getting rich, having money and power, big cars and stuff, always stuff. It feeds not the spiritual hunger for peace and unity but the selfish, materialistic, grasping desire to have things so that (the ads make us hope) we will be loved and admired. As a result it produces in abundance dreadful, miserable excuses for human beings.
The polar opposite of the human being as black hole is the person with empathic imagination. He or she can see all people on their own terms, as beings imbued with personalities, histories, wants and desires, fears and phobias. Such imagination allows us to participate more fully in humanity, to experience life at a wider and deeper level. Imagination is also the most human attribute we have. Every other human characteristic is shared in some degree with our fellow mammals and other creatures, but the ability to imagine worlds that don’t exist in reality or to see life from another’s eyes is uniquely human. The fullest realization of our human nature, then, is found in those with the most imagination. Exercising it is liberating; it widens one’s view of the world so that one sees unity and similarity instead of atomistic individuals and hierarchies.
The fact that all human beings have imagination and are at least potentially capable of entering into the life of another person is what makes literature innately moral and ethical. One antidote to the sickeningly self-regarding culture that inundates us, then, is literature, or it should be. Literature opens minds, stimulates the empathic/sympathetic imagination by allowing readers to see the world through other eyes than their own. Just as a workout in a gym strengthens muscles, a workout with a poem or story strengthens the imagination. But the dominant literary movements of our day, modernism and postmodernism, perversely parallel capitalistic values in their ethos. Modernism has so distorted the cultural heritage of the west that it has made artistic duty nothing more than to exalt the self, and it does this at the expense of imagination, the one thing that all human beings have (and writers should have in abundance) that leads to human solidarity. The characteristic emphasis of modernism is to see the writer as special, as a being above the ordinary human realm. Even in works where this attitude is not explicit, the reader can still sense the repellent sense of superiority. The writer is regarded as one who is not subject to the same human duties and limitations as mere citizens, and disdain for bourgeois values widens into contempt for working people. Such writers, in short, ally themselves with capitalistic values and carefully observe hierarchies of worth. The only use for a poor bedraggled beggar is that he might make an aesthetically pleasing subject for a painting, but his presence in a poem by Pound or Eliot or in a Bloomsbury novel is only an occasion for superiority and contempt. With its emphasis on form and experimentation, its inspiration not from life but from other literary works, the spirit of modernism is essentially critical, not creative, not imaginative. There are of course exceptions where life wins out over theory (Joyce’s Ulysses being the best example, but even some of the passages in The Waste Land), but essentially modernism smells of the lamp. Instead of being an imaginative and creative response to life, its practitioners show in their works (Pound’s poetry, for example) that they are more interested in playing the role of a writer or a poet than in being a human being responding to the multitudinous wonder of the world and being a writer. Coming up with a new form is never imaginative unless the new form is the only way to express a new way of seeing the world such as Walt Whitman did in Leaves of Grass, but what insight does the long rant of the Cantos offer?Virtually every day we all see in the media or meet in personal life certain types of people: the capitalist who specializes in swallowing up companies and in the name of efficiency firing half the workers, attempting to get rid of any unions and rolling back benefit packages of the remaining workers, all the while threatening them with the specter of foreign workers who toil for a dollar a day; the spurned lover who stalks and murders his former lover because if she cannot belong to him she cannot belong to another; the blustering right-winger who tells a panhandler to get a job and who blames the people in the ghetto for their poverty; the person at work who substitutes power manipulation for relationship, who backstabs and hides his or her self-regard under the guise of duty or the importance of the organization, telling a worker that she cannot attend to her dying mother or sick child until she gets her work done; the athlete who crashes into the sidelines, knocking over spectators and photographers but not bothering to apologize or check to see if anyone is hurt; the pundit on television who blandly discusses the U.S. economic embargo of Iraq in terms of power politics without mentioning that the embargo kills tens of thousands of Iraqi children, old and sick people every year.
What do all these people have in common? They all lack imagination. Being egocentric, solipsistic, self-involved, or whatever term one cares to use, they never think of other people, for other people with their individual needs and desires are not important, not real to them—hence the violation of Kantian ethics (the practical imperative, never to treat another human being as a means to an end but always as a end in him- or herself). They are evil too, for what is evil but this very violation of Kantian ethics? And yet since at its most fundamental level imagination is seeing what isn’t there, they are not totally unimaginative; it is only that they have a warped and perverted imagination that only serves their selfishness and greed. In a brilliant passage in Essay on the Principles of Human Action, the English Romantic writer William Hazlitt makes the connection between self-centeredness and the possibility of wider human sympathy and solidarity when he states that the only way to know the future is by a projection of the imagination. The same mental power, that is to say, that a greedy, selfish man uses to dream up his schemes for getting rich and gaining power is the same faculty of imagination that makes him capable of sympathetic identification with others. I could not love myself, Hazlitt concludes, if I were not capable of loving others.
We do not often see such thinking in modern-day America; instead we see glorified the capitalist who swallows up companies and the athlete who scores the touchdown at any price. The self-involved, unimaginative man, however, is like a black hole. His soul has shriveled into a tiny dense point that gives off no light and which distorts everyone who comes into contact with him. He is not to whom Hamlet was referring when he exclaimed, “What a piece of work is a man!” Capitalistic societies, as always innately hostile to any visions of oneness and solidarity, stimulate the imagination that everyone possesses in selfish ways, trying to make people not see the unity and oneness of humanity by deflecting this most human attribute into dreams of getting rich, having money and power, big cars and stuff, always stuff. It feeds not the spiritual hunger for peace and unity but the selfish, materialistic, grasping desire to have things so that (the ads make us hope) we will be loved and admired. As a result it produces in abundance dreadful, miserable excuses for human beings.
The polar opposite of the human being as black hole is the person with empathic imagination. He or she can see all people on their own terms, as beings imbued with personalities, histories, wants and desires, fears and phobias. Such imagination allows us to participate more fully in humanity, to experience life at a wider and deeper level. Imagination is also the most human attribute we have. Every other human characteristic is shared in some degree with our fellow mammals and other creatures, but the ability to imagine worlds that don’t exist in reality or to see life from another’s eyes is uniquely human. The fullest realization of our human nature, then, is found in those with the most imagination. Exercising it is liberating; it widens one’s view of the world so that one sees unity and similarity instead of atomistic individuals and hierarchies.
The fact that all human beings have imagination and are at least potentially capable of entering into the life of another person is what makes literature innately moral and ethical. One antidote to the sickeningly self-regarding culture that inundates us, then, is literature, or it should be. Literature opens minds, stimulates the empathic/sympathetic imagination by allowing readers to see the world through other eyes than their own. Just as a workout in a gym strengthens muscles, a workout with a poem or story strengthens the imagination. But the dominant literary movements of our day, modernism and postmodernism, perversely parallel capitalistic values in their ethos. Modernism has so distorted the cultural heritage of the west that it has made artistic duty nothing more than to exalt the self, and it does this at the expense of imagination, the one thing that all human beings have (and writers should have in abundance) that leads to human solidarity. The characteristic emphasis of modernism is to see the writer as special, as a being above the ordinary human realm. Even in works where this attitude is not explicit, the reader can still sense the repellent sense of superiority. The writer is regarded as one who is not subject to the same human duties and limitations as mere citizens, and disdain for bourgeois values widens into contempt for working people. Such writers, in short, ally themselves with capitalistic values and carefully observe hierarchies of worth. The only use for a poor bedraggled beggar is that he might make an aesthetically pleasing subject for a painting, but his presence in a poem by Pound or Eliot or in a Bloomsbury novel is only an occasion for superiority and contempt. With its emphasis on form and experimentation, its inspiration not from life but from other literary works, the spirit of modernism is essentially critical, not creative, not imaginative. There are of course exceptions where life wins out over theory (Joyce’s Ulysses being the best example, but even some of the passages in The Waste Land), but essentially modernism smells of the lamp. Instead of being an imaginative and creative response to life, its practitioners show in their works (Pound’s poetry, for example) that they are more interested in playing the role of a writer or a poet than in being a human being responding to the multitudinous wonder of the world and being a writer. Coming up with a new form is never imaginative unless the new form is the only way to express a new way of seeing the world such as Walt Whitman did in Leaves of Grass, but what insight does the long rant of the Cantos offer?Virtually every day we all see in the media or meet in personal life certain types of people: the capitalist who specializes in swallowing up companies and in the name of efficiency firing half the workers, attempting to get rid of any unions and rolling back benefit packages of the remaining workers, all the while threatening them with the specter of foreign workers who toil for a dollar a day; the spurned lover who stalks and murders his former lover because if she cannot belong to him she cannot belong to another; the blustering right-winger who tells a panhandler to get a job and who blames the people in the ghetto for their poverty; the person at work who substitutes power manipulation for relationship, who backstabs and hides his or her self-regard under the guise of duty or the importance of the organization, telling a worker that she cannot attend to her dying mother or sick child until she gets her work done; the athlete who crashes into the sidelines, knocking over spectators and photographers but not bothering to apologize or check to see if anyone is hurt; the pundit on television who blandly discusses the U.S. economic embargo of Iraq in terms of power politics without mentioning that the embargo kills tens of thousands of Iraqi children, old and sick people every year.
What do all these people have in common? They all lack imagination. Being egocentric, solipsistic, self-involved, or whatever term one cares to use, they never think of other people, for other people with their individual needs and desires are not important, not real to them—hence the violation of Kantian ethics (the practical imperative, never to treat another human being as a means to an end but always as a end in him- or herself). They are evil too, for what is evil but this very violation of Kantian ethics? And yet since at its most fundamental level imagination is seeing what isn’t there, they are not totally unimaginative; it is only that they have a warped and perverted imagination that only serves their selfishness and greed. In a brilliant passage in Essay on the Principles of Human Action, the English Romantic writer William Hazlitt makes the connection between self-centeredness and the possibility of wider human sympathy and solidarity when he states that the only way to know the future is by a projection of the imagination. The same mental power, that is to say, that a greedy, selfish man uses to dream up his schemes for getting rich and gaining power is the same faculty of imagination that makes him capable of sympathetic identification with others. I could not love myself, Hazlitt concludes, if I were not capable of loving others.
We do not often see such thinking in modern-day America; instead we see glorified the capitalist who swallows up companies and the athlete who scores the touchdown at any price. The self-involved, unimaginative man, however, is like a black hole. His soul has shriveled into a tiny dense point that gives off no light and which distorts everyone who comes into contact with him. He is not to whom Hamlet was referring when he exclaimed, “What a piece of work is a man!” Capitalistic societies, as always innately hostile to any visions of oneness and solidarity, stimulate the imagination that everyone possesses in selfish ways, trying to make people not see the unity and oneness of humanity by deflecting this most human attribute into dreams of getting rich, having money and power, big cars and stuff, always stuff. It feeds not the spiritual hunger for peace and unity but the selfish, materialistic, grasping desire to have things so that (the ads make us hope) we will be loved and admired. As a result it produces in abundance dreadful, miserable excuses for human beings.
The polar opposite of the human being as black hole is the person with empathic imagination. He or she can see all people on their own terms, as beings imbued with personalities, histories, wants and desires, fears and phobias. Such imagination allows us to participate more fully in humanity, to experience life at a wider and deeper level. Imagination is also the most human attribute we have. Every other human characteristic is shared in some degree with our fellow mammals and other creatures, but the ability to imagine worlds that don’t exist in reality or to see life from another’s eyes is uniquely human. The fullest realization of our human nature, then, is found in those with the most imagination. Exercising it is liberating; it widens one’s view of the world so that one sees unity and similarity instead of atomistic individuals and hierarchies.
The fact that all human beings have imagination and are at least potentially capable of entering into the life of another person is what makes literature innately moral and ethical. One antidote to the sickeningly self-regarding culture that inundates us, then, is literature, or it should be. Literature opens minds, stimulates the empathic/sympathetic imagination by allowing readers to see the world through other eyes than their own. Just as a workout in a gym strengthens muscles, a workout with a poem or story strengthens the imagination. But the dominant literary movements of our day, modernism and postmodernism, perversely parallel capitalistic values in their ethos. Modernism has so distorted the cultural heritage of the west that it has made artistic duty nothing more than to exalt the self, and it does this at the expense of imagination, the one thing that all human beings have (and writers should have in abundance) that leads to human solidarity. The characteristic emphasis of modernism is to see the writer as special, as a being above the ordinary human realm. Even in works where this attitude is not explicit, the reader can still sense the repellent sense of superiority. The writer is regarded as one who is not subject to the same human duties and limitations as mere citizens, and disdain for bourgeois values widens into contempt for working people. Such writers, in short, ally themselves with capitalistic values and carefully observe hierarchies of worth. The only use for a poor bedraggled beggar is that he might make an aesthetically pleasing subject for a painting, but his presence in a poem by Pound or Eliot or in a Bloomsbury novel is only an occasion for superiority and contempt. With its emphasis on form and experimentation, its inspiration not from life but from other literary works, the spirit of modernism is essentially critical, not creative, not imaginative. There are of course exceptions where life wins out over theory (Joyce’s Ulysses being the best example, but even some of the passages in The Waste Land), but essentially modernism smells of the lamp. Instead of being an imaginative and creative response to life, its practitioners show in their works (Pound’s poetry, for example) that they are more interested in playing the role of a writer or a poet than in being a human being responding to the multitudinous wonder of the world and being a writer. Coming up with a new form is never imaginative unless the new form is the only way to express a new way of seeing the world such as Walt Whitman did in Leaves of Grass, but what insight does the long rant of the Cantos offer?Virtually every day we all see in the media or meet in personal life certain types of people: the capitalist who specializes in swallowing up companies and in the name of efficiency firing half the workers, attempting to get rid of any unions and rolling back benefit packages of the remaining workers, all the while threatening them with the specter of foreign workers who toil for a dollar a day; the spurned lover who stalks and murders his former lover because if she cannot belong to him she cannot belong to another; the blustering right-winger who tells a panhandler to get a job and who blames the people in the ghetto for their poverty; the person at work who substitutes power manipulation for relationship, who backstabs and hides his or her self-regard under the guise of duty or the importance of the organization, telling a worker that she cannot attend to her dying mother or sick child until she gets her work done; the athlete who crashes into the sidelines, knocking over spectators and photographers but not bothering to apologize or check to see if anyone is hurt; the pundit on television who blandly discusses the U.S. economic embargo of Iraq in terms of power politics without mentioning that the embargo kills tens of thousands of Iraqi children, old and sick people every year.
What do all these people have in common? They all lack imagination. Being egocentric, solipsistic, self-involved, or whatever term one cares to use, they never think of other people, for other people with their individual needs and desires are not important, not real to them—hence the violation of Kantian ethics (the practical imperative, never to treat another human being as a means to an end but always as a end in him- or herself). They are evil too, for what is evil but this very violation of Kantian ethics? And yet since at its most fundamental level imagination is seeing what isn’t there, they are not totally unimaginative; it is only that they have a warped and perverted imagination that only serves their selfishness and greed. In a brilliant passage in Essay on the Principles of Human Action, the English.
Report Abuse
fathat121 is not online. fathat121
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
Total Posts: 1926
15 Jul 2013 10:15 PM
That is my forum signature...
Report Abuse
link200284 is not online. link200284
Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Total Posts: 7415
15 Jul 2013 10:18 PM
Paragraphs, use them.
Report Abuse
fathat121 is not online. fathat121
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
Total Posts: 1926
15 Jul 2013 10:23 PM
P-Par-Paragraphs? I didn't write that colossal piece of... text.
Report Abuse
ThaCruelLlama is not online. ThaCruelLlama
Joined: 13 Sep 2010
Total Posts: 11750
15 Jul 2013 10:57 PM
at deception infection now

"Sir, w-w-we need 50% of the 99% a-and the support o-of at least 1% of the 1% if you're gonna have 42% of the 100% to get 50%."
Report Abuse
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 1 of 1
 
 
ROBLOX Forum » Role-Playing
   
 
   
  • About Us
  • Jobs
  • Blog
  • Parents
  • Help
  • Terms
  • Privacy

©2017 Roblox Corporation. Roblox, the Roblox logo, Robux, Bloxy, and Powering Imagination are among our registered and unregistered trademarks in the U.S. and other countries.



Progress
Starting Roblox...
Connecting to Players...
R R

Roblox is now loading. Get ready to play!

R R

You're moments away from getting into the game!

Click here for help

Check Remember my choice and click Launch Application in the dialog box above to join games faster in the future!

Gameplay sponsored by:
Loading 0% - Starting game...
Get more with Builders Club! Join Builders Club
Choose Your Avatar
I have an account
generic image