Art as creating with intention

[atreestump]

That was the video Whisper was referring to about the dirty Protests.

Is art something rebellious then?

[kFoyauextlH]

I don't think so (art=rebellion), but I think it can.

I agree that anything can be called art, just like all words are sh*ttified by people, especially these days apparently, as far as we are aware, but that it should at the very least be "intentional" and have some idea of constructing or fabricating things artificially by an intelligent agent trying to do so.

Art in the past often seemed tied with religion and superstition and now seems most removed from such intentions, as it also has seemingly gotten uglier, pretentiously and condescendingly.

So the newer meaning of "art" seems to be, for common people, something beautiful, stimulating, an amusing artifice, typically just a picture of some kind, then some kind of other things like music that are somehow more exceptional so that people call it "art", so "art" seems to mean "anything made by people to experience, particularly visually" and then another meaning of "a heightened thing, something extraordinary, to be experienced, something deliberate and impactful. Sometimes it goes further and extends even to a tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic version, of something especially ridiculous or bad, often accidental or unintentional, that ends up funny due to being disturbing or cringe-inducing or embarassing.

The word is an endangered one in my opinion due to how broadly it is used, so at risk of oblivion, becoming meaningless and a worthless term of little value, indicating nothing in particular. For the most part, it seems to mean "thing person made to be viewed", they drew or painted a piece of art. If someone said "they made art", few would think music, and if the person discovered it was music, they would say or think "I thought you meant they drew something, why didn't you say they made music (you conceited c*nt?)".

I consider myself an artist, and art to be almost exclusively psycho-spiritual and religious for me, even though I deal with things people would consider totally mundane or purely for entertainment. Since other artists don't seem to be so certain of their spiritual purpose or caring about what and why they are making certain things, they seem to be a different category, like the difference between a "copywriter" of advertisements and a "writer" who is putting some meaning into something, or even a philosopher.

All of my pieces are meant to be spiritually impactful, they are the same thing that "idols" are supposed to be in my opinion, thought tools, the same as words or sentences, they communicate something. Nothing about them is ever really meant to be subversive or rebellious, since the only thing I'm against are human filth and corruption, and my art, whether drawings, music, or films I hope to make, or even pieces of collected writing and commentary like forum posts and threads, are meant to represent aspects of the divine power that is beyond humanity, though it is the source of the bad and ugly things that I hate.

I believe in a Chaoskampf without any possibility for neutrality, between justice and beauty and injustice and ugliness or impropriety, dharma and adharma, and all the other dichotomous terms people have made between right and wrong and pleasure and pain, and that the dominant groups are evil (paranoia) and have flipped things, making what is bad the promoted stuff, and what is good the disparaged stuff, in at least a few cases, so that we're living in an upside down and backwards world, where what is good and beautiful is often associated with or called evil, and what is despicable is lauded and praised and promoted, so in that case art, as beauty representing the natural power that preceded mankind and honors the power permeating and manifesting everything, and which is related to the noblest things in my opinion, is a rebellion against the ugliness of the "Archons", the groups that keep bullying their way to be the managers of everyone and creating a polluted hellscape that is opposite of the bucolic and idyllic vision most everyone seems to innately have of what is best and most beautiful and ideal.

One of the vilest poisons is "subjectivity" and "personal taste" exceptions which range into full blown perversity and horrendous aberrations of any justifiable right, and then they call it "fantasy" for now, which they want to make an acceptable reality. The enemies of God and Mankind have poisoned everything, they've poisoned love, sexuality, romance, loyalty, food, children, tutorship, everything is now mixed with doubt, fear, ugliness, untrustworthiness. They indoctrinate children with ugly images, and there is no morality in anything.

Law is beauty, or should have been, but now it is a sign of every evil abuse, and evil things brought up with evil reactions to them, totally different from true justice. Perversion has plagued the world, particularly the West, and modernity.

If conditions persist and increase, it will likely push people to increasingly extreme responses, to save the body which is infected with some pronounced sores and inflamed cells that need to be cut out, as the pain is spreading all throughout the nervous system because of sore spots which are interfering with the peace.

Added in 18 minutes 16 seconds:
I believe that there are two general streams at least, one dedicated to the beautiful things properly, and one dedicated to other than what I consider beauty, and there is no way to be in between or balanced, you are either on one team or the other team, but these teams don't divide neatly, for example the American Left and American Right are both corrupt, dirty, lying, pieces of garbage, none of which are very absorbed by noble qualities, so they are both rather thoroughly evil and infested and have nothing to do with the good or the good people who are hopefully less likely to be caught in such traps which are deceptive.

There is a lot of "art", and a lot of it seems to me to be to be totally toxic at this point, because of how the focus os off of pleasure, is off of beauty, is off of justice, is off of happiness, is off of making things right, making things better than they are.

It is constantly glorifying pain, fights, arguments, breakups, sadness, misery, "dystopia", every vice, every illicit thing, now without solutions, answers, happy endings, moral lessons.

This works to twist people into monsters themselves, angry, frustrated, mean spirited, lashing out, like animals being tortured, constantly stung and pricked, ready to lash out, most likely on whoever or whatever is nearest as nothing further can easily be reached.

Art could be medicine and nutritious, but instead it is poisonous in many cases today, and many people don't know how to make anything further out of what they are being offered by the "artists", who are even often understood to be vile people by the general public, yet still these people are propped up by those with wealth who decide which purveyor of poisonous philosophies they will have as lords over masses, these are the new clerics whether they think so or not, and the people are the consuming sheep being influenced.

Few produce their own supply of psychological stimulation and rely upon what their nation ultimately approves for them.

I consider these poison peddlers to be more dangerous and destructive than most people would think, as they stupidly say "just don't listen if you don't like it", yet too many people are listening and looking, and it is like racist propaganda or reinforcing images and ideas for slavery or abuse, and when such things totally permeate a culture and are everywhere you turn, and too many keep practically helplessly feeding the furnace that they themselves are making more dire by doing so, it becomes a rotten culture, an angry culture, an ugly culture, a r*pe culture, it isn't as simple as "just look away".

Added in 13 minutes 24 seconds:
Just look at the descent:

https://townsquare.media/site/812/files ... w=780&q=75

https://townsquare.media/site/812/files ... w=780&q=75

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... PMP7r&s=10

This is an affliction.

https://townsquare.media/site/812/files ... w=780&q=75

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... V5wLU&s=10

https://thenounproject.com/thelist/designers-2025/

https://thelist.thenounproject.com/

https://juddfoundation.org/wp-content/u ... 1_1983.pdf

"
Before Bernini religion was the nature of the
world and of man, and for the most part, despite corruption
and suppression, its morality and cosmology opposed com-
merce and mundane power. For a century there has been
no counterforce to power and commerce, nothing to say that
the existence of the individual and of the world, their relation-
ship, that between individuals, and activities which signify
these, such as art, are not a matter of business and are not to
be bought and sold.
Religion was good riddance but art, architecture, and
music no longer had an institutional support. They could only
make and sell and so live within the context of commerce.
As the distance increased from the standards of the church and
of the nobility, and with the increasing ignorance, there was
less and less restraint upon the businessmen, the nal one
being that it’s after all necessary to understand and maintain
the value of the commodity. Today art is only a cut above
being an ordinary commodity and close to being manipulated
as any compliant commodity should be. An example of a
functioning restraint, indicative of a better civilization, is the
usual town planning and building in Europe. Something there,
perhaps preference and tradition, but also such implementa-
tion as taxes and laws, keeps the developers from being as
destructive, as wasteful, as monstrous, and as vulgar as here.
Something keeps the place cleaner too. I was delighted that in
the new book on her, Frida Kahlo said that the United States
looked like a chicken coop. Houston is a country coop, a
bare yard with feeders and waterers sticking up, and New York
is a city coop, a “dense-pack” commercial operation.
"

https://historum.com/t/has-the-quality- ... hy.126541/

"
Friends,

In the course of the last two centuries, the definition of art has gradually shifted from an elevated form of expression and craftsmanship that required talent, skill and study to produce, to an expression of freedom, novelty and obscure meaning.

Nowadays, we see strange sorts of art such as a sheet of paper with lines drawn a certain way, a painting with many colors splattered over it, and spaces which contain simple objects. There seems to be an inclination in modern art to quantity over quality, and shock over form. It is not uncommon to hear of a plain piece by Picasso being sold at an auction for a higher price than a fine painting by Da Vinci. For these reasons, I believe the quality of art has, for the most part, been declining of late years. What is your view?
"

Added in 3 minutes 7 seconds:
"
Art may be a conceptualization that is indefinite, but do we therefore conclude that art should not be rationally practised, understood, and judged? If not, anything at all will be called art, which is the very case today. Art is inherent in culture and society and it can and should be, like all other things inherent in culture and society, subject to rational rules, some of which are unchangeable and others are determined by that culture. Conceptualization without enough rational rules is madness and folly, and rational rules without conceptualization is not possible. We can understand a culture from the art it produces or values. If modern art has abandoned rational principles and embraced subversive novelties, then I conclude modern culture dislikes rational principles and has embraced subversive novelties. I can't but wonder how modern art, and indeed modern society, will be remembered.
"

Added in 4 minutes 12 seconds:
"
Andronikos said:
Look at this work by Picasso, sold at Christie's for the highest price ever paid at an auction (179 million dollars). Anyone could paint this trash with his bare fingers or even toes:

Picasso painting sells for a record $179 million - May. 11, 2015

Can someone indulge me in explaining this "ingenious" piece of art?
"

"
That's rude to say that his painting is a trash, can you even paint something that is worth 179 million USD in the first place? If not, quit giving ill-mannered remarks.

Les femmes d'Alger (Version "O") is the trash artwork you're talking about. It’s expensive because it's not your usual abstract painting. Picasso expresses all his influences in art in just one canvas. It is very flashy, eye-catching and very sensual. It has the concept of minimalism that fits in the modern world we're living in. Overall, it is an iconic modern masterpiece.
"

Lol, the random monetary value assigned to something some rich people and publicists insisted upon as valuable makes it worthy of toothless, diseased peasants arguing about being respectful or not towards it.

[atreestump]

It began with Kant, sitting at his desk in Königsberg, quietly terrified that the universe might be mad. He built a system to contain that madness — the Critique of Judgment — a delicate architecture of reason designed to make the world appear orderly, even when it wasn’t. Beauty, he decided, would be the illusion that nature agreed with us. It was a lie we could live inside. But there was something strange buried in the machine — the idea of genius. A force that created without understanding why, a kind of divine accident. Kant said it was nature legislating through man, but in doing so, he admitted that the real legislator wasn’t human at all. That small crack — genius as an impersonal power — was the moment the Enlightenment began to lose control of its own creation.

A century later, Schopenhauer looked through that crack and saw what lay behind it: a blind, endless, desiring force he called the Will. Life itself as a cosmic mistake, condemned to crave and suffer. He turned Kant’s tranquil idealism into a metaphysics of pain. Art, for him, became an anaesthetic — a way of stepping briefly outside the Will’s relentless grinding. But even here, in his attempt to escape, he was haunted by the same thing Kant had tried to suppress. Beauty, he said, was just the mask of seduction. Woman as appearance, as trickery, the embodiment of life’s deceit. The artist might think he was transcending desire, but he was really sinking back into it. Art was no longer moral; it was erotic, dangerous, a channel for the thing that wanted to devour him.

Then Nietzsche arrived and detonated the system completely. He took Schopenhauer’s dark machinery and ran it in reverse. The Will, he said, was not to be escaped but celebrated. Its cruelty was creation. Its pain was power. In The Birth of Tragedy, he found an image for this in ancient Greece — the clash between the calm, sculpted beauty of Apollo and the drunken ecstasy of Dionysus. For a brief moment, they danced together, and that was tragedy. But Socrates, with his demand for reason and clarity, killed the dance. The West became Apollonian — sober, moral, managerial — and Dionysus was driven underground. Nietzsche wanted him back.

Nick Land takes this as the story of modernity itself — the repression of chaos by a frightened species that wanted control. Kant had built the fences. Schopenhauer had mapped the prison. Nietzsche set it on fire. Art, in this reading, becomes the insurgency of the irrational — a line of flight that bursts through philosophy’s walls. It is the return of what was buried: the laughter of the gods, the howl of the unconscious, the song of machines and animals.

Land pushes this further, past Nietzsche, into the twentieth century. Freud tries to police the eruption, to turn art into therapy, a way of keeping desire productive, docile, useful. But Bataille and Deleuze undo that containment. They see art as waste, as excess — energy that cannot be tamed by utility or morality. For them, art isn’t healing; it’s catastrophic. It’s the moment when human order collapses under the weight of its own illusions.

In Land’s version of history, art is not the decoration of civilization — it’s the symptom of its disintegration. Every painting, every symphony, every avant-garde gesture is a signal from the unconscious of the species, announcing that control has failed. What Kant had called “purposiveness without purpose” becomes, by the end, creation without creator — the world itself inventing forms through us, indifferent to our survival.

And so the story ends where it began, but inverted. The Enlightenment built reason to save mankind from chaos. Art, in Land’s hands, is chaos coming back — not as enemy, but as destiny. The insurgent pulse beneath the surface of polite culture, whispering that the universe doesn’t need us to make sense. It only needs us to keep creating, until we disappear.

[kFoyauextlH]

Interpret that A.I. stuff (which was very good, as usual) as helplessly Christian, Biblical and New Testament Ascetic.

"
The artist might think he was transcending desire, but he was really sinking back into it.
"

Yeah, art is for humans, why should it be undesirable like so much of it seems to be now?

Even the positioning of certain things as excessive to the point of destruction when these can be stated less melodramatically is a Christian fever, coming from their predecessor's envy of a society they wanted to compete with, dominate, rob, and trash into oblivion, a project still underway, one of ruin led by malice and gloating, an example of which is manifest in recent acts of violence for the world to see their heart's desire.



Added in 8 minutes 22 seconds:
So Western Thinking and Philosophy, even the interpretation of Philosophy prior to Christian Dominance in the West, has completely distorted everything, increasingly, especially as it first deprecated all human achievement from the "others", and then went further to abandon God altogether really, replacing it instead with a residual disdain for the senses, and in Modern culture a growing sterility that is linked with intelligence and wealth, prosperity is depicted as morally conscientious and the peasantry are depicted as excessive and tacky.

Look at how the wealthy and most prestigious people present themselves as stoic within barren and sparse scenes for example, as they speak about transcending the body like a Pauline Gnostic Cenobite.

Added in 34 minutes 45 seconds:
https://cdn.britannica.com/64/3864-050- ... -Monte.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art

https://artincontext.org/famous-ugly-paintings/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unattractiveness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden

"
A garden is a planned space, usually outdoors, set aside for the cultivation, display, and enjoyment of plants and other forms of nature. The single feature identifying even the wildest wild garden is control. The garden can incorporate both natural and artificial materials.[1]
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_o ... hilosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Beauty

"
Articles related to beauty, a feature of objects that makes them pleasurable to perceive. Such objects include landscapes, sunsets, humans and works of art. Beauty, art and taste are the main subjects of aesthetics, one of the fields of study within philosophy. As a positive aesthetic value, it is contrasted with ugliness as its negative counterpart. One difficulty in understanding beauty is that it has both objective and subjective aspects: it is seen as a property of things but also as depending on the emotional response of observers.
"

https://powerlisting.fandom.com/wiki/Pe ... pernatural

https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Belle

"
Some forms of early ascetic Gnosticism held all matter to be evil, and that unnecessary gratifications of the physical senses were to be avoided. Married couples were encouraged to be chaste.[14][15] In the first century, Marcion of Sinope held an antisexual and ascetic outlook.[16] The Skoptsys were a radical sect of the Russian Orthodox Church that practiced castration and amputation of sexual organs. The Skoptsy believed that Christ had been castrated during his crucifixion, and it was this castration that brought about salvation.[17] Boston Corbett, who was involved in killing John Wilkes Booth, castrated himself after being mocked and tempted by prostitutes.[18] Ann Lee was the founder of the Shakers, a radical Protestant sect that opposed procreation and all sexual activity. The Shakers were more opposed to pregnancy than anything else.[19][better source needed] Father Divine, founder of the International Peace Mission Movement, advocated religious abstinence from sex and marriage and taught that sexual objectification is a root cause of undesirable social and political conditions.[20]

James Baldwin in The Fire Next Time refers to the United States as an antisexual country dominated by a white culture that regards sensual or soulful behavior by Black Americans as suspect. This contributed to a crisis of Baldwin's Christian faith, showing that the world did not accept him, and that Christianity had not made white people accepting.

Non-religious
edit
Philosopher Immanuel Kant viewed humans as being subject to the animalistic desires of self-preservation, species-preservation, and the preservation of enjoyment. He argued that humans have a duty to avoid actions that harm or degrade themselves, including suicide, sexual degradation, and drunkenness.[21]: 225  This led Kant to regard sexual intercourse as degrading because it "makes of the loved person an Object of appetite",[22] rather than focusing on their inherent worth as rational beings, which violates Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative, a philosophical concept he created to judge the morality of actions. He admitted sex only within marriage, which he regarded as "a merely animal union".[23]

Feminist
edit
Various feminist views on sexuality have been described as anti-sex or sex-negative. In particular, second-wave and radical feminist viewpoints and thinkers have been subject to this, including from other feminists.[24][25][26]

Prior to the second wave of feminism, which introduced such slogans as "The personal is political" in the 1960s, the subject of women's sexuality had rarely been addressed as a politicized subject, although the subjugation of women by aspects of male sexuality had been discussed. Major feminist organizations, such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) in the United States, primarily focused on male supremacy in the public sphere. It was not until the earliest radical feminist groups began to form in the late 1960s that feminist analysis of women's sexuality started to become widespread.[27]

According to radical feminist theory, sexuality is the primary sphere of patriarchy, with sexual activity, especially heterosexual sex, as the basis of women's oppression by men. Sexuality, according to radical feminists, only serves to revoke the agency of women. Radical feminists oppose the sexual objectification of women, for their sexual and reproductive labor, and hold the view that in a male-dominated society heterosexual practices involve an imbalance of power and serve to sexualize the oppression of women.[28] Ti-Grace Atkinson wrote of heterosexual sex as a social institution serving the needs of men but not necessarily of women. This analysis led some radical feminists to call for women to stop having sex with men altogether, with some advocating for celibacy and others advocating political lesbianism.[27] This led to the second wave polarizing around two camps in what would become known as the feminist sex wars.[29]

Radical feminist writer Julie Bindel described female bisexuality as a "fashionable trend" pushing for sexual hedonism. She writes, "if bisexual women had an ounce of sexual politics, they would stop sleeping with men."[30]

Several authors have objected to radical feminists on this front. Margaret Hunt criticized Sheila Jeffreys for praising women involved in the 19th-century social purity movement, whose "concern with women's victimization" Jeffreys admired.[31]

Naomi Wolf identified a form of feminism she called victim feminism, which she described as "sexually judgmental, even antisexual".[32]
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Queen#Absexual

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotophobia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_culture

This imbalance has become twisted completely into a culture detached from strictly imposed and dogmatic insistence on standards of beauty based on ideals and desire, natural wiring:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral

"
Hesiod's Works and Days presents a 'golden age' when people lived together in harmony with nature. This Golden Age shows that even before the Alexandrian age, ancient Greeks had sentiments of an ideal pastoral life that they had already lost. This is the first example of literature that has pastoral sentiments and may have begun the pastoral tradition. Ovid's Metamorphoses is much like the Works and Days with the description of ages (golden, silver, bronze, iron, and human) but with more ages to discuss and less emphasis on the gods and their punishments. In this artificially constructed world, nature acts as the main punisher. Another example of this perfect relationship between man and nature is evident in the encounter of a shepherd and a goatherd who meet in the pastures in Theocritus' poem Idylls 1.

Traditionally, pastoral refers to the lives of herdsmen in a romanticized, exaggerated, but representative way. In literature, the adjective 'pastoral' refers to rural subjects and aspects of life in the countryside among shepherds, cowherds and other farm workers that are often romanticized and depicted in a highly unrealistic manner. The pastoral life is usually characterized as being closer to the golden age than the rest of human life. The setting is a locus amoenus, or a beautiful place in nature, sometimes connected with images of the Garden of Eden.[5] An example of the use of the genre is the short poem by the 15th-century Scottish makar Robert Henryson Robene and Makyne which also contains the conflicted emotions often present in the genre. A more tranquil mood is set by Christopher Marlowe's well known lines from his 1588 The Passionate Shepherd to His Love:

Come live with me and be my Love,
And we will all the pleasures prove
That hills and valleys, dale and field,
And all the craggy mountains yield.

There will we sit upon the rocks
And see the shepherds feed their flocks,
By shallow rivers, to whose falls
Melodious birds sing madrigals.

"The Passionate Shepherd to His Love" exhibits the concept of Gifford's second definition of 'pastoral'. The speaker of the poem, who is the titled shepherd, draws on the idealization of urban material pleasures to win over his love rather than resorting to the simplified pleasures of pastoral ideology. This can be seen in the listed items: "lined slippers", "purest gold", "silver dishes", and "ivory table" (lines 13, 15, 16, 21, 23). The speaker takes on a voyeuristic point of view with his love, and they are not directly interacting with the other true shepherds and nature.

Pastoral shepherds and maidens usually have Greek names like Corydon or Philomela, reflecting the origin of the pastoral genre. Pastoral poems are set in beautiful rural landscapes, the literary term for which is "locus amoenus" (Latin for "beautiful place"), such as Arcadia, a rural region of Greece, mythological home of the god Pan, which was portrayed as a sort of Eden by the poets. The tasks of their employment with sheep and other rustic chores is held in the fantasy to be almost wholly undemanding and is left in the background, leaving the shepherdesses and their swains in a state of almost perfect leisure. This makes them available for embodying perpetual erotic fantasies. The shepherds spend their time chasing pretty girls – or, at least in the Greek and Roman versions, pretty boys as well. The eroticism of Virgil's second eclogue, Formosum pastor Corydon ardebat Alexin ("The shepherd Corydon burned with passion for pretty Alexis"), is entirely homosexual.[6]
"

See, even their interpretation turns everything rotten (lol, it may have been difficult to deny as homoerotic, but then again, who knows really, the people now seem unfit to determine what the men with erections were intending while chasing those boys).

Homosexual stuff is largely unfit to represent the people, because they are a minority, and they are wired differently, with different interests. The artists who seemed to make the most appealing forms may have been more similar to the people who tend to like what they make, for example I like Elvgren, who seemed to at least be able to emphasize with propriety and restraint those qualities which are appealing to a normal male regarding the female form, based on natural and somewhat sexual attraction:

https://freeclassicimages.com/GIL-ELVGREN.html

Nice colors, gentleness, form, depicted emotions or behaviour.

Now:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... JdpDU&s=10

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/8d/7b/ec/8d7b ... d02842.jpg

This is hatred, something out there hates people, maybe they hate themselves and everything, and they have lost their minds:

https://thoushaltnotcovet.net/2013/10/3 ... -you-dare/

The Qur'an attributes to all of God's attributes the word Hasan, meaning Beauty, making that the Supreme Attribute that "says it all" and is what is emphasized among the names mentioned in the Qur'an, but the names they added to make the number 99, I noticed every single one that was added by people later was not beautiful, but talking about negative things. Taking all the names mentioned in the Qur'an, or their roots, there seemed to be 72.

The Qur'an attributes to Satan the attempt to make what is ugly and harmful beautiful, to tell people they are ugly and in need of improvements, and to "change the fair/beautiful" nature of things towards ugliness through mutilation, maiming, and corrupting things, and so a very encompassing notion of beauty and ugliness tied also to emotion and conduct is presented by the Qur'an, but people scarcely read it, and in many cases their reading is distorted by their swallowing up the Hadith literature, created separately by J*d*o-Christian influenced and Zoroastrian influenced people who brought in their errors and pollution, so that even the clear meaning is masked by distorting what it says, by people who seemingly didn't even have a great grasp on the words since they were speakers of other languages and from far away places. Much of the East African flavor of the Qur'an was lost by these Northern people, and now even more so by even more Northernly and Western influenced readers who have already had their brains broken by the corrupting stuff that has permeated cultures worldwide at this point.

[atreestump]

@thetrizzard do you have anything to add here?

[kFoyauextlH]

Also just a quick note about my own writing here as well as elsewhere, but definitely in this case. After I present the writing, I immediately look at it from the perspective of it being foreign to me, as an outsider, so not that it represents actual views necessarily or completely, maybe not even partially, but I put it out there for me to scan it and counter it or see where my real thinking may fit in, since my thinking in general is very mainstream on everything, so like I may accept subjectivity as a reality like everyone else, but then present something more extreme, strict, edgy, or radical to review and see if anything can be made of it or adopted from it, and I'm looking for the psychological and emotional impact the writing may have on me too, and for openings and cracks in it. These pieces can take on a tone of furor or they may seem to reason things, but I am interacting with the writing past what is written. Most of these things I don't think about and just have the basic assumptions and views of the modern populace and culture, so I try to present something that isn't just that exactly, which would be boring in my opinion and is endlessly repeated by nerds on Reddit, like they just blurt out the usual "everything is subjective" type of thing ad nauseum, but one rarely sees any kind of passionate rebuttal or contrary response because of how heavy the "common sense" is, also because it can be grating to do so, but I find people just thoughtlessly repeating the usual things, often rudely, to be far more grating and doing very little for my thinking. So I disavow everything always, whatever I write should not necessarily mean much about me, as I'm mild mannered and keep my head down and I don't try to make any waves in real life, since I avoid negative attention and also barely care about anything because I'm probably depressed and can see no hope really except in private and hiding away from most everything. Whether things are this way or that way, it is nearly meaningless to me for the most part and probably never even occurs to me. I also have very little in the way of desires or attachments, like wanting anything to happen or yearning or hoping for things or wanting this or that team to score. I see everything as unecessary, arbitrary, just a sick joke.