 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 373 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613462 Today 5 Topics 127501 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Do you think, some pop songs lyrics have a deeper meaning? At first this might sound ridiculous, because other art forms might have more artistic value than a pop song. But i think the interesting thing is, that sometimes these pop lyrics have a deeper subtext hidden beyond the obvious. Or am i going crazy? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
too obvious? ahhh. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Do you believe in witchcraft? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Do you think, some pop songs lyrics have a deeper meaning?" Deeper meaning than what? ...Than what the producers/writers are intending to convey? Cuz that would mean that someone else is putting that deeper meaning in there, which is trippy. Any song can only be as meaningful as intended. If one finds some "secret hidden message" or "hidden sexual innuendo", it was probably put there intentionally. And if it wasn't put there intentionally, then it doesn't mean that. That being said, everything can be deconstructed until one arrives at essence itself, which is mostly useless, |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Essence is useless? Explain what you mean. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Essence is useless? Explain what you mean." With regard to most analysis, opinion, or interesting conversation. The trueness of something- what makes it, it- is the result of a balance between superficialities and depth (such as concept, usage, etc.) But ESSENCE of something is getting down to the core of what makes it possible, but at that point, the subject actually loses its identity. And upon further searching for essence, one is left with the ultimate truth of all, which is just, IS. And that, is useless in any applicable form, except for philosophical/spiritual understanding. Essence takes away all superficialities, all usages-- every quality that makes any subject recognizable as that subject. So I wrote it's useless, because-- although it's possible to find ultimate depth in all, one will always find the exact same truth (just IS). So at the furthest depth of essence, a car is exactly the same as a flower, as a bird, as a planet. (just in case the beginning bit of the first long paragraph didn't make sense... about identity, etc.) A car is a good example. In order to find the truth of a car, one can dismantle one in a garage and learn the functioning of all parts. No doubt, this will leave one with a better understanding of the car. But what results, is a garage full of parts. A car-- is to travel, to cruise, to race, to sex in the back, etc. All of the TRUE usages of car, are totally lost when deconstructing it to learn what it is. Upon further deconstruction, one will find the truth of its structural integrity, as well as the source of various parts' strength (from steel, etc.). And again, one does have a better understanding of why the car is so, but now- left in the garage- are not even major components of the car; just scraps and torn apart shit. So now, the car is totally understood, but totally lost. Had that person only studied the car in the garage, all the technical analysis possible would never result in the extremely direct truth of just using the car |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
...as intended. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Actually i disagree wih you. I am convinced that your own brain constructs meaning all of the time. The piece of art can point you in a certain direction but ultimately it is your aesthetic judgement which makes it art or not. Your car example, do you actually mean identity instead of essence? I think the essence of something, is just the sum of its truths, of course, i have no clue about anything |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm sure you're aware that everyone does a lot of things unintentionally and unconsciously and is in denial about, uh, stuff! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How could one claim to have found the essence of a car when at "the furthest depth of essence, a car is exactly the same as a flower, as a bird, as a planet"? That seems to me to be searching for water in a lake. You end up with either. Shouldn't it read "at the furthest depth of an object"? The (supposed) essence is always OF some-thing (not everything), otherwise you can't talk of it as being essence, at all. It's not identical to anything else. Try beginning at the other end. You have essence, now how do you make this into a car? If you have abstract the qualities of an object you end up with nothing. It seems to me that your essence has both the quality of being identical with everything else at their essences (which seems to imply several essences in order for objects to be identical at all) as well as being the essence of all things, i.e. concrete objects. Is it the object as such, or the essence, that is identical with -- the essence (at "the furthest depth of essence")? If it is the object, then what's the need of essence? Is it essence? Then what's the need of the object? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
michael jackson |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't think it's simply "what you make of it", as is sometimes said. I think it can't be anything else other than what is perceived. The notion of "what you make of it" implies that there is something there to begin with. There's no need to search for meaning. If it is there, it's already been found. The has as much meaning, or lack thereof, as or . |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
monold---- yes, everyone is interpreting everything in any way... art, whatever, but intention is important with regard to "meaning". if I draw a flower and say it means love, THAT IS what it means, because I created the drawing and I created its intention. so you can interpret and get from it whatever you want- see it as satanic or whatever- but that it not the meaning of the drawing-- that is meaning of yourself. because nothing means anything-- it's just all shit flying all over the place. ALL "meaning" is pre-defined by those why are able to give/perceive such a concept as "meaning". So it's not possible to get an accurate interpretation of meaning from a pop song, other than the meaning that was put into it. aphexacid---- "Essence" can be interpreted in many ways, which is why I defined my terms. Essence is of superficialities as well as depth. Take away either quality and essence is lost. So that long shit I wrote was of the search for essence and how one actually loses essence when searching, yet still has a better understanding of it in that lossy process of deconstruction. Also, the subject becomes new when deconstructing and an actual new essence is born, but the person still searches for the source of the old essence. So while most experience essence from an object/subject's superficialities as well as usage, take away the depth, and none of that is possible. Depth supports superficialities, and superficialities support depth. They are both essence and result in essence. They are "essential". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
