Life Philosophy

So, in class last week we discussed the various different ways that different terms could be organized to help direct a flow to how we think and live. The terms that we had available to us to be organized were as follows: Creativity, Imagination, Knowledge, Emotion, Understanding, Intuition, and Instict. Needless to say, this was not something that was going to be simple, but to help try and make it all a little more clear, I added the terms: Desire, Wisdom, Intelligence and Results.

The way that I have laid out these terms allows for a cycle of repetition that allows the format to be repeated however many times it needs to. The chart when organized looks like this:

~Click to Enlarge~

I like this chart because with the way that it is now organized, it can be used to visually explain how I think when choice making / problem solving thought process's go on in my head. What I am now interested in is seeing how you feel about this organization, do you thinkin the same fashion as I do? do you think that this chart would be organized differently to how you think? Let me know what you think...

Response to Natalie's Post

In response to the post found here: http://npozzetti.blogspot.com/2011/05/paulo-coelho.html?showComment=1305134941397#c4861583029047587684 these are my thoughts:


This "art equates out to miracle" suggestion is an interesting proposition. I do not necessarily agree with the way that this is implied on a few levels of what you have suggested, especially to have come to this conclusion.

The first thing would immediately be that I do not think that art is typically made out of love; for there are various other foundations of emotion that art can be derived from whence being created. In fact I would even argue that love is rarely the inspiration for art that is indented to be witnessed by anyone other than the one whom is loved, thus most art that is grounded on love is something that typically would not be seen.

Secondly, I do not give love the grace of being considered a "miracle". Love is rare, and though it is something that should be meddled with carefully, love is real, love is achievable. I think that looking at love with the title of miracle will forever undermine the real love you have in your life; one must be careful, for the use of a word as strong as love should be considered greatly before applying to another word as strong as miracle.

Which brings us to the most controversial point to me. Art is not a miracle. Viewing art is not a miracle. Art is possibly about the farthest thing possible from a miracle in my mind. It has no ties to the ethereal as it stands by itself. However, one of the best things about art is that it is a portal to the ethereal, the aesthetic universe, the mind and imagination. It is one of the strongest forms of communication, but that does not make it any more a miracle than the fact that you can read this sentence and know what my meaning is.

I do not want this response to come off as offensive, but it is a particular frustration of mine when love and art are used in such an immature fashion. I can’t support the suggestion that having art in our life is a miracle any more than still being able to still see is a miracle.

Response to Kurt's Post

In the conversation of video games as art found here: http://kurtwords.blogspot.com/2011/05/digital-art-part-2-video-games.html?showComment=1304960945781#c7096904235939138875 This is my input:


As I was looking for the response to my post I stumbled upon this on your blog, and let me tell you I am extremely happy that I did. This is an argument that I have been wondering about and have been a part of almost from the beginning of the "consol gamers’ era".

Here is how I would preface my conversation: there are two series of games that I have been following for most of my life as they have been released as consol games.

The first and foremost is certainly the Legend of Zelda series, I have played all of the games that are worth playing that have come out in this series. Having the opportunity recently to do a lot of research on the subject for another class, I would argue that the core games of the Zelda series with respect to the main story that has been posed is something that will forever be archived as part of Nintendo's history. To make sure we are on the same page, the core set that I am referring to is thus:

Zelda -> Zelda II -> A Link to the Past ->
Ocarina of Time + Majora's mask ->
Twilight Princess + Windwaker

The important thing to remember here is the divide in timelines of the same story that comprise the Majora & Windwaker games in this lineage.

However, to keep to the conversation, I think that the sheer girth of story that is made up of these seven games is on par if not cooler than the girth of story that is found in any good series (like Star Wars for example), and can certainly be considered art if the movies are.


Now, to return to the note at the beginning, the other game series that I have fallen into as I have grown up is the Elder Scrolls, to which I have played the third and fourth games in the series extensively (for the first two games were computer based and not part of my life till far past the Xbox). The thing that I have to say specifically about these games is that they are so good that I would be willing to argue that most of my academic interest nowadays can certainly be tied back to things I had been interested in while playing these games.

The notable difference between this and Zelda though is a key factor here in terms of different styles of artistic video games. Zelda poses a story for you to follow with help as to the linear aspect of the game. Where as The Elder Scrolls is a sandbox game that allows you to immerse yourself in the feel of the society in the game and become part of an alternative world that you can explore. This aspect allows you to follow any number of different outcomes in the game if you so choose, to the extent that I rarely even care about the linear game they program into it.


When it comes down to it, I think that the point of a piece of art is to let your mind become a part of the artist’s world for the time that you spend in the presence of it. Thus, if you can get so involved in a game that it sometimes feels like you have been to these other places, and have experienced exactly what the artists want you to, how can it be argued otherwise that a videogame can't be art?