[Ktoyou]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

Left wing fanatic - Recall crying as a child when Bambi's mother was killed.

Right wing fanatic - Shot Bambi's mother. Jerky anyone?

I like this, funny

Just for the record, I shot Bambi and his mother many times; father too

As a child I was after Peter Rabbit

[Wessex Man]

I too somewhat consider myself a paleoconservative and certainly I find that to be the most insightful and intriquing of all the modern conservative ideologies(and ignoring some isolated interesting thinkers like E.F Schumacher and Lewis Mumford.) the most insightful of all current ideologies. Yet I've always found that designation somewhat limited because it seems to limit ancient ideas and truths to a modern ideology. As you say Ktoyou I think the term traditional conservative is a useful one or just removing the problematic term conservative completely and calling oneself a traditionalist.

[Ktoyou]

Yes, this political ideology begins with Edmund Burke, not the French right wing. It goes along both traditional and paleolibertarian lines. It became a popular movement through Frank Myer and the best written full analysis of the movement might be found in Kirk’s “The Conservative mind.

I too have been an admirer of John Randolph; however, his position, true to what you have in your signature. He favoured an aristocracy. Such is more conservative than what I would hold. Although, in another time or culture I would have taken to him as I did so when I was a young adult. I have also admired Richard Weaver and he lays out his ideology well in ‘Ideas have consequences’, who, in ways, is similar to E.F Schumacher, yet more, in my opinion, a central figure in political conservatism.

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by Wessex Man

Obviously they didn't simply say Bach was too radical, they had detailed arguments. I personally am far more knowledgeable on literature and visual art when it comes to this sphere. What is being said is not that say a lot of art that is not metaphysical is not entertaining or very good but simply that it is not great. Dickens or Oscar Wilde may be very good and entertaining but they are not Dante.


If you want to start being civil then let me know.

So what you are effectively saying, as a Christian, is that metaphysics is subjective.?

Now there is obviously a subjective nature to art but great art is metaphysical and metaphysics is largely objective, even if it cannot be completely captured by humanity, even divine symbolism is mostly objective; there are certain forms and symbols which best capture certain key metaphysical aspects. Take the cross, that the cross is a key metaphysical symbol is objective hence it use in so many cultures and religions. It symbolises the intersection of the horizontal, or relative level of being, and their links and transcendence towards the absolute realm on its vertical axis(to put it symbol.). To reject the objective nature of art in favour of modern subjectivism is to reject the objective nature of metaphysics and theology.

For a Christian this quick retreat into relativism and subjectivism is astounding and represents the baleful influence of modernism on Christianity.

WM, here is the finale to the 'Rite'. A piece written by a composer who stated that 'He was merely the vessel through which it passed' and sent shockwaves in music in 1911. Nothing Stavinsky had wrote previously had indicated that this bombshell and widespread regarded masterpiece was going to hit Paris at its premiere like it did. Riots ensued. Rhythmically and harmonically the whole thing was groundbreaking and influenced many a composer and band since the early 1900's. Enjoy - or don't.

[Newman]

As a pretty ardent libertarian, I have never really been able to shove myself into one of the TOL political ideology categories. I lean right, though, due to my views on abortion, so that's why I have myself marked as such.