Home Page link

Re: Jazz

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Page 5 of 6       < 1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Re: Jazz Secretia Green 12-22-2007
---> Re: Jazz Michael Bulatov...12-23-2007
  ---> Re: Jazz Michael Bulatov...12-23-2007
  | ---> Re: Jazz Michael Bulatov...12-23-2007
  |   ---> Re: Jazz Warm Worm12-23-2007
  |     ---> Re: Jazz RicodJour12-23-2007
  |       ---> Re: Jazz Warm Worm12-23-2007
  |       | ---> Re: Jazz Michael Bulatov...12-23-2007
  |       |   ---> Re: Jazz Warm Worm12-23-2007
  |       |     ---> Re: Jazz Michael Bulatov...12-23-2007
  |       |       `--> Re: Jazz Warm Worm12-24-2007
  |       `--> Re: Jazz Michael Bulatov...12-23-2007
  ---> Re: Jazz Warm Worm12-23-2007
  | ---> Re: Jazz Michael Bulatov...12-23-2007
  |   ---> Re: Jazz Warm Worm12-24-2007
  |     |--> Re: Jazz Michael Bulatov...12-24-2007
  |     `--> Re: Jazz Michael Bulatov...12-23-2007
  ---> Re: Jazz Warm Worm12-23-2007
  | ---> Re: Jazz Michael Bulatov...12-23-2007
  |   ---> Re: Jazz Warm Worm12-26-2007
  |   | ---> Re: Jazz Warm Worm12-26-2007
  |   | | ---> Re: Jazz Kris Krieger01-03-2008
  |   | |   `--> Re: Jazz Chuck News01-06-2008
  |   | `--> Re: Jazz Michael Bulatov...12-27-2007
  |   `--> Re: Jazz RicodJour12-23-2007
  |--> Re: Jazz Michael Bulatov...12-23-2007
  |--> Re: Jazz Warm Worm12-23-2007
  ---> Re: Jazz Warm Worm12-26-2007
    `--> Re: Jazz Kris Krieger01-03-2008
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Warm Worm on December 26, 2007, 12:27 pm

> "Warm Worm"> wrote
>> Seriously, though, lately, I've begun to casually question whether
>> "better-looking" or "attractive" is necessarily actually better,
>> desireable or attractive, or what we mean by it. For example, some faces
>> that some might consider as "less attractive" can be some of the more
>> interesting or intriguing, hence, attractive, to me... Naturally, then
>> there's personality, form, movement, poise, intelligence, style, habits,
>> creativity, depth, etc...
>> There are some women that just move in certain ways that I prefer, for
>> example.
>
> Yeah well, live with one for a few decades and you'll find out that little
> things have a tendency to grow on you, both negatively and positively.
> Sort of like financial interest.
> Not only is love blind but its stupid too.

Even in my relatively short relationships, I've noticed that... but I think
I'd feel the same way with someone who was perfectly suited to me... It's a
bit like the idea of sitting down when you're tired; after awhile of doing
that, you feel the need to get back up. So I doubt it's so much love being
stupid as being realistic. :)
Unsure it's true, but I've heard that, at least in general, humans are
naturally polygamous (if that's the right word), and so a lifelong mate
seems to go a little against that. Despite that, the idea of settling down
with someone for a longer while is very appealing.



AppliancePartsPros.com, Inc.
Posted by Kris Krieger on January 3, 2008, 5:31 pm

>
>>
>>> "Warm Worm"> wrote
>>>> Seriously, though, lately, I've begun to casually question whether
>>>> "better-looking" or "attractive" is necessarily actually better,
>>>> desireable or attractive, or what we mean by it. For example, some
>>>> faces that some might consider as "less attractive" can be some of
>>>> the more interesting or intriguing, hence, attractive, to me...
>>>> Naturally, then there's personality, form, movement, poise,
>>>> intelligence, style, habits, creativity, depth, etc...
>>>> There are some women that just move in certain ways that I prefer,
>>>> for example.
>>>
>>> Yeah well, live with one for a few decades and you'll find out that
>>> little things have a tendency to grow on you, both negatively and
>>> positively.
>>> Sort of like financial interest.
>>> Not only is love blind but its stupid too.
>>
>> Even in my relatively short relationships, I've noticed that... but I
>> think I'd feel the same way with someone who was perfectly suited to
>> me... It's a bit like the idea of sitting down when you're tired;
>> after awhile of doing that, you feel the need to get back up. So I
>> doubt it's so much love being stupid as being realistic. :)
>> Unsure it's true, but I've heard that, at least in general, humans
>> are naturally polygamous (if that's the right word), and so a
>> lifelong mate seems to go a little against that. Despite that, the
>> idea of settling down with someone for a longer while is very
>> appealing.
>
> Its definately got its pluses.
> Once you get past the superficial stuff the real stuff becomes
> apparent. Trust, honesty, reliability, you know, all that stuff that
> doesn't occur immediately in a relationship but its the stuff that
> binds and lasts. I don't know about anybody else but for me it was
> always the unwillingness to hurt my wife that has kept me from
> wandering, when I had every right to do just that.

Yup. There is a certain look of disappointment and hurt that is far, far
worse then being beaten with sticks.

> A relationship takes a long time to cultivate, no two people are
> perfect for each other, and if they really care for each other and the
> bigger picture, some amazing things can happen.
> If you wait around for the perfect person you'll end up bitter and
> old, and lonely cause there is no such thing.
> A successful relationship consists of two imperfect people working
> side by side in an imperfect world striving for some solace and
> balance. It takes differences and commonalities to make it work.

True, and well-said.

> From what I've read the 30 second attention span generations can't
> wait that long so they bail and wreck another life.

I think it's related to the delusion that external things "make" one
happy. In which case, other people are also seen as things. A "hot
babe" is little diferent from "a hot car"; a "rich husband" ias like "a
diamond necklace" - things, adornments, externals.

Ego is a blindfold, preventing us from seeing even ourselves. Bedazzled
by our own imagined brilliance, we are blinded to all else, even to Life
itself.



INteresting poem, BTW:

>
> We are secrets to each other
> Each one's life a novel
> No-one else has read.
> Even joined in bonds of love,
> We're linked to one another
> By such slender threads.
>
> We are planets to each other,
> Drifting in our orbits
> To a brief eclipse.
> Each of us a world apart,
> Alone and yet together,
> Like two passing ships.
>
> We are strangers to each other,
> Full of sliding panels,
> An illusion show.
> Acting well-rehearsed routines
> Or playing from the heart?
> It's hard for one to know.
>
> We are islands to each other,
> Building hopeful bridges
> On a troubled sea.
> Some are burned or swept away,
> Some we would not choose,
> But we're not always free.
>
> Just between us,
> I think it's time for us to recognize
> The differences we sometimes fear to show.
> Just between us,
> I think it's time for us to realize
> The spaces in between
> Leave room for you and I to grow.
>
> ++++++++++++++++
>
> Like a million little doorways
> All the choices we made
> All the stages we passed through
> All the roles we played
>
> For so many different directions
> Our separate paths might have turned
> With every door that we opened
> Every bridge that we burned
>
> Somehow we find each other
> Through all that masquerade
> Somehow we found each other
> Somehow we have stayed
> In a state of grace
>
> Like a million little crossroads
> Through the back streets of youth
> Each time we turn a new corner
> A tiny moment of truth
>
> For so many different connections
> Our separate paths might have made
> With every door that we opened
> Every game we played
>
> Somehow we find each other
> Through all that masquerade
> Somehow we found each other
> Somehow we have stayed
> In a state of grace
>
> I don't believe in destiny
> Or the guiding hand of fate
> I don't believe in forever
> Or love as a mystical state
> I don't believe in the stars or the planets
> Or angels watching from above
> But I believe there's a ghost of a chance we can find someone to love
> And make it last...
>
>
>
>
>


Posted by Chuck News on January 6, 2008, 4:03 am

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Warm Worm"> wrote
>>>>>> Seriously, though, lately, I've begun to casually question whether
>>>>>> "better-looking" or "attractive" is necessarily actually better,
>>>>>> desireable or attractive, or what we mean by it. For example, some
>>>>>> faces that some might consider as "less attractive" can be some of
>>>>>> the more interesting or intriguing, hence, attractive, to me...
>>>>>> Naturally, then there's personality, form, movement, poise,
>>>>>> intelligence, style, habits, creativity, depth, etc...
>>>>>> There are some women that just move in certain ways that I prefer,
>>>>>> for example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah well, live with one for a few decades and you'll find out that
>>>>> little things have a tendency to grow on you, both negatively and
>>>>> positively.
>>>>> Sort of like financial interest.
>>>>> Not only is love blind but its stupid too.
>>>>
>>>> Even in my relatively short relationships, I've noticed that... but I
>>>> think I'd feel the same way with someone who was perfectly suited to
>>>> me... It's a bit like the idea of sitting down when you're tired;
>>>> after awhile of doing that, you feel the need to get back up. So I
>>>> doubt it's so much love being stupid as being realistic. :)
>>>> Unsure it's true, but I've heard that, at least in general, humans
>>>> are naturally polygamous (if that's the right word), and so a
>>>> lifelong mate seems to go a little against that. Despite that, the
>>>> idea of settling down with someone for a longer while is very
>>>> appealing.
>>>
>>> Its definately got its pluses.
>>> Once you get past the superficial stuff the real stuff becomes
>>> apparent. Trust, honesty, reliability, you know, all that stuff that
>>> doesn't occur immediately in a relationship but its the stuff that
>>> binds and lasts. I don't know about anybody else but for me it was
>>> always the unwillingness to hurt my wife that has kept me from
>>> wandering, when I had every right to do just that.
>>
>> Yup. There is a certain look of disappointment and hurt that is far, far
>> worse then being beaten with sticks.
>
> I'm huge on *trust*.
> Truth and trust are everything as far as I'm concerned.
> Everything else takes a back seat.
> If someone steals my stuff, I or they can replace that.
> But when trust is stolen it is gone forever.
> As far as I'm concerned that forgive and forget stuff is a crock.
> I don't forgive or forget anything, ever.
> Thats just the way it is, I'm flawed that way.
> To the best of my knowledge my wife has never violated my trust nor I
> hers.
> That is of paramount importance and too few people recognize it.
>
>>> A relationship takes a long time to cultivate, no two people are
>>> perfect for each other, and if they really care for each other and the
>>> bigger picture, some amazing things can happen.
>>> If you wait around for the perfect person you'll end up bitter and
>>> old, and lonely cause there is no such thing.
>>> A successful relationship consists of two imperfect people working
>>> side by side in an imperfect world striving for some solace and
>>> balance. It takes differences and commonalities to make it work.
>>
>> True, and well-said.
>>
>>> From what I've read the 30 second attention span generations can't
>>> wait that long so they bail and wreck another life.
>>
>> I think it's related to the delusion that external things "make" one
>> happy. In which case, other people are also seen as things. A "hot
>> babe" is little diferent from "a hot car"; a "rich husband" ias like "a
>> diamond necklace" - things, adornments, externals.
>
> I see these chix running around and I have the same urges as anyone else
> and I could prolly be quite successful in that regard.
> But I've spent decades building something here, a life, 2 lives really,
> and there is no way in hell I will ever throw that away.
> Money?
> Who needs it.
> Stuff?
> Can always get more stuff.
> But a relationship based in trust and nutured daily for decades is a very
> rare and valuable thing to have.
> That value grows exponentially every single day and its a value many
> people don't stick with long enough to even realize it exists.
>
>> Ego is a blindfold, preventing us from seeing even ourselves. Bedazzled
>> by our own imagined brilliance, we are blinded to all else, even to Life
>> itself.
>
> All those things you mentioned, jewelry, fancy rides, and things, remind
> of the highly ornate birds in the amazon forest that have exotic plumage
> and dance marathons to attract a mate.
> I've never worn jewelry, not even a watch or wedding ring and my wife
> doesn't either, in fact recently she even stopped wearing her wedding ring
> as she doesn't want to mess it up with all the garden stuff she's been
> into since moving to ruralville. She doesn't even have pierced ears!!!!
> gasp! LOL
> When you take away all the jewelry, makeup, fancy clothes and cars you're
> left with the plain canvas and thats where the root of the thing is.
> If the canvas isn't acceptable than all the adornment in the world won't
> make a difference.
>
>> INteresting poem, BTW:
>>
>>>
>>> We are secrets to each other
>>> Each one's life a novel
>>> No-one else has read.
>>> Even joined in bonds of love,
>>> We're linked to one another
>>> By such slender threads.
>>>
>>> We are planets to each other,
>>> Drifting in our orbits
>>> To a brief eclipse.
>>> Each of us a world apart,
>>> Alone and yet together,
>>> Like two passing ships.
>>>
>>> We are strangers to each other,
>>> Full of sliding panels,
>>> An illusion show.
>>> Acting well-rehearsed routines
>>> Or playing from the heart?
>>> It's hard for one to know.
>>>
>>> We are islands to each other,
>>> Building hopeful bridges
>>> On a troubled sea.
>>> Some are burned or swept away,
>>> Some we would not choose,
>>> But we're not always free.
>>>
>>> Just between us,
>>> I think it's time for us to recognize
>>> The differences we sometimes fear to show.
>>> Just between us,
>>> I think it's time for us to realize
>>> The spaces in between
>>> Leave room for you and I to grow.
>>>
>>> ++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Like a million little doorways
>>> All the choices we made
>>> All the stages we passed through
>>> All the roles we played
>>>
>>> For so many different directions
>>> Our separate paths might have turned
>>> With every door that we opened
>>> Every bridge that we burned
>>>
>>> Somehow we find each other
>>> Through all that masquerade
>>> Somehow we found each other
>>> Somehow we have stayed
>>> In a state of grace
>>>
>>> Like a million little crossroads
>>> Through the back streets of youth
>>> Each time we turn a new corner
>>> A tiny moment of truth
>>>
>>> For so many different connections
>>> Our separate paths might have made
>>> With every door that we opened
>>> Every game we played
>>>
>>> Somehow we find each other
>>> Through all that masquerade
>>> Somehow we found each other
>>> Somehow we have stayed
>>> In a state of grace
>>>
>>> I don't believe in destiny
>>> Or the guiding hand of fate
>>> I don't believe in forever
>>> Or love as a mystical state
>>> I don't believe in the stars or the planets
>>> Or angels watching from above
>>> But I believe there's a ghost of a chance we can find someone to love
>>> And make it last...
>>>


Don;
I agree with you. My wife and I have lived with "truth and trust as
everything" going on 44 years of marriage and it works.
Oh, and we also love each other.
CID...


Posted by Michael Bulatovich on December 27, 2007, 9:53 am

>
>>
>>> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>>>> I've said that the purest form of art is the art you "never" see.
>>>>> I said it with the idea of art with a profit-driven motive as a lesser
>>>>> art.
>>>>> So in some philosophic senses, I "reject" much of what is called art,
>>>>> including music, etc.
>>>>
>>>> That you're going to have to elaborate for me. Warning: I took a couple
>>>> of aesthetics courses in school, and it's more or less ruined me for
>>>> these types of discussions.
>>>
>>> I imagine many of the world's philosophers were self-taught.
>>> At the same time, books might play a hand in corrupting thinking or
>>> derailing trains of thought, in making them "lesser".
>>>
>>>> I usually stick to formal topics, or to "thumbs up" or "thumbs down"
>>>> hand gestures.
>>>
>>> Like Ebert and Roper.
>>
>> Except taller, fitter, and better looking.
>
> Good stuff. Knock 'em dead. ;)
>
> Seriously, though, lately, I've begun to casually question whether
> "better-looking" or "attractive" is necessarily actually better,
> desireable or attractive, or what we mean by it. For example, some faces
> that some might consider as "less attractive" can be some of the more
> interesting or intriguing, hence, attractive, to me... Naturally, then
> there's personality, form, movement, poise, intelligence, style, habits,
> creativity, depth, etc...
> There are some women that just move in certain ways that I prefer, for
> example.
>
>>>> Have you heard McLuhan's (short) definition of art?
>>>
>>> No. Language is dynamic.
>>
>> He said, "Art is what you can get away with." (sic)
>
> Did he say how, or with whom? Because, as you know, a child may get away
> with one thing with Dad, but not the same thing with Mom.
> Artists may paint works just for themselves too... with the
> acknowledgement that I don't always let myself get away with everything.
> ;)

I think it pretty sure that he's talking about art in the institutional
context.



Posted by RicodJour on December 23, 2007, 3:35 pm
> Oops. Left out Art Blakey, and Charlie Rouse.

You left out a lot of people. Typing up a list of good jazz
performers is like typing up a list of pretty women. It'll never end
until you're bored typing.

R

Page 5 of 6       < 1 2 3 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: Jazz December 22, 2007, 4:45 pm
Re: Jazz January 7, 2008, 5:41 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap