[quote]WolBarret wrote:
Gay artwork, so far.
Someone post some Frank Frazeta in this bitch![/quote]
I got a shitload of his stuff on my Mac.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
Gay artwork, so far.
Someone post some Frank Frazeta in this bitch![/quote]
Don’t know if Frazetta ever did vampires, but here’s one from the Biz:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
No, I don’t know how it’s “encoded.” More like using way too much compression and getting back something that does give the idea,[/quote]
Compartmentalization. Would you say you compartmentalize? [quote]
but at best has the detail of say looking through cheesecloth, and perhaps 1% or 2% of the “reality” of actually looking at something.[/quote]
Would you say you see reality through the veil of your mind as opposed to experiencing reality through the sensations of your body?[quote]
And ordinarily not even that: ordinarily I’d remember the qualities, however that can be described as being, [/quote]
This is beautiful.
This is a true artist’s perception. Then he chooses a medium of expression. You may have just not found your medium yet.
Remove the veil.
You may be strongly identified with your mind, and by removing the intellectual vehicle of expression that is your choice by default, and entire universe may unfold before your eyes.
In other words, you may just need to get out of the car ( your mind ) and experience life on foot.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Wait, Bill, so when you’re in that special place about to FAP! the night away, you don’t see two boobies, but the equations for 2 3-D parabolic cones? 
Whoa, neat![/quote]
Or, even neater, maybe he can remotely see his penis in her vagina.
DB
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
In playing outfield in baseball, it’s a needed and ordinary skill to be able, from seeing just the ball thrown from the pitcher and seeing the first instants of the ball jumping from the bat and, I dunno, the first 20 feet or so of its way up, to be able to turn and run to the correct area of the field where you need to be to catch it. I can do this, as of course many can, though not to the Willy Mays extent of not having to eventually turn and look and make some small final correction.
This actually has been looked at scientifically and has proved to be a pretty amazing spatial problem solving ability. It is actually very hard to see how the brain can possibly do this.[/quote]
Spatial AWARENESS.
Parking a car is another example where spatial awareness is required. It is not a doing of the brain; it is a state of being AWARE of your surroundings - aware of your space.
Being fully awake - full, comprehensive, absolute consciousness. [quote]
This could hardly be by forming pictures in the mind and working with the pictures.[/quote]
This is not art. [quote]
It has to be some differing inner process working with information gleaned from the brief observation.[/quote] This is art.
These are not happy coincidences. They are absolute moments of complete awareness.
[quote]SirenSong61 wrote:
And art IS work.
[/quote]
I disagree.
Art is being.
I am art.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
No, I don’t know how it’s “encoded.” More like using way too much compression and getting back something that does give the idea,[/quote]
Compartmentalization. Would you say you compartmentalize? [quote]
but at best has the detail of say looking through cheesecloth, and perhaps 1% or 2% of the “reality” of actually looking at something.[/quote]
Would you say you see reality through the veil of your mind as opposed to experiencing reality through the sensations of your body?[quote]
And ordinarily not even that: ordinarily I’d remember the qualities, however that can be described as being, [/quote]
This is beautiful.
This is a true artist’s perception. Then he chooses a medium of expression. You may have just not found your medium yet.
Remove the veil.
You may be strongly identified with your mind, and by removing the intellectual vehicle of expression that is your choice by default, and entire universe may unfold before your eyes.
In other words, you may just need to get out of the car ( your mind ) and experience life on foot.
[/quote]
Actually I am highly dissociative (I’m told), and that could be described as compartmentalization, with the compartments not accessible at will.
It’s quite possible, though not having ever been another person (obviously) that I, in terms of the conscious mind, perceive things more intellectually rather than, so to speak, viscerally.
For example, I’ve owned motorcycles that accelerated really quite well, say by about 20 mph per second.
But really the only time I ever had a really strong visceral sense of acceleration was back when having the KZ1000R2 Eddie Lawson Replica, which I’d stripped down quite a bit to save weight and this included removing the helmet locks which were part of what held the seat in place. I used a bolt to substitute for that function but, as I kept the nut loose so as to be able to undo with my fingers, I had lost it and stupidly kept riding for a while with the bolt in place but no nut, just relying on the seat sort of jamming it in place.
Well, once when using full throttle in first gear, the bolt came out and the seat came undone. (Nothing bad happened, I just had to hang on entirely from the handlebars rather than the accelerative force being able to be transferred from the seat.)
Wow, that was a really visceral sense of acceleration!!!
Now if other people feel that all the time when accelerating hard on a bike, they are really feeling something. Of course I have no way of knowing if they do. I wouldn’t be surprised if so.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
Gay artwork, so far.
Someone post some Frank Frazeta in this bitch![/quote]
I got a shitload of his stuff on my Mac.
[/quote]
You have to add Boris Valejo to this here thread…
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Along those lines: actually the best imaging I’ve ever done in the conscious state was my one experiment with remote viewing.
I was actually able to visualize the target (all I knew about it was an alphanumeric code assigned to it) better than I can picture anything volitionally.
Well, I have never seen the actual target, but while it wasn’t a sharp visual image it was closer to really seeing something than I can ordinarily ever do. Although of course it is a generated image from impressions of qualities gained by the subconscious rather than being based on actual imagery, as of course the eyeballs aren’t there to see anything.
However, it was sort of a self-hypnotic state, though not exactly.
I also cannot paint, draw, or sculpt, which seems naturally enough to go along with that.
Are your dreams reasonably lifelike images?
It’s interesting to me that the subconscious can generate such excellent images and in such speed and quantity, but for some persons such as yourself and myself, there’s no carryover to the conscious mind.[/quote]
Yes, dreams are just as “real” as real life, although I have a hard time remembering them. I have thought about that many times, clearly my brain is capable of reproducing images (as in dreams) so why can I not do it in a waking state? Its curious to say the least.
Basically all I can see when I close my eyes is black. If I try HARD I can make a white dot or something similar appear and move it around, thats about as far as I can get though.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Wait, Bill, so when you’re in that special place about to FAP! the night away, you don’t see two boobies, but the equations for 2 3-D parabolic cones?
Whoa, neat![/quote]
All kidding aside, This is essentially true. I can “think” of boobies, and I can conjure up the idea of bobies, but boobies do not appear. I cannot close my eyes and picture a perfect set, or even sets I have seen in the past (ahhh…), although I have had very vivid, real-to-life dreams about them.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Wait, Bill, so when you’re in that special place about to FAP! the night away, you don’t see two boobies, but the equations for 2 3-D parabolic cones?
Whoa, neat![/quote]
All kidding aside, This is essentially true. I can “think” of boobies, and I can conjure up the idea of bobies, but boobies do not appear. I cannot close my eyes and picture a perfect set, or even sets I have seen in the past (ahhh…), although I have had very vivid, real-to-life dreams about them.
[/quote]
Oh, man. I dunno, that almost sounds like a handicap… No instant boobies? Even as I’m typing ‘boobies’ I’m “seeing” boobies. Big boobies, little boobies, bouncy boobies, nipply boobies!
Now, it’s not vivid imagery, like picture quality, but more like when you’re in a room in a conversation and you hear several other conversations. Even though you’re not directly speaking to, or even near those people, you might pick up enough to get a gist are major points from the conversation.
Funny. I just stopped typing and found it very hard to invoke boobies. Oh, noes!
Bill, another thing just occurred to me. Are you a ‘reader’, like novels, stories, etc? I’m a voracious reader to the tune of a book a week or so on average, and when I’m reading, I absolutely ‘see’ the pictures, scapes, people, events described. Sure, it helps if the author is capable of ‘painting the scenes’, but I still mentally image things from bad authors (like myself as described in the previous post).
I’ve had vivid dreams, good ones and nightmares, directly resulting from passages that I read previously. Just curious as to how you process novels and such?
Of late actually I’ve read a lot less other than necessary scientific stuff, but ordinarily I read a huge amount of various things. I absolutely never have any sort of visual image at all, of any kind, when reading, though.
I would say just I process it as words and imagining the situation, but without any pictures.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Actually I am highly dissociative (I’m told), and that could be described as compartmentalization, with the compartments not accessible at will.[/quote] I think we have chiral personalities 
I am primarily visceral, secondarily intellectual and lastly emotional. When all three centers of expression are aligned and connected my experience of reality is spiritual and that is when I produce my best art; it is effortless and at will.
When I disconnect from my gut I come into a dissociative state where I experience life primarily through my brain. I compartmentalize and I intellectualize my emotions. I cannot access them at will. Being visceral by default does not necessarily make me more emotional it makes me more sensational, more volcanic ( see how my use of visual words to describes my experience? ).[quote]
For example, I’ve owned motorcycles that accelerated really quite well, say by about 20 mph per second.[/quote] Just by reading that I get a sensation rise from my gut and my mind goes blank and I just know power. I then proceeded to look at images of super bikes and it made my feel joy. But I had no images formed into my mind.[quote]
Well, once when using full throttle in first gear, the bolt came out and the seat came undone. (Nothing bad happened, I just had to hang on entirely from the handlebars rather than the accelerative force being able to be transferred from the seat.)[/quote] Wouldn’t that mean you would have had to engage your gut more,wake it up as it were, have it come alive due to the element of surprise in losing the seat - Doesn’t that make you become more “alert”?[quote]
Wow, that was a really visceral sense of acceleration!!!
Now if other people feel that all the time when accelerating hard on a bike, they are really feeling something. Of course I have no way of knowing if they do. I wouldn’t be surprised if so.
[/quote]
Now you are talking about two different things: sensing and feeling.
I find that the more awake you are in sensing your body an increased the sensation of aliveness becomes part of your experience; you become fully feeling and fully responding - you are in fact one with your experience. The more we become one we our experiences the fuller the impact and the higher the intensity. Whether you are riding a super bike, looking/producing ‘art’, or simply staring at the beauty of the human face. It doesn’t take much to ‘touch us’ and our experience and subsequent appreciation of life is enhanced.
This is why art is being, not doing.
It could well be that my brain has learned to tune the unnecessary (or what it thinks unnecessary) out.
For example I am somewhat nearsighted, though not so much as to be unable to pass the Department of Motor Vehicles eye exam without glasses.
It doesn’t appear to me that the cause of the slightly reduced acuity is actually the eyes themselves, for two reasons. First, there have been occasions when I blinked or suddenly looked up and everything was perfectly sharp for a brief period, showing that the eyes can focus to infinity perfectly, they just ordinarily don’t. And secondly, when I got a prescription for glasses as a teenager and also once as an adult, while they worked fine at first, within about two hours of wearing them my vision was back to its usual.
But in the period while they were still working (the brain not having yet figured how to focus just a little bit closer to undo the work of the glasses) the amount of detail in the world was just astounding. Really too much stuff to have to take in. And also, people were a lot uglier: seeing all the pores in people’s skin really isn’t a plus.
So apparently in my case the brain deliberately focuses the eyes just a little short of actual distance so as to get that soft focus effect and reduce the flood of detail.
It could be the same with reducing perception of unnecessary inputs such as the visceral feeling of high acceleration: all that is needed, the brain may think, is the accurate perception of where and how the bike is going on the road. So having a mental “feel” of the acceleration that is quite precise, but really with hardly any sensory feel, gets the job done.
I suppose the feel appearing when the seat became loose (it didn’t actually came off) was from self-preservation mode kicking in and the brain deciding to let all sensory information in loud and clear to make quite obvious to me what was happening
How this might be related to not being able to visualize might be, again, sparing capacity to avoid “unneeded” mental tasks.
Or, it might be the compartmentalization you suggested, where the parts of the brain that are able to generate image simply are completely compartmentalized off from the conscious mind.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It could well be that my brain has learned to tune the unnecessary (or what it thinks unnecessary) out.[/quote] If that were the case then why do you still see in color? If all that is sufficient is to fulfil a function, i.e vision, then black and white should suffice. Seeing in color creates the sensation of pleasure - that is a fundamental form of appreciation of art, no? [quote]
But in the period while they were still working (the brain not having yet figured how to focus just a little bit closer to undo the work of the glasses) the amount of detail in the world was just astounding. Really too much stuff to have to take in.[/quote]
Aha! Your system went into OVERWHELM. I have touched on this with you before on another forum ( I believe I hijacked the thread about tinned tomatoes and went into mention two different forms of thinking: synthesis, myself, and analysis, yourself ).
And I did mention that I actually LOVE the feeling of being completely overwhelmed by my environment, by information, by people, by nature - by reality. You see, from my visceral experience of life, the necessity is in the intensity: Seeing it all in detail all at once is necessary for the sensation of being touched by the fullness of life itself.
The function I am serving by being this way “fully on” is to experience myself as powerfully alive. So when you say “too much stuff to take in” do you think that being in a state of overwhelm would destroy your sense of self?
If there is too much stuff to take in your brain won’t be able to process information and therefore you won’t be thinking ( "I think therefore I am " ) so who are you going to be in that state? Lost? This too is “art”. Losing one’s self in the mirror of life only to find a greater picture of one’s humanity.[quote]
And also, people were a lot uglier: seeing all the pores in people’s skin really isn’t a plus.
[/quote] LOL!!! I burst out laughing with you on this one! You literally gave me VISCERAL LAUGHTER…
It is true that that is so, however, here I was speaking of the beauty of the human face from an artistic point of view and you came back with a bio-epidermal analysis - LOL. Classic.[quote]
So apparently in my case the brain deliberately focuses the eyes just a little short of actual distance so as to get that soft focus effect and reduce the flood of detail.[/quote] I believe it is deliberate ( unconscious by now ). The function may be to reduce system overwhelm.[quote]
It could be the same with reducing perception of unnecessary inputs such as the visceral feeling of high acceleration: all that is needed, the brain may think, is the accurate perception of where and how the bike is going on the road.
So having a mental “feel” of the acceleration that is quite precise, but really with hardly any sensory feel, gets the job done.[/quote] Quite but it doesn’t get the joy of being. Sometimes I find myself so full of love and so overwhelmed with joy that I think I am going to die. So actually, I clearly see your point of view and you are correct in thinking that way and you are acting out of self preservation.[quote]
I suppose the feel appearing when the seat became loose (it didn’t actually came off) was from self-preservation mode kicking in and the brain deciding to let all sensory information in loud and clear to make quite obvious to me what was happening :)[/quote]
Exactly. Whether you are using your self preservation instincts to shut you down or open you up the only constant in this equation is you. Bill, the brain is not different from Bill the body. Using your brain to shut down functions that enhance your sensory inputs and that would enable visualization to recreate these sensations in your body and the state of overwhelm does not mean you cannot visualize.
It may mean you do not want to be overwhelmingly aroused by reality: ugly or beautiful. Or you sacrifice the beautiful because it is not useful to see the ugly.[quote]
How this might be related to not being able to visualize might be, again, sparing capacity to avoid “unneeded” mental tasks.[/quote] Or be in a state of overwhelm and unable to “think clearly” and break your confidence which if you associate with your capacity to perform mental tasks, what this will do, in effect, is enable you to “see clearly”.
But if your brain is not performing a task then who are you?
You are art.
That, pushes you to express yourself away from mental task performances and art is just another mode of transportation from getting us from ‘here’ to ‘there’. As I previously mentioned: experiencing life through the comfort and safety of your ‘car’ or experiencing life on foot.
It doesn’t have to be either or. A combination of both just to get your feet wet. [quote]
Or, it might be the compartmentalization you suggested, where the parts of the brain that are able to generate image simply are completely compartmentalized off from the conscious mind.[/quote]
One is a consequence of the other. Compartmentalization arises for me, when I do not or cannot for whatever variable find myself in a state of overwhelm and therefore putting it away in a drawer in my mind is safer or more practical than experiencing it viscerally in that moment. Just like in my house when I put away a piece of paper I don’t want to deal with in that moment and then can’t remember which compartment of my desk I put it away in.
I found some visual images that speak to me the experience you described of yourself as a superbike rider. This one I attached is how I “see” your riding experience before the seat went loose.
I think it is called The Bio-mechanical Rider.
This is the art print I chose to explain to you how I “see” the visceral rider.
Or when your seat went loose.
I would add to this image that: the fact that his skin is exposed to the experience adds to the element of fullness by removing the boundaries. That facilitates a person experiencing the fullness of the moment, or to a visceral experience.
Anger is an example of visceral sensation when one’s boundaries have been crossed. Love is another sensation of when one allows for a voluntary crossing of the boundaries.
In your case perhaps the brain is acting as a boundary - hence the suggestion to remove the intellectual veil.
I believe all this contributes to experiencing and or expressing one’s self artistically.
Rollie Free!
I hadn’t seen that classic picture in a long time.
I read a fairly lengthy article going into his life, largely from the motorcycling aspect. A fascinating and talented individual. Through a great period of time – several or perhaps many decades – he kept modifying the same Indian, to an extent that can fairly be called re-engineering it to quite different specifications with parts he manufactured himself, in the quest for speed. The engine ultimately became vastly more powerful than production, but really everything in the bike was changed.
His position as seen above was for streamlining and minimizing frontal area. It would probably still be valid today in motorcycle land speed racing, which my (stolen) ZX-12R was intended for, but no one does it.