INSANITY FOR GOODNESS

[Lou Gold]

ALERT: OMHO, this is a newsworthy article.

To the best of my understanding there is nothing of a partisan political position in it. Since, I'm not a philosopher, I suggest the recent Paul Levy / Andrew Harvey interview for a metaphysical and spiritual context/meaning. The article from a NY Times columnist asks, Why Did Someone Pay $560,000 for a Picture of My Column?

I suspect that folks can do quite a few mental dances around this one. If not, it can be easily ignored. And, should Shu think it needs to be removed as inappropriate, no offense but please explain why?

[Soul_of_Shu]

ALERT: OMHO, this is a newsworthy article.

To the best of my understanding there is nothing of a partisan political position in it. Since, I'm not a philosopher, I suggest the recent Paul Levy / Andrew Harvey interview for a metaphysical and spiritual context/meaning. The article from a NY Times columnist asks, Why Did Someone Pay $560,000 for a Picture of My Column?

I suspect that folks can do quite a few mental dances around this one. If not, it can be easily ignored. And, should Shu think it needs to be removed as inappropriate, no offense but please explain why?

I can't access the article, as its behind a paywall. So I'll trust that it has some nuanced metaphysical focus and intention written into the article, and that any follow up discussion will bear this out.

[Lou Gold]

ALERT: OMHO, this is a newsworthy article.

To the best of my understanding there is nothing of a partisan political position in it. Since, I'm not a philosopher, I suggest the recent Paul Levy / Andrew Harvey interview for a metaphysical and spiritual context/meaning. The article from a NY Times columnist asks, Why Did Someone Pay $560,000 for a Picture of My Column?

I suspect that folks can do quite a few mental dances around this one. If not, it can be easily ignored. And, should Shu think it needs to be removed as inappropriate, no offense but please explain why?

I can't access the article, as its behind a paywall. So I'll trust that it has some nuanced metaphysical focus and intention written into the article, and that any follow up discussion will bear this out.

I don't think there's any spiritual or metaphysical intention written in the article but these events and how they are played sure seem to raise the whole question of what's real and the purposes to which a fiction is attached seems to make a difference. But what do I know, so I invite the consideration of others.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Lou ... The point you're trying to make is eluding me, and since I can't read the article, nor have I watched this particular Levy interview, I'll leave it up to others to chime in if so inclined.

[ScottRoberts]

Lou ... The point you're trying to make is eluding me, and since I can't read the article, nor have I watched this particular Levy interview, I'll leave it up to others to chime in if so inclined.

Dana, the article is about someone paying a ridiculous price for a non-fungible token (NFT). The article has no metaphysical analysis.

Lou, That there are crazes about what things are worth (think tulip bulbs) is not news, and has no metaphysical relevance. People behave weirdly, but we already know that. Maybe you can explain why you think it is relevant, but I am not going to sit through an hour-long video to find out.

[SanteriSatama]

NFT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungible_token

So, something about making digital goods rare and unique, psychology of ownership/projection, and general silliness of money?

[AshvinP]

ALERT: OMHO, this is a newsworthy article.

To the best of my understanding there is nothing of a partisan political position in it. Since, I'm not a philosopher, I suggest the recent Paul Levy / Andrew Harvey interview for a metaphysical and spiritual context/meaning. The article from a NY Times columnist asks, Why Did Someone Pay $560,000 for a Picture of My Column?

I suspect that folks can do quite a few mental dances around this one. If not, it can be easily ignored. And, should Shu think it needs to be removed as inappropriate, no offense but please explain why?

I can't access the article, as its behind a paywall. So I'll trust that it has some nuanced metaphysical focus and intention written into the article, and that any follow up discussion will bear this out.

I don't think there's any spiritual or metaphysical intention written in the article but these events and how they are played sure seem to raise the whole question of what's real and the purposes to which a fiction is attached seems to make a difference. But what do I know, so I invite the consideration of others.

There is, by definition, no topic which does not implicate ideas that are connected to metaphysical inquiry. It's kind of like someone creating a forum dedicated to discussion of the Sun and members posting articles about cupcakes saying, "well, these cupcakes would have never existed without the Sun!". I am sure you can see the problem with allowing such postings to continue.

[Soul_of_Shu]

OK folks, how about this as a basis for a topic of metaphysical discussion, and if so, where do we draw a line?

Predicting the NBA’s next TV rights deal, and the two sports gaining momentum despite the pandemic

You know ...something about making digital TV goods rare and unique, psychology of ownership/gamesmanship, and general silliness of pro sports?

[Lou Gold]

OK folks, how about this as a basis for a topic of metaphysical discussion, and if so, where do we draw a line?

Predicting the NBA’s next TV rights deal, and the two sports gaining momentum despite the pandemic

You know ...something about making digital TV goods rare and unique, psychology of ownership/gamesmanship, and general silliness of pro sports?

Well, once again, Santeri is onto my drift but I'm not deeply invested in this one.
The general topic of the "fake" or "faked" seems as important for metaphysics.
Does it just boil down to who and what is drawn toward an attractor?

[Soul_of_Shu]

What it comes down to is that given the feedback from the 'newsworthy topic' thread regarding the suggestion that topical news stories posted as topics of discussion should have some nuanced metaphysical focus and intention written into them ~ this current topic being yet another example of that not being the case ~ it has only served to reaffirm that this suggestion is not unreasonable, and so from now on this will be applied as a general rule. And if the source material is only available via a paid subscription, and therefore can't otherwise be accessed/assessed, then please post a significant excerpt from the article that makes clear the metaphysical focus and intention that is written into it. When I get a chance, I will update the house rules to reflect this change. Any further issues with this decision can be discussed with me via PM.