there's no such thing as acting

[raul]

i mean de niro cant be the devil. he'll always be de niro. person a cant be person b. alec guinness played hitler. he was alec, going nuts. actors are lyers. any actor playing anyone is still himself, behaving in a certain way, just like he behaves when hes resting.

[raul]

how about theres no such thing as replying to this topic?

[FPSHOT]

i mean de niro cant be the devil. he'll always be de niro. person a cant be person b. alec guinness played hitler. he was alec, going nuts. actors are lyers. any actor playing anyone is still himself, behaving in a certain way, just like he behaves when hes resting.

maybe that is why when people are casted for a role, they often are chosen because of who they are?

[raul]

maybe that is why when people are casted for a role, they often are chosen because of who they are?

maybe, but i have to go to sleep.

thats why i like alec so much-he has no predetermined characteristics, so he can transform into ANYONE. even physically he has no special features.

[Serena]

One who lies or or behaves in a certain way that is unlike their own characteristics is said to be putting on a act, thus acting exists.

Alec Guinness represented pretended behavior of Hitler's characteristics, therefore he was acting.

But the idea is to make acting appear as an act, which signifies a great actor.

[raul]

thanx, i didnt know that. but is it all fact, or your opinion?

[FPSHOT]

In my case an opinion and also maybe a fact. When a director looks for actors, the director will choose them based on what the character is supposed to look like.

Examples -

in Four Weddings and a Funeral they have looked for a Hugh Grant type of man to do the role of Charles, so a type of posh Englishman and not someone like Chuck Norris.

in the various Kung Fu films they looked for a Bruce Lee type of person and not a Hugh Grant.

[Serena]

Many may see it as a fact, following the definition of 'acting' or an 'actor.' But I suppose it could be falsified if you wish to over analyze it. Is there a point to all this, or just a big misunderstanding? My apologize if I am coming off as boorish, I am just curious.

[raul]

In my case an opinion and also maybe a fact. When a director looks for actors, the director will choose them based on what the character is supposed to look like.

Examples -

in Four Weddings and a Funeral they have looked for a Hugh Grant type of man to do the role of Charles, so a type of posh Englishman and not someone like Chuck Norris.

in the various Kung Fu films they looked for a Bruce Lee type of person and not a Hugh Grant.

yeah, i agree

Many may see it as a fact, following the definition of 'acting' or an 'actor.' But I suppose it could be falsified if you wish to over analyze it. Is there a point to all this, or just a big misunderstanding? My apologize if I am coming off as boorish, I am just curious.

i think the main question is 'is there such a thing as fact?' and not from a nihilistic 'nothing exists' point of view, in which you drowned in our last confrontation. (joke). i mean, one must admit that there IS something, but is it fact? what is fact? some undeniable truth? whats truth? i have no CLUE. i may as well start a thread on truth. i guess it's some knowledge, to know something. it wasnt my intention, but maybe youve seen what happend to rock thread. it became pointless. im affraid any line of thinking is ultimately pointless. honestly, i guess that was my point-there is no point. but...then theres also not my point. this is ridiculous.

the only question i can even ask is whats that something that exists.

[Lucy]

Of course there is such a thing as acting.
I've been in many plays.
I have played male roles. I am not male.
I have played people older than myself.
I have played people entirely different from who I am.
I was acting.

[raul]

Of course there is such a thing as acting.
I've been in many plays.
I have played male roles. I am not male.
I have played people older than myself.
I have played people entirely different from who I am.
I was acting.

i respect that.

[raul]

i really dont believe theres such a thing as a fact. only opinions. only...not opinions, but beliefs.

[FPSHOT]

acting like in plays, movies etc. is a fact of life, it happens.

the world is round is in my opinion not a fact, because it isn't.

2 pies + 2 pies makes 4 pies, which is a fact in terms of numbers and at same time a problem, depending on the shape of the pie and the available people to eat from it and the available space to store it

I like Hugh Grant as an actor, which is a fact because I do.

Acting to me looks like a gift and bundle of talents which manifest themselves, an actor puts himself in the 'role/job' whichever it may be.

[raul]

the world isnt round, there are anomalies, not to mention the distance between poles is a bit smaller than its diameter.

but maybe the facts you mentioned arent facts, it's possible that you stop liking him just like that. maybe you didnt like him when you were writing it, but didnt realise it. and ...this is an overanalysation.

and i'll even win an argument against my self now. how do i know the world is or isnt round? i dont. noone does. just try to prove it to me that you know you like grant.

[Serena]

i think the main question is 'is there such a thing as fact?' and not from a nihilistic 'nothing exists' point of view, in which you drowned in our last confrontation. (joke). i mean, one must admit that there IS something, but is it fact? what is fact? some undeniable truth? whats truth? i have no CLUE. i may as well start a thread on truth. i guess it's some knowledge, to know something. it wasnt my intention, but maybe youve seen what happend to rock thread. it became pointless. im affraid any line of thinking is ultimately pointless. honestly, i guess that was my point-there is no point. but...then theres also not my point. this is ridiculous.

the only question i can even ask is whats that something that exists.


So you admit that knowledge is attainable, or do you just fall under compromise? As a mathematician, do you often question your own results or are they just drawn from conjectures? If you believe in yourself, would your 'own line of thinking' should or could have a point and hold a concept of existence?

[raul]

So you admit that knowledge is attainable, or do you just fall under compromise? As a mathematician, do you often question your own results or are they just drawn from conjectures? If you believe in yourself, would your 'own line of thinking' should or could have a point and hold a concept of existence?

i dont know if knoledge is attainable, i dont believe so. well, there are, let's say various types of mathematicians, depending on to which 'branch' of philosophy of math they cling on to, or most agree with. i, for example am a pure formalist, i dont believe that mahematical statements refer to ANYTHING.

the crucial results here are Godel's incompleteness theorems, especially the second of the two, which states, that all of math cant be derived from a set of axioms, WITHIN the set. But, Gentzen's later results seem to show that by method of forcing, it can be derived afterall. it's crazy, really. But Godel's result holds only if you're a platonist, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

As for your last question, I only said I believe in myself in the sense of self-confidence, so the answer is 'no'.

[Serena]

i dont know if knoledge is attainable, i dont believe so. well, there are, let's say various types of mathematicians, depending on to which 'branch' of philosophy of math they cling on to, or most agree with. i, for example am a pure formalist, i dont believe that mahematical statements refer to ANYTHING.

the crucial results here are Godel's incompleteness theorems, especially the second of the two, which states, that all of math cant be derived from a set of axioms, WITHIN the set. But, Gentzen's later results seem to show that by method of forcing, it can be derived afterall. it's crazy, really. But Godel's result holds only if you're a platonist, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

As for your last question, I only said I believe in myself in the sense of self-confidence, so the answer is 'no'.


So is the various information that you acquire accepted as conjectures with compromise or belief that it all could hold a slightest grain of truth including the methods used in formalism and the foundations of mathematics? Even formalists seem to have acceptance of mathematical proofs even if their statements hold no virtual meaning. Does logic cease to exist as well if all statements have no reason or meaning? If so, what is the intended purpose of these statements that refer to nothing?

If knowledge is not attainable, then these differentiations of methods have no meaning either, including logic because their structures and purposes are unknown. However, belief or a confident theory is at least half-way to the extent of truth. If you at all question existence, this tends to weaken confidence, even self-confidence. Belief in yourself is belief in existence which can be seen as a glass half full of knowledge.

[62hofner]

in Four Weddings and a Funeral they have looked for a Hugh Grant type of man to do the role of Charles, so a type of posh Englishman and not someone like Chuck Norris.



Now, Chuck Norris in "Four Weddings And A Funeral"...... that I would have gone to see! :laugh5:

Anyone for "Walker - Texas Ranger" starring Hugh Grant?

[raul]

So is the various information that you acquire accepted as conjectures with compromise or belief that it all could hold a slightest grain of truth including the methods used in formalism and the foundations of mathematics? Even formalists seem to have acceptance of mathematical proofs even if their statements hold no virtual meaning. Does logic cease to exist as well if all statements have no reason or meaning? If so, what is the intended purpose of these statements that refer to nothing?

If knowledge is not attainable, then these differentiations of methods have no meaning either, including logic because their structures and purposes are unknown. However, belief or a confident theory is at least half-way to the extent of truth. If you at all question existence, this tends to weaken confidence, even self-confidence. Belief in yourself is belief in existence which can be seen as a glass half full of knowledge.

the first question, my answer wouldn't definately be the second thing you proposed. As for the first, neither.

I don't think that logic ceases to exist. But even so-the statements have no purpose. There is no intention there of anything. Math has no goal, it's, believe it or not, meaningless, may I illustrate this with how Hilbert conceived geometry? He said that instead of points, lines, planes, spaces, it could be, beer bottles, ceasars, they have no meaning. But it's the RELATIONSHIP between them that matters. That's geometry, according to him.

I agree with what you said.

Now, Chuck Norris in "Four Weddings And A Funeral"...... that I would have gone to see! :laugh5:

Anyone for "Walker - Texas Ranger" starring Hugh Grant?

naaaah, the 1st one is special, cause is about norris, the most powerful being in the universe. HE created it! with his round house. theres no match for him, REALLY! he has the SUPREME knowledge, the most outstanding witt, the charm that challenges even Serena, not to mention that he could kick your behind with his bellybutton, even if he's DEAD! THE HAAAAAND THAT STRIVES FROM THE GRAVE WOULD BETTER KNOW THE DIFFEREnce between right and wrong.

[Serena]

the first question, my answer wouldn't definately be the second thing you proposed. As for the first, neither.

I don't think that logic ceases to exist. But even so-the statements have no purpose. There is no intention there of anything. Math has no goal, it's, believe it or not, meaningless, may I illustrate this with how Hilbert conceived geometry? He said that instead of points, lines, planes, spaces, it could be, beer bottles, ceasars, they have no meaning. But it's the RELATIONSHIP between them that matters. That's geometry, according to him.

I agree with what you said.




Then if logic exists, knowledge could thereby be attainable if the principles of reason are understood. Do you 'know' if these statements serve no purpose or are these purposes yet to be discovered or properly understood? I'll agree that math is more of a discovery than an invention with no original intended goal, but has or has not its new found use help us reach a new goal of worldly or universal comprehension, thereby making the existence of logic more reasonable? Yes, I understand the elements within a statement do not matter, but surly their 'relationship' must ultimately give essential meaning to what the original statement was representing, does it not?

[raul]

Then if logic exists, knowledge could thereby be attainable if the principles of reason are understood. Do you 'know' if these statements serve no purpose or are these purposes yet to be discovered or properly understood? I'll agree that math is more of a discovery than an invention with no original intended goal, but has or has not its new found use help us reach a new goal of worldly or universal comprehension, thereby making the existence of logic more reasonable? Yes, I understand the elements within a statement do not matter, but surly their 'relationship' must ultimately give essential meaning to what the original statement was representing, does it not?

no, of course i dont know if the statements serve no purpose, but, then again, what is knowledge? Yes, it's possible they will be discovered, but I don't believe in purpose, as it is. As for logic, that's a really tough one, but I must ultimately say I dont believe in it either. Yes, I agree with your last sentence.

[Serena]

no, of course i dont know if the statements serve no purpose, but, then again, what is knowledge? Yes, it's possible they will be discovered, but I don't believe in purpose, as it is. As for logic, that's a really tough one, but I must ultimately say I dont believe in it either. Yes, I agree with your last sentence.

But you perceive the statements of having no purpose from your understanding, giving them meaning of having no meaning? Does assigning meaning to something also give them awareness as a 'fact' of circumstance thereby making them 'known' to others? If you have previously agreed that logic does not entirely cease to be, does it nonetheless still exist? Can you ultimately hold disbelief to something that may set a foundation to all the methods, beliefs and daily functions that you follow?

[raul]

But you perceive the statements of having no purpose from your understanding, giving them meaning of having no meaning? Does assigning meaning to something also give them awareness as a 'fact' of circumstance thereby making them 'known' to others? If you have previously agreed that logic does not entirely cease to be, does it nonetheless still exist? Can you ultimately hold disbelief to something that may set a foundation to all the methods, beliefs and daily functions that you follow?

2nd sentence-id say yes.

3rd sentence definatly yes

4th sentence yes

[Serena]

Then you agree that some things can be known? If you agree that logic exists, how is it possible to hold both disbelief and acceptance of existence at once? Or are these just feelings of nonacceptance or misunderstandings? For disbelief in logic may be disbelief in yourself, and all that circulates, which these principles of reason should be as abundant as the atom, but is not very well seen.

[raul]

Then you agree that some things can be known? If you agree that logic exists, how is it possible to hold both disbelief and acceptance of existence at once? Or are these just feelings of nonacceptance or misunderstandings? For disbelief in logic may be disbelief in yourself, and all that circulates, which these principles of reason should be as abundant as the atom, but is not very well seen.

I'm not sure. Maybe some things can be known. It's possible, and it's the case, that something, in this case logic exists, but that I don't believe in it.
I agree with your last sentence, if I understood it correctly.

[ShowTunes]

Um, getting back to acting... I volunteer at the National Theatre Conservatory at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts, and I know a bunch of the students and professional actors. I've seen them as they really are, and I've seen them completely transform themselves onstage, playing roles that have nothing to do with their real personalities. In fact, the students are expected to play roles that are 180 degrees removed from their selves. For example, in a play I saw on the 22nd (Tartuffe), one of the students, an African American man who is very soft-spoken and self-effacing, played an outspoken, opinionated old matriarch of a wealthy French family of the 17th century. And he was quite convincing in the role.

So yeah, acting most definitely exists. Though it's certainly true that many actors are unable to play roles much beyond themselves.

[raul]

Um, getting back to acting... I volunteer at the National Theatre Conservatory at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts, and I know a bunch of the students and professional actors. I've seen them as they really are, and I've seen them completely transform themselves onstage, playing roles that have nothing to do with their real personalities. In fact, the students are expected to play roles that are 180 degrees removed from their selves. For example, in a play I saw on the 22nd (Tartuffe), one of the students, an African American man who is very soft-spoken and self-effacing, played an outspoken, opinionated old matriarch of a wealthy French family of the 17th century. And he was quite convincing in the role.

So yeah, acting most definitely exists. Though it's certainly true that many actors are unable to play roles much beyond themselves.

thanx. Who would be those unable actors, out of the famous ones, in your opinion? I'm just curious. And which would you consider the best, out of the famous?

[PepperlandFrog]

But you perceive the statements of having no purpose from your understanding, giving them meaning of having no meaning? Does assigning meaning to something also give them awareness as a 'fact' of circumstance thereby making them 'known' to others? If you have previously agreed that logic does not entirely cease to be, does it nonetheless still exist? Can you ultimately hold disbelief to something that may set a foundation to all the methods, beliefs and daily functions that you follow? unless of course the unlogical foundation upon which one bases his beliefs is faulty or is shown to be morally bankrupt, morally reprehensible, morally wrong, morally ambiguous or you somehow forgot to take a course in propositional logic.
:rolling3:

[PepperlandFrog]

So yeah, acting most definitely exists. Though it's certainly true that many actors are unable to play roles much beyond themselves.acting exists without a doubt, even if it's only pretending to be something you could never be, or wearing a mask.

G_fSLuWwS2c

B9y4vLrHsm4

[raul]

thanx for the links, mmt is my fav beatles film. league of its own.

[Serena]

I'm not sure. Maybe some things can be known. It's possible, and it's the case, that something, in this case logic exists, but that I don't believe in it.
I agree with your last sentence, if I understood it correctly.

But you agreed that awareness of a subject matter's concept can be known? Such as the foundations of mathematics or the concept of 'acting' whether or not you know if these conceptions are real, are they not at least known by the properties and concepts that are assigned to them? If it is agreed that logic exists, even in this case, then there is no reason to hold disbelief to something that is already assumed to be true. However, it can all be disfavored, unappreciated or disregarded if what it has to show is not to you liking, but disbelief would deny existence and these are ones that hold neglect towards reality. All in all, if knowledge it to be attained, then one must know that ignorance can also be attained and opinions or belief only serve as a moderation.

[62hofner]

You mean to tell me that all the movies I've watched in my lifetime have starred people with multiple personalities???? My whole world has just been turned upside down!

:laugh2:

[Serena]

unless of course the unlogical foundation upon which one bases his beliefs is faulty or is shown to be morally bankrupt, morally reprehensible, morally wrong, morally ambiguous or you somehow forgot to take a course in propositional logic.
:rolling3:

So what makes something morally wrong if one's own beliefs are thought to be accurate or logical? A course would only be acceptance of the instructor's interpretation, it would not be of your own understanding which can and should be naturally and intuitively interpreted.

[raul]

But you agreed that awareness of a subject matter's concept can be known? Such as the foundations of mathematics or the concept of 'acting' whether or not you know if these conceptions are real, are they not at least known by the properties and concepts that are assigned to them? If it is agreed that logic exists, even in this case, then there is no reason to hold disbelief to something that is already assumed to be true. However, it can all be disfavored, unappreciated or disregarded if what it has to show is not to you liking, but disbelief would deny existence and these are ones that hold neglect towards reality. All in all, if knowledge it to be attained, then one must know that ignorance can also be attained and opinions or belief only serve as a moderation.

I dont know. Maybe...but I don't think so. (I mean the 2nd question) You summed it up in your last sentence.

You mean to tell me that all the movies I've watched in my lifetime have starred people with multiple personalities???? My whole world has just been turned upside down!

:laugh2:

and now for something completely different...WHHO ME? im telling you you dont exist? WHO'S DOING ANYTHING ANYMORE HERE? my head's gonna explode!

yeah...actors are schizophrenics! :rolling1::wave1::psycho:

and just in case lucy doesnt misunderstand, it's just a joke, of course i dont think that...

[raul]

So what makes something morally wrong if one's own beliefs are thought to be accurate or logical? A course would only be acceptance of the instructor's interpretation, it would not be of your own understanding which can and should be naturally and intuitively interpreted.

yeah...i didn't get that either. And I agree.

[ShowTunes]

thanx. Who would be those unable actors, out of the famous ones, in your opinion? I'm just curious. And which would you consider the best, out of the famous?

Well, I'm not the best person to ask because most of the actors I'm aware of are stage actors (especially those who do musical theatre), but as far as bad screen actors go, I thought the entire main cast of Seinfeld was really terrible. And anyone on Friends. And Andie MacDowell. And Kevin Costner. And most action heroes, like Chuck Norris and Steven Segall.

As far as good screen actors go, I always enjoyed Denzel Washington, and a lot of stage people I know think Sean Penn has become one of the great screen actors of his generation. Tom Hanks is always pleasant. And the casts of Taxi and Barney Miller were just outstanding.

[PepperlandFrog]

So what makes something morally wrong if one's own beliefs are thought to be accurate or logical? A course would only be acceptance of the instructor's interpretation, it would not be of your own understanding which can and should be naturally and intuitively interpreted.first off Serena that wasn't a serious remark, at all. :tongue6:

can of worms type stuff here, i wasn't trying to cross any moral divide or upset anyones applecart...

but off the top of my head cannibalism, speciesism, racism, idolatry, religious bigotry, ignorance and hatred are good examples of things that are all wrong and unjust.

and obviously cultural values, codes of conduct and societal norms are usually the way moral beliefs are enforced and ultimately defines the actions and conduct of a moral person...

NnNFryHonQo

3Gv0y1qYx1w

[Serena]

first off Serena that wasn't a serious remark, at all. :tongue6:

can of worms type stuff here, i wasn't trying to cross any moral divide or upset anyones applecart...

but off the top of my head cannibalism, speciesism, racism, idolatry, religious bigotry, ignorance and hatred are good examples of things that are all wrong and unjust.

and obviously cultural values, codes of conduct and societal norms are usually the way moral beliefs are enforced and ultimately defines the actions and conduct of a moral person...






Nor was I, these inquisitions were not meant to aggravate, I am just curious about peoples' perceptions and I did not mean to derail this thread, my apologizes. :wink2: But still, many may agree with those as being examples of immorality, yet they still cannot hold universal justification because not everyone would follow. Cultural 'values' and environment do tend to influence beliefs, and so these lines of 'ethics' do not always run parallel between cultures thus these conducts cannot really be ultimately defined.

[raul]

Well, I'm not the best person to ask because most of the actors I'm aware of are stage actors (especially those who do musical theatre), but as far as bad screen actors go, I thought the entire main cast of Seinfeld was really terrible. And anyone on Friends. And Andie MacDowell. And Kevin Costner. And most action heroes, like Chuck Norris and Steven Segall.

As far as good screen actors go, I always enjoyed Denzel Washington, and a lot of stage people I know think Sean Penn has become one of the great screen actors of his generation. Tom Hanks is always pleasant. And the casts of Taxi and Barney Miller were just outstanding.

I couldn't agree more on Seinfeld. I don't like the show as it is, anyway. Yeah Friends is also lousy acting. Andie, though very beautiful, was always annoying me a bit, and I don't like a single film she's in. Groundhog day extremely overrated. :thumbd: Kevin I really dislike, too, yes. And most action hereos, yes, those two, I really CAN'T STAND Segall's ego, he thinks he's untouchable. A narcisist. And I'd add Stallone. Arnie ain't that bad, though.

Sorry, I disagree on Denzel, he seems too serious to me. Penn is very powerful, yes. Tom annoys me, sorry. He seems frustrated to me. I'd still stick With Sir Alec Guinness, and I realize more and more just how powerful Belmondo is, especially since, as far as I know, he has no formal education.

Nor was I, these inquisitions were not meant to aggravate, I am just curious about peoples' perceptions and I did not mean to derail this thread, my apologizes. :wink2: But still, many may agree with those as being examples of immorality, yet they still cannot hold universal justification because not everyone would follow. Cultural 'values' and environment do tend to influence beliefs, and so these lines of 'ethics' do not always run parallel between cultures thus these conducts cannot really be ultimately defined.

No need to appologize, if it's directed towards me. But...hasn't this thread gone all over the place anyway? And noone seems to care...Especially not me :laugh5: and I agree.

[raul]

first off Serena that wasn't a serious remark, at all. :tongue6:

can of worms type stuff here, i wasn't trying to cross any moral divide or upset anyones applecart...

but off the top of my head cannibalism, speciesism, racism, idolatry, religious bigotry, ignorance and hatred are good examples of things that are all wrong and unjust.

and obviously cultural values, codes of conduct and societal norms are usually the way moral beliefs are enforced and ultimately defines the actions and conduct of a moral person...

NnNFryHonQo

3Gv0y1qYx1w

I agree. Two good videos, too.

Sorry for the double post.

[mari]

But did you know "fact" is a contraction of "false act"? Now answer the "is there such a thing as fact?" question! Oh, we're so intellekshual now.

[Serena]

But did you know "fact" is a contraction of "false act"? Now answer the "is there such a thing as fact?" question! Oh, we're so intellekshual now.

Only if you can verify that what you have just stated is indeed a 'fact,' or just another 'false act.' Can you ask 'what is fact?' while simultaneously asserting something as a fact?

[62hofner]

Hey, Serena... this is a Beatles site. What's with all the Reginald Dwight imagery?

:laugh5: :tongue4:

[Serena]

Where do you see Reginald Dwight? I only see Elton who has everything to do with the Beatles. :wink2:

[raul]

But did you know "fact" is a contraction of "false act"? Now answer the "is there such a thing as fact?" question! Oh, we're so intellekshual now.

i really dont know. Are you kidding, or what?

Only if you can verify that what you have just stated is indeed a 'fact,' or just another 'false act.' Can you ask 'what is fact?' while simultaneously asserting something as a fact?

Good question. Maybe the sentence 'what is fact?' is itself a fact.

Hey, Serena... this is a Beatles site. What's with all the Reginald Dwight imagery?

:laugh5: :tongue4:

hofner, isn't this 'here, there and everywhere'? Oh, you're just kidding right? You know, I'd really like to know to what extent is someones post a joke, how much of it is sarcasme, how much seriousness, etc. I had so much trouble with that, that I only post 100% serious posts now. And ...this was all a joke. Could we somehow create a MACHINE which penetrates everyone's mind at the same time, so, we're all one and one is all? Seeriously, could we create something that would measure sarcasme, joke, serious..?

[mari]

I... what, seriously?

[raul]

I... what, seriously?

I just didn't understand your post. Sorry. I still don't understand it, though.