I started this thread because the idiocracy thread was locked. There was a discussion going on about art/human reason that can still be read if others want a basis for engaging with this thread. This was scourge's last comment directed at me. My response will follow the quote. "Not really. Art is a function and consequence of the only uniquely human characteristic: the ability to reason and communicate abstractly, and thus, to learn from the past and plan for the future (the single most important factor in human survival). 'Higher' aspirations (values) are, indeed, superior aspirations. Not because of 'civilizational biases,' but because they not only are the values of human survival, but higher values and higher values alone affirm our humanity." So nuclear weapons are a product of our ability "to reason and communicate abstractly", so by necessity, nuclear weapons should be characterized as superior aspirations? Superior to what? The non-omnicidal reality of daily life in a wolrd without nukes? Same goes with art. Art is superior to what? Is it superior to living a life of direct, unmediated connection with nature where the fullness of life is taken as it is and not represented/altered? If you favor representation/alteration you are clearly being influenced by civilizational biases, or at least a set of biases associated with symbolic communication/life, which as i mentioned is derived from the upper paleolithic which hardly represents the history of humanity. It represents less then half of homo sapiens history, and a miniscule percentage of homo history. One doesn't need art to survive. In matter of fact, art may represent one of the first manifestations of humanity moving away from the natural world and into a bubble of symbolic(alienated) life. One doesn't even need the vague, pre-linear and pre-cyclical sense of time you described for survival. Humanity can use it's speed, strength and senses for survival. Our ability to "reason" with that vague sense of time may help us and i wouldn't necessarily reject all forms of time perception in human consciousness, but you are elevating them to a level which i feel shows civilizational biases. From John Zerzan's The Case Against Art http://www.primitivism.com/case-art.htm Art is always about "something hidden." But does it help us connect with that hidden something? I think it moves us away from it. During the first million or so years as reflective beings humans seem to have created no art. As Jameson put it, art had no place in that "unfallen social reality" because there was no need for it. Though tools were fashioned with an astonishing economy of effort and perfection of form, the old cliche about the aesthetic impulse as one of the irreducible components of the human mind is invalid.