And its not like they hacked the voting machines. So fucking what if trump worked with Russia on media campaigns

Also I disagree learning theory is a blast

@Deleted User
That's what I was thinking, since sufficient education fundamentally requires intrinsic motivation in the first place.

A teacher who uses 'cute pictures' to bring the youth to class, is like a old man giving out candy to get them into his can. It is perverted.

We have to accept that pleasant images sent mixed messages. It is dishonest practice.

What are pleasant images

Turn on your TV.

See Exhibit A.

I mean like a definition not an example

Surely art is still valuable , but some things are distractions

Shitty syndicated tv is a distraction, but appreciation of music or lit or what have you is valuable... Where can we draw a line basically

The difference between advertising and art. Marketting vs culture. Consumerism vs muse.

I like that

Is it intent which differentiates the work's nature as consumerism as opposed to culture?

Or is it a judgement of the product/work itself

Probably judging the thing itself

Someone can set out w good intentions to create their magnum opus and end up making trash

Depends on what you want to teach and what society. Realism vs impressionism. Object vs subject. The form follows.

Art is the conscious material of the process of living. It is contextual.

Good vs bad art could be considered the reflection of consciousness.

I would imagine, in this context of Marxism, hyperrealism but also as interrpeted by the proletariat.

@Deleted User agitation is the lowest type of propaganda. But it is also nessesary.

Agitation is the foundation. It can be built upon. But you can not build upon pretty pictures.

Like you said, enjoyment is extra.

What about the best theoretical journal on Marxism we've got?

I would very much like to read it.

I already gave you the link in English

http://proriv.ru/articles.shtml/podguzov?nauc_centr_1_eng

Read it.

Thoughts on Jordan Peterson? Psued?

*pseud

@Mawk Archetypal theory is scientifically unfalsifiable and not a suitable domain of psychological and scientific enquiry. Although said to be based in clinical observation, Archetypes are defined so vaguely and in a wide and essentially infinite variety of everyday phenomena. It is full of mystical assertions and pseudo-science.

@Zielgerät was it a memeing definition?

Are you sure you don't like Jung?

I didn't.

This theory is pure idealism

Objective idealism

When I was younger, I liked Jung. Teenagers are good at being self-centred.

Jewish religion brings on the same level of idealism.

And I completely disagree with both

Thanks for clarifying