11 Mar 21:27
--The question then becomes one of your own inclination towards characters or environments. Just realise that for illustration at least, most characters will require an environment. Not all enviros require characters, but the vast majority of them wil still have some in there
11 Mar 21:26
--Let's make this a bit more hierarchical. Both require overlapping fundamentals. The common ones are the ones you would do better to focus on first. Perspective, Values, Form, Colour theory. Then obviously you will need Anatomy | Figures if you want to do good character stuff. For enviros you will need some knowledge about depth, architecture, atmosphere.
11 Mar 20:42
--Or... is the goal too big at this moment in time? If it is, what could be a more manageable goal, in terms of career growth (meaning, a good nudge towards financial and personal development)
11 Mar 20:38
--Nous and I share the same concern. The popular vote is to have just one focus: character or environment. If the goal is to make it in the illustration field, wouldn't it be counter productive to be just good in one aspect?
11 Mar 15:11
--Yep visible universe limits, another idea that bakes my noodle. I have a lot of noodles that get baked.
11 Mar 15:10
--And on the other end of the spectrum we're at thelimit as well. We can only look so far into space as it is old. Beyond the light of the oldest stars in existence, there's no light that can reach us.
11 Mar 15:08
--But yeah our current understanding of Physics definitely starts to break down at quantum levels....I mean nobody can even really visualise it without math which is just a form of conceptual language really
11 Mar 15:07
--oooh, what if we could! Reset the physics game, see how it plays out. Maybe we are just some god child's video game
11 Mar 15:05
--So we have to resort to thinking in ideas. You can't calculate your life in a physics engine.
11 Mar 15:04
--Maybe at some super abstract level everything comes back to physics, but even if that's the case it's way out of reach for human intellect.
11 Mar 15:03
--With determinism, the thing is that, while it's a decent model for looking at the universe, we still have a lot of unknowns both on the micro and on the macro level, so we can't say whether it's deterministic on either extreme. Besides, it's just utterly useless if you want to talk about concepts like ideals. We have models that can calculate when a star is going to die, but we can't even simulate how an ant behaves just through physics. Lifes too complex. Ideas are even more complex.
11 Mar 15:02
--haha, not sure about that one :) Perhaps...depends how good the scammers are
11 Mar 15:01
--Wise man does not get scammed, beaten, robbed or fooled easily. There you go.
11 Mar 14:59
--Exactly. I think, and I am definitely no expert, but I do tend to try and live by the socratic ideal which is the wise man knows he knows nothing. So everything can be judged as it will....and we are judgemental little monkeys that's for sure! (in the needing labels sense)
11 Mar 14:56
--I had an argument with one of my profs about that topic a while back, and he refused that line of argument pretty sternly. It's great to have some confirmation that I'm not alone on that. Doesn't make it any more or less true, but still.
11 Mar 14:55
--No I actually agree... I might have given the false impression that I am totally on the side of determinism. I'm not...it just tickles my fancy thinking about it :)
11 Mar 14:53
--Before I reply to that, since you brought up philosophy. That's the big problemwith Kant I think. You often don't know whether a decision is good the moment you make it... that's just a fact of life, but since he refuses to acknowledge uncertainty he makes up a very elaborate construct for creating 'certainty', but eventhough it's consistent within itself it has no relation to reality because of its refusal to acknowledge the unkowns of life, and in the end it's just an illusion.
11 Mar 14:50
--What really bakes my noodle is the idea of a determinitic universe. We will blab on endlessly about what we "want" and will without ever thinking it was inevitable that we wanted it due to all the complex interrelations of the entire universe that lead to that point. We think we are independent actors outside of the universe, but we might very well be the absolute centre of our own universe, but can't see it. Best Alan Watts quote. "You are the universe, looking at itself" :P
11 Mar 14:47
--I agree, that's a good approach. Some people like to focus on the science aspect because it's reliable, but that's not really sound reasoning imo. Refusing to acknowledge unknown variables doesn't lead to a more accurate view of the world. In the end, even when something is uncertain, if you think that there's a reasonable chance that it's important you should try to figure it out using the means you have.
11 Mar 14:43
--I love my philosophy and science...and yes more spiritual ideas of consciousness too. It's all a wonderful smorgasbord of ideas grasping at understanding in their own way :)
