View Single Post
Vondruke
09-10-2006, 09:36 PM
Reply With Quote

Basically you are asking if we find Tool ethically irresponsible or artistically hypocritical?

I think Pete pretty much got the gist of it, I don't think Tool even intended to be taken so seriously, even I have been guilty of trying to read too much into their 'mysticism', whatever you'd like to call it.

I think Tool rails against the dogma of organized religion and anything outside of that umbrella is more or less embraced, either with some guidance or with a wink and a nod, in some fashion. So if they are being serious or completely joking, I think the intention is to question the type of dogma that you have bought into. I don't think it's any surprise that you'd have a disconnect on what their artistic/spiritual vision is.

Whatever that is, sacred geometry. Crowley etc. It's all about breaking the chains of the corporation of religion itself, it's about nearly anything else. They aren't saying "this is the right religion" they are saying "ditch religion".

So in that respect, I'd say I don't see hypocrisy in their spirituality, whatever that is.

As far as some kind of moralistic ethic to be responsible for how people choose to 'take' your art, I'd have to say if you believe in the priniciple of freedom of speech, you have to dismiss this notion. If you think there is a moral dilemma here, it's probably brought about by your dogma, which is what Tool rebels against anyway. If it's not your dogma, and it's some universal compass of 'good' that we are all born with, then I'd say simply that what each person decides to do with the message will bring about back to them good or bad, depending on how they take the art and use is as a Tool (bad pun?).

I believe in absolute freedom of speech but also I think it's wise to be responsible enough not to advocate 'certain' things. That's my choice. If I am a Christian forst and foremost, how can I move beyond anything that defies my own dogma, blatantly??

I'd answer the second half of your question, as I see them, by saying I don't think there should be a universal code of ethics in art and I doubt you would either. So if it's all personal and all subjective, then we'd all have to make up our own minds. If I were a Christian I wouldn't be reading things too literally with Tool or else I might find myself with quite a conflict of interest. On the other hand, if you don't take it that seriously, then there should be no dilemma at all. That is unless it's actually the 'listening' aspect that is the problem. As long as you aren't buying into Tool's version of the truth, whatever it is, you do have your own, right? Then what would be the problem?
Old 09-10-2006, 09:36 PM   #46
Level 4 - Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 34
Bincount™: 0
Re: Tool and the Occult

Basically you are asking if we find Tool ethically irresponsible or artistically hypocritical?

I think Pete pretty much got the gist of it, I don't think Tool even intended to be taken so seriously, even I have been guilty of trying to read too much into their 'mysticism', whatever you'd like to call it.

I think Tool rails against the dogma of organized religion and anything outside of that umbrella is more or less embraced, either with some guidance or with a wink and a nod, in some fashion. So if they are being serious or completely joking, I think the intention is to question the type of dogma that you have bought into. I don't think it's any surprise that you'd have a disconnect on what their artistic/spiritual vision is.

Whatever that is, sacred geometry. Crowley etc. It's all about breaking the chains of the corporation of religion itself, it's about nearly anything else. They aren't saying "this is the right religion" they are saying "ditch religion".

So in that respect, I'd say I don't see hypocrisy in their spirituality, whatever that is.

As far as some kind of moralistic ethic to be responsible for how people choose to 'take' your art, I'd have to say if you believe in the priniciple of freedom of speech, you have to dismiss this notion. If you think there is a moral dilemma here, it's probably brought about by your dogma, which is what Tool rebels against anyway. If it's not your dogma, and it's some universal compass of 'good' that we are all born with, then I'd say simply that what each person decides to do with the message will bring about back to them good or bad, depending on how they take the art and use is as a Tool (bad pun?).

I believe in absolute freedom of speech but also I think it's wise to be responsible enough not to advocate 'certain' things. That's my choice. If I am a Christian forst and foremost, how can I move beyond anything that defies my own dogma, blatantly??

I'd answer the second half of your question, as I see them, by saying I don't think there should be a universal code of ethics in art and I doubt you would either. So if it's all personal and all subjective, then we'd all have to make up our own minds. If I were a Christian I wouldn't be reading things too literally with Tool or else I might find myself with quite a conflict of interest. On the other hand, if you don't take it that seriously, then there should be no dilemma at all. That is unless it's actually the 'listening' aspect that is the problem. As long as you aren't buying into Tool's version of the truth, whatever it is, you do have your own, right? Then what would be the problem?
OFFLINE |   Reply With Quote