[Thorzdad]

Not much is known at this time. Rumors of a drug overdose abound, but no cause of death has been determined.

[subego]

The drug rumors are being fueled by a report he was found with a needle in his arm.

[Thorzdad]

I read those reports after I posted.
A needle still in his arm and bags of heroin scattered about? Sounds terribly...obvious.

I understand the Scientologists weren't real happy about The Master...

[subego]

I do question when hardcore addicts OD. If you can get to the point of being a hardcore addict, you've figured out how to do it without killing yourself.

It could have been suicide, but several bags of heroin in front of you is a (brief) reason to keep living if you're an addict.

[Thorzdad]

He apparently had been in rehab back in May, and had been clean since then.
Damned shame. I always enjoyed his performances.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by subego 

I do question when hardcore addicts OD. If you can get to the point of being a hardcore addict, you've figured out how to do it without killing yourself.

I believe the problem is when quitters relapse they've lost their tolerance and accidentally OD.

[besson3c]

Two thoughts:

1) Why does there seem to be a disproportionate number of very wealthy people that can't seem to deal with their fame, are unhappy, and consequently self-destruct?

2) I have no problem with Hoffman, but why does the death of an actor bring about so much public conversation when brilliant people of all kinds die all the time?

[Shaddim]

Wealth is great, fame mostly sucks. You don't see rich nobodies bumping themselves off, it's the stress of not having your own life anymore (or real friends).

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

2) I have no problem with Hoffman, but why does the death of an actor bring about so much public conversation when brilliant people of all kinds die all the time?

Disdain thinly masked as inquiry.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

Disdain thinly masked as inquiry.

-t

[Waragainstsleep]

The weird part is that they can't live with the fame or without it.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The weird part is that they can't live with the fame or without it.

That doesn't really apply to Hoffman, though. He's pretty well-known in the industry as someone who worked to avoid the limelight, preferring to simply do the work and go home. Of course, our society is celebrity-obsessed, so it's nigh impossible for someone like that to completely avoid the spotlight. According to people who knew him (on another forum I frequent), he really hated having to indulge the (sometimes contractual) requirements of fame.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Disdain thinly masked as inquiry.

Here we go with the whole microscope bit again. Can't a question just be a question without all of this other stuff injected into it?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Wealth is great, fame mostly sucks. You don't see rich nobodies bumping themselves off, it's the stress of not having your own life anymore (or real friends).

Is wealth great no matter the extent of it, or is it only great up to a certain point?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is wealth great no matter the extent of it, or is it only great up to a certain point?

As long as you don't lose your perspective and maintain a degree of humility, it's always great.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Here we go with the whole microscope bit again. Can't a question just be a question without all of this other stuff injected into it?

The problem isn't us putting things under the microscope, it's that you're not.

I had to calm down for a half hour before I could write that post without ad hominem. Does that sound like a microscope, or an immediate and visceral reaction?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

As long as you don't lose your perspective and maintain a degree of humility, it's always great.

I don't see how it can always be great, since there are probably circumstances where it is impossible to not lose perspective. For example, if you are born into great wealth that you didn't have to earn yourself, how could you ever be truly connected to the population of those that have earned their wealth, or do not have wealth?

I would also think that it would be easy to try to buy happiness with that wealth. If you have no passion in life and no place to channel that passion, no projects to devote creative energy to, etc. simply buying more cars or whatever will not provide that happiness even though our culture conditions us to believe that money equals happiness.

So, I would revise your statement to say that if you earn the wealth, you've experienced not having it, you don't lose perspective, you have humility, and you have ambitions that inspire you, wealth is great.

There are so many ifs here though, I would say that the most succinct general-rule-of-thumb is that wealth can buy happiness up to a point. That is, if you have enough money to be comfortable to not really have to think about money again, there is a potential for happiness. If trying to fill voids in your life with reckless abandon to spending is not an option, it is probably easier to avoid certain traps.

All in all, it seems like the people that have had the most success dealing with their wealth are people like your Bill Gates' and Steve Jobs', who claim that accumulating more wealth doesn't really matter to them (and I think there is evidence to support these statements of theirs being genuine). I was listening to an interesting interview between Jimmy Fallon and Sean Parker (the guy behind Napster, work at Facebook, and now Spotify), and they both agreed that money wasn't really important to them. Parker had some interesting theories as to the sorts of traps that are out there that come in the form of measuring your self-worth by comparing bank accounts and such.

That is why I wish to only be comfortable, and if I'm ever super wealthy, I will most definitely give most of it away to projects I care about so that at the end of the day, my life won't be about the bling bling.

Just thinking out loud here...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

The problem isn't us putting things under the microscope, it's that you're not.

I had to calm down for a half hour before I could write that post without ad hominem. Does that sound like a microscope, or an immediate and visceral reaction?

Honestly? It just sounds like internet social voodoo. Perhaps my levity towards internet discussion just doesn't jive with many people, because I just don't take any of this stuff all that seriously. Why should what some random person on the internet you've never met says about a conversation like this cause anybody to require a half hour to calm down?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would also think that it would be easy to try to buy happiness with that wealth. If you have no passion in life and no place to channel that passion, no projects to devote creative energy to, etc. simply buying more cars or whatever will not provide that happiness

Why not?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Why not?

Well, perhaps I should say that it only will up to a point, or else qualify this by saying that it won't buy long-lasting happiness. Keep in mind that this applies to people whose passions are not the cars themselves. If buying the car is just a sort of gift to one's self, we all tire of most gifts eventually.

[Shaddim]

I don't know what it's like to always be wealthy, but I can say that the whole thing about money not buying happiness is bunk. There's many types of happiness; bliss, joy, contentment, excitement, etc. What it can't buy is inner peace, learning to live with and accept who you are, but even then there's more peace when you aren't being weighed down by debt and financial stresses. In wealth, there's less difficulty reaching a state of contentment, but more to reach satisfaction, and between the two I'd pick the former every time.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Honestly? It just sounds like internet social voodoo. Perhaps my levity towards internet discussion just doesn't jive with many people, because I just don't take any of this stuff all that seriously. Why should what some random person on the internet you've never met says about a conversation like this cause anybody to require a half hour to calm down?

Where you're mistaken is assuming you're some stranger to me and vice-versa. You're not a stranger. If someone's a stranger, I don't know they're from Canada, lives in Indiana is married, has a cute little kitty, likes to **** every capacitor to make things work Linux, likes poop, and here's the kicker: plays trumpet.

As in, it's your job to make an emotional connection with your audience.

As such, you shouldn't really need to ask why it is people talk about famous actors when they die. Actors become famous for their ability to emotionally move people. You shouldn't have to ask why do people talk about that which they are emotionally connected to when it disappears. You know the answer, and we know you know the answer.

That's why I got pissed off. I know you're better than that. I can't say that about a stranger.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I don't know what it's like to always be wealthy, but I can say that the whole thing about money not buying happiness is bunk. There's many types of happiness; bliss, joy, contentment, excitement, etc. What it can't buy is inner peace, learning to live with and accept who you are, but even then there's more peace when you aren't being weighed down by debt and financial stresses. In wealth, there's less difficulty reaching a state of contentment, but more to reach satisfaction, and between the two I'd pick the former every time.

To put this in more vulgar words, money buys you "**** yous", which are immensely valuable. However, the ability to go "**** you" to yourself is of much more limited value.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Where you're mistaken is assuming you're some stranger to me and vice-versa. You're not a stranger. If someone's a stranger, I don't know they're from Canada, lives in Indiana is married, has a cute little kitty, likes to **** every capacitor to make things work Linux, likes ganja, and here's the kicker: plays trumpet.

As in, it's your job to make an emotional connection with your audience.

As such, you shouldn't really need to ask why it is people talk about famous actors when they die. Actors become famous for their ability to emotionally move people. You shouldn't have to ask why do people talk about that which they are emotionally connected to when it disappears. You know the answer, and we know you know the answer.

That's why I got pissed off. I know you're better than that. I can't say that about a stranger.

So people want to talk about the death of celebrities because they were emotionally moved or affected by their existence?

Tell me which would generate the most discussion if they were to die tomorrow:

1) Sean Parker
2) Miley Cyrus

Your answer to this will get at the heart of my point.

[subego]

You know the answer to this too, and you have great disdain for it.

Q.E.D.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

You know the answer to this too, and you have great disdain for it.

Q.E.D.

I would say that I don't understand what it is about our culture that makes our priorities and interests the way they are.

Is there something wrong with my thinking this? Did you think that I was somehow judging people interested in this death? I wasn't, the news piqued my interest too, it's just that when I stepped back from my Facebook wall and the flood of posts about the death it got me wondering why, as you put it, we are most emotionally affected by certain actors and certain musicians when they die?

The obvious answer is that art speaks to our soul more than most other contributions to our society, but we all seemed really impacted by the death of Steve Jobs.

I can understand music, most of us carry that with us in our day-to-day lives, but perhaps I have underestimated the impact that movies have on people... As for Steve Jobs, maybe he was just the rare non-actor/musician that was given celebrity status, and maybe it is harder for people outside of movies/music to achieve this same level of celebrity status? I guess that makes sense...

[subego]

You're not being judgemental about Miley Cyrus? If she were to die suddenly tomorrow, would you consider the monumental amount of discourse it would generate to be a proper proportion?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So people want to talk about the death of celebrities because they were emotionally moved or affected by their existence?

Tell me which would generate the most discussion if they were to die tomorrow:

1) Sean Parker
2) Miley Cyrus

Your answer to this will get at the heart of my point.

Who said emotions have to be positive? Revulsion is an emotion.

[subego]

Are people that genuinely revulsed by her? Seems like haters gonna hate.

[subego]

NY Daily News article implies the heroin was cut with painkillers.

That's probably what got him then. I've always understood it takes conscious effort (or ignorance) to OD off of just heroin.

[Shaddim]

That's what got Ledger, you'd think they'd know by now...

Originally Posted by subego 

Are people that genuinely revulsed by her? Seems like haters gonna hate.

She's pretty I suppose, the problem is she's so... tacky.

[subego]

I'm not exactly a fan myself, but I get the appeal. I'm not going to accuse people who like her of "doing it wrong".

Same with Bieber.

Or Ke$ha (who I actually like a like a little, and have bought songs of hers).

[subego]

Also, I've said this before, and I'll try not to get ranty, but being an actor is psychologically damaging.

There's a reason people say "be yourself". Actors do the opposite of that. It's not healthy.

[Shaddim]

Yes, they're doing it wrong, and so is she:

NSFW

 

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

You're not being judgemental about Miley Cyrus? If she were to die suddenly tomorrow, would you consider the monumental amount of discourse it would generate to be a proper proportion?

No, but for a whole different of reasons (i.e. that what she represented was not being identified and discussed). I would also probably personally question the proportion once it reached a certain point, although perhaps I would be more careful about who I shared that questioning with, unlike how I've done here, in testing the waters a little more carefully and speaking to people that I know to not be Miley fans so that I don't cause unwanted confrontation.

My questioning of this would not make me a terrible person either, many people question the hype and priorities about many things, including in this very forum when it comes to big tech releases or Keynotes. Sorry, Miley Cyrus is a human being, not a thing, but she's also a thing (i.e. commercial product), and the fact that she is a thing is the very reason why she was even brought up as an example here - it's an inescapable part of her existence. The mourning that would come about because of her death would largely be a result of her being a thing too.

[subego]

My response had nothing to do with my opinion of Hoffman.

Is it not okay to be emotionally moved by Miley Cyrus?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

My response had nothing to do with my opinion of Hoffman.

Is it not okay to be emotionally moved by Miley Cyrus?

I didn't say it isn't okay.

[subego]

It's okay only if they shut up about it? Or if they talk about Sean Parker too?

You have an issue with the proportion. What is that issue?

[besson3c]

Forget it subego, I don't really care enough about this subject to burn through another forum page or two on this.

[subego]

Forget it?

I have a loooooong memory, pal!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Forget it?

I have a loooooong memory, pal!

Maybe you should take up sniffing paint fumes?

[auto_immune]

Originally Posted by subego 

Forget it?

I have a loooooong memory, pal!

Which is a perfect example of your obvious need for conflict. ( Le chameau ne voit pas sa bosse )

Just sayin....

[Face Ache]

I would like to work this forum into a script for a TV show. It will be set in an old folks home with recurring characters arguing about nothing.

A bit like Seinfeld, but with none of the humour or wit.

[auto_immune]

You mean we would all be Kramer?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Where you're mistaken is assuming you're some stranger to me and vice-versa. You're not a stranger. If someone's a stranger, I don't know they're from Canada, lives in Indiana is married, has a cute little kitty, likes to **** every capacitor to make things work Linux, likes poop, and here's the kicker: plays trumpet.

As in, it's your job to make an emotional connection with your audience.

As such, you shouldn't really need to ask why it is people talk about famous actors when they die. Actors become famous for their ability to emotionally move people. You shouldn't have to ask why do people talk about that which they are emotionally connected to when it disappears. You know the answer, and we know you know the answer.

That's why I got pissed off. I know you're better than that. I can't say that about a stranger.

Honestly, I understood besson's question and thought it was relevant.
I thought you were way overreacting. But that's me, and I have zero connection to this actor. I had absolutely no idea who he was, and it seems that the only movie I've seen that he was in was Lebowski.

And as you know, whether I'm making music, mixing it, or teaching it I am ALL ABOUT the emotional connection.

However, your reply I quoted above is a good one.

That celebrities are celebrities because it's their job to emotionally connect with people, and that it follows that people take an "unnatural" interest, is an interesting take.

I'm not sure it's really the truth at heart, though. Because tabloids used to be/still are full of royals-and-jet set-gossip, too, where that does not necessarily apply — or does it?

[auto_immune]

I feel bad that Hoffman died, but at the same time I realize that his death was caused by his own stupidity and ignorance.

What is even sadder is that a dead junkie is what passes for sensational news these days, and if it is a semi-famous or well known actor the media will play it for all it is worth. Jim Morrison hit the nail on the head when he described the media as "in coffins, interveiwing worms".

[Spheric Harlot]

Dead junkies used to pass for news, back when people still cared about people dying.

These days, it's only dead celebrity junkies that pass for news.

If you're just reducing people to whether they used drugs or not, there's a whole lot of humanity you've disqualified to non-interest.

Including Jim Morrison.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Forget it subego, I don't really care enough about this subject to burn through another forum page or two on this.

Which is funny, because you bring up this exact same question in every single celebrity death thread.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That celebrities are celebrities because it's their job to emotionally connect with people, and that it follows that people take an "unnatural" interest, is an interesting take.

I'm not sure it's really the truth at heart, though. Because tabloids used to be/still are full of royals-and-jet set-gossip, too, where that does not necessarily apply — or does it?

Yeah, that was exactly where my thoughts wondered originally...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Which is funny, because you bring up this exact same question in every single celebrity death thread.

I think you and Dakar might need new hobbies. Remembering the threads I wrote to better than I is just downright creepy.