A decade ago on the other Aesthetics list: Just another thought on aesthetics Sun, 8 Feb 1998 08:26:06 EST Constructive Cognitive Confusion (CCC)
I propose that just as there is genetic diversity in order to perpetuate the species, so to, does this exist in the mental realm philosophy/art/etc. This is a product of our evolution to create a diversity of thought structures, in essence, to cover more possibilities of what nature or our own fellow man may throw at us. It is for survival. Aesthetics/art thought mechanisms must be traceable, at their root, to biological survival. >> Let me continue to elaborate on what I will term "Constructive Cognitive Confusion (CCC)". This mental attribute of ours (referenced in my first post) seeks ultimately not to delimit but to expand (diversity of thought through misintrepretation). Could it be that every philosopher/artist has a role to play in the sum total of human evolution? None of these philosopher/artists are ultimately correct in their myopic view of art but are correct in the gestalt of human existence. Luis Fontanills Just another thought on aesthetics Mon, 16 Feb 1998 08:25:13 EST Forum, There is one major component of "Constructive Cognitive Confusion" that must be addressed, that of "Faith". I had written earlier on this thread the following (these are from different posts): > It is this chasm, between the absolute "thing" and what can possibly be understand of it (by any perceiver) that I mean by misinterpretation. < <Geotge Bailey stated: Well, if we can perceive absolutely something of the "things," (or just plain old something of them) then it is false that misinterpretation is all that is possible.> < LF ----- No it is not. When this total idea becomes clear you will see that this is possible (probability of certainty is crucial to this concept). To understand one or two or ten properties of a "thing" is not to know them all and hence you do not really know the "thing". A certainty principle based on "faith" is my next step in resolving this concept to bridge the "chasm" between the absolute properties of a "thing" and our inherent perceptual limitations ------- > Then James Harbeck stated in the thread (relativity): < SNIP -- but ultimately it is necessary to admit that what is really being said is that, one person's cognitive landscape never being an exact match for another's, and experience being composed only of sensations and not the properties they signify (of course. ----SNIP---- The difference between persons, perspectives, points of view, what have you, makes for a constant stream of new information and recombination, which of course is what constitutes life in the first place--a human being is (physically in fact, as particle physicists will tell you, but also especially psychologically) a wave function, and that means a constant transformation. If there is a meaning to life, this is it: constant creation. So this incessant effort of approximation and "misunderstanding" and faith is a fundamental of existence. This I understand to be a central point of Fontanills' (correct me if I'm wrong), and clearly I agree. > Then I agreed that he understood me well since he had already made the "leap" to the question of "faith" being a key component of "Constructive Cognitive Confusion" and misinterpretation as described in earlier posts. CCC and Faith: It is clear from the above that "Faith" is inescapably necessary for us to accomplish even the most mundane of acts. Faith is the conduit that connects both absolute "knowing" and our perceptual limitations. It is , as I posited earlier on misinterpretation, a useful biological component (diversity of thought). Faith allows us to exist biologically/cognitively. The higher the consciousness of the organism, the higher amount of "faith" required; especially dealing with the higher cognitive functions (ex: abstract thought). "Faith" both secular and religious are bound to the same biological and cognitive processes; they are both on the "bell curve" though closer to each end. They are not separate entities but a part of a continuum of "FAITH". (I will elaborate further on this in the near future due to the List line limitation. Luis Fontanills Miami, Florida USA Just another thought on aesthetics Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:58:19 EST George Bailey writes: Luis's view commits him to holding that anything he or anyone else says, believes, understands, etc. about faith is a misinterpretation, just as what is said about mininterpretation and the brain, etc., is a misinterpretation. Appealing to things all of which no one can understand goes nowhere. LF ----- No! Every thought and action exists in a continuum of previous thoughts and actions. Though these thoughts and actions are constantly mutating they exist within flexible parameters of probable certainty. Many of us on this list now believe that time and space are relative and mutable. Quantum mechanics and systems of probability have been demonstrated to provide the best description of the universe to date. What is so difficult about accepting that our brains function within universal parameters; are we not a subset of the universe? Your brains organize all stimuli within certain parameters and all of us being human have somewhat similar structures that allow us to communicate, though as I suggest, imprecisely (on bell curves of probable correctness/misinterpretation). You can ignore what I am saying and convince yourself that it is not true, but this may only be self deception. This mechanism within our brains that supports this self deception maybe linked to "faith" - this concept (CCC) may invoke a new kind of existential dread and this reaction was anticipated when I started this thread. George Baily wrote: <<One of Luis's key assumptions is that incomplete understanding is equivalent to misunderstanding. This assumption is false, as I tried to explain in another post. Suppose we substitute "always incompletely understand" for "always misinterpret" in Luis's statement of his view. With this substitution, his view becomes "given the way the brain works, people cannot completely understand what things are like." Who would disagree with this? However, he goes on to suggest that faith may make up for our "inability to know something completely/absolutely." My question now is, how can faith enable us to be aware of the properties of things that our brains do not enable us to represent to ourselves? - George >> George, Faith does not allow us to see properties beyond what we are capable, but allows us to act even when we are wrong. This maybe a form of self deception as stated above that fulfills obvious biological aims. It fills the gap between absolute knowing and our inherent perceptual limitations - Faith allows action because "we believe" we know. Luis Fontanills **************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
