You both leave the middle out. Well, Michael implies a synthesis. It's both, I mean the inner informs the outer and the outer informs the inner organically, simultaneously.
WC --- Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On May 8, 2008, at 8:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Now, either your "beauty" is a > > mind-independent object like that physical > painting and that car, or > > it is solely > > notional, and therefore idiosyncratically > different in each mind. > > > I'm not quite sure what's in your mind when you say > "notional": can > you explain? My quick conclusion is that, for you, > notional denotes > things held in the mind. Do you use that term in a > more specific or > precise way? > > Moving on, consider this question: Are proportions > and various other > descriptions of the relationship of one thing to > another part of the > object "out there" or are they exclusively in one's > head? I believe > that, if there is an "out there" there, then the > relationships are out > there in the objects. However, they are known to us > "in here," as > matters of knowledge or cognition. > > Thus, the properties that we deem to comprise beauty > are resident in > the objects, in some way that can be perceived by us > and reduced to > our understanding. The human figure that stands 8 > heads high is out > there; we perceive that person or drawing, make the > measurements that > reveal those proportions, and pronounce that > particular ratio > beautiful or not. > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
