--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > William writes: > > > But I say everything has it (radiance) and one > needs > > to be sensitive to it. > > > Two points. First: If everything has it, then having > it distinguishes an > object not at all. I had the impression you were > saying something about its being > the element that distinguishes what you'd call "art" > from "non-art".
No, I'd say art and unart are matters of description, not the external reality. > > The second point I've already made, and you ignore > it: If indeed you do think > it's the "radiance" in an object that distinguishes > an object as "art", how > come other sophisticated folk of respectable > sensibility don't see it when you > do? Are you the optimal, last-appeal judge? Yes and no. It's up to me to try to describe it better if others say they don't get it. I'm sort of claiming that this so-called radiance is always present in everything, including mind, but needs to be expressed (that's Kandinsky's internal necessity or Aquainas' spiritual "soul" or such like...and it's both conscious and unconscious, the ultimate esence of reality. We don't create it, we describe it as best we can, over and over, metaphorically and ever newly). > > William goes on: > > Since beauty is a matter of description and not > > definition, I agree that everyone could indeed > have > > different descriptions. > > > You say: > "I'm insisting that description is not > definition and descriptions are infinite in the > sense > that nothing can really be fully described. > Descriptions are metaphors, and open to > modification, > debate, judgment, improvement, etc., in soliciting > consensus." > > > I'm still not sure what you have in mind with > "describe", but I sense you > continue to think "beauty" IS. I'd say that > different people -- automotive > engineers, artists, housewives, farmers -- would > "describe" a particular Rolls Royce > differently. Does this usage of 'describe' seem > based on the same notion you > have in mind with the word? Yes, I think so. > > If it is, then I repeat you apparently think > "beauty" is a mind-independent > object of some kind, and, no matter how people > describe it, it "IS" what it it > "IS", just like the mind-independent Rolls Royce. > I could summon an > explanation of what I have in mind when I say the > Rolls Royce "is", but it'd be > entirely in terms of Peircean anticipated future > experience, where by 'experience' > I'd mean sense data I'd take in if I went into my > neighbor's garage: I'd > experience this visual data, that smell; if I > knocked on it I'd feel this; if I > grabbed that handle I "see" then what I term a > 'door' would open etc. I'd believe > you could do the same. If I claimed there IS a Rolls > Royce in my neighbor's > garage, but we went in there and neither of us could > do any of those "sensual" > things, I'd have to admit I was wrong: There IS no > car there. Because the > occasion for those sensations for both of us is all > I could have in mind in saying > there IS a Rolls Royce there. Mind/brain is also part of the "out-there" reality. I'm simply trying to understand an old concept that radiance some such essence permeates everything, including our mind/brain/soul/self (any term will do) and our capacity as interactive beings enables us to become aware of that and to describe it to make ourselves and others more keenly aware of it. The more keenly we describe it (we can't duplicate it or create it or add or subtract it) metaphorically (art is metaphorical, centered on just that describing), the better, we say. When the describing is done extremely well, influentially, then we call it beautiful. We've become more keenly aware of that "something" Aquainas and Maritain called radiance. Incidentally, I'm not in agreement with either author, as far as I know them, especially Maritain, on art. > > I honestly have no idea what you have in mind when > you talk about that object > you believe "exists", 'beauty'. > > You say: > > > > You are committed to a mechanical, literal, > > materialist objectivity in a situation re art and > > beauty, etc., as concepts (however open-ended) > that > > are not subject to such measurements. > > > This I know: There is a "material" painting on the > wall in my living room. > When I contemplate it, I see, smell, can touch -- > just like the Rolls Royce -- > and experience certain feelings I cherish. 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 claim it's totally notional, and your apparent > belief that it's > non-material but still a mind-independent object is > as misguided as your apparent belief > in mind-independent "concepts" --or, more to the > point, "deliciousness". > Yep, I'd say that deliciousness is a mode of describing a sense perception. It goes beyond a recognition of some nerve and brain signal that something healthy to our bodies is at hand or being consumed. So when we say deliciousness we are valuing that sensation and the valuing is a description, a consciousness of the radiance, the beautiful, in us and out there simuoltaneously. I agree it's a spiritual notion, if by spiritual we mean something permeating and fundamental, perhaps inseperable from reality (the sensory stuff). > > WC
