You have to admit Cheerskep, Brady makes a clear statement about beauty, as we call it, or existing and sensed information in a material or mental form which is for some reason bolsters delight in our little hearts. Boris Shoshensky
-- 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] _____________________________________________________________ Boost your productivity with new office software. Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4s9zEhfaIKiXC3PodqdHmgLU A5QhvdNogOl2rXIW0Nxjovv2/?count=1234567890
