W. would you accept neuroaesthetics as a possible "replacement" (evolution)?
Luc www.lucdelannoy.com www.neuroartes.org --- On Tue, 8/5/08, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > If aesthetics is the study of feelings and emotions > (reflectivity) of information ordered in a certain manner > then it lies within the domain of psychology, neurology, and > cognitive science. In that case aesthetics is a subset of > science or it does not exist as a valid inquiry. But since > "information ordered in a certain way" is a > projected structuring of information, we must ask what > cognitive, cultural, and idiosyncratic patterns induce it. > Presumably, the cultural inducements may have priority over > the cognitive since cognition seems to be much more variable > than cultural patterns (more flexible and more > "fanciful"). > > So then, it seems to me that aesthetics as a distinct > subject is either replaced by psychology and cognitive > sciences or it is replaced by cultural studies. Art > history, and its objects, and art are quaint relics of a > pre-scientific investigation of mind and culture. They are > necessary forms of responsive human endeavor but if we > really want to know about feelings, emotions, reflectivity, > and preferences for ordering information, we need to pursue > neurology first, and cultural patterns second. > > Aesthetics does not exist anymore. it has been absorbed > into bigger, more revealing inquiries. > > WC > .
