---------- Original Message ---------- From: "Frances Kelly" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Beauty is considered to be the culmination or perfection of specific qualities Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:21:44 -0400
>Frances to Boris and others... Allow me to butt into the discussion with some pragmatist opinions that have stuck with me over the years here, but which ideas may be relevant to your points and even worthy of correction. My text as unintended prose by the way may reportedly seem tedious to some, but for a good argument to be sound it need not pander to the joy or taste of any reader. 1. >Under the philosophy of realist pragmatism the theory of evolution, and to include most if not all aspects of material Darwinism, embraces the source and growth of both (1) physiotic systems of mechanistic matter and (2) biotic systems of organic life in the whole wide world, so that even psychical and intellectual and scientific knowledge evolves by the process of evolution. -The Law of the survival of the fittest works in both cases. Difference is- mechanisms of evolution of the open systems (organic life), and stuff without metabolism, what we call dead stuff. >2. >The further theory of evolutionary love holds that evolving stuff gives of itself freely for its own sake and asks nothing in return for the effort. In other words, atoms basically give to other atoms. For example, the sun gives its energy in the form of light and heat, to the physiotical earth from which the earth reacts in say chemical and electrical ways for purposes at least of gravitational continuance, or to the biotical earth from which living organisms like plants and animals will take this energy for purposes at least of thriving survival. The solar sun does not create or cause the planet earth nor its physiotic matter and biotic life, in the manner of an origin or source, but the sun is their determining limit and ground and trait. -Physical dependency and connection I can't call love. I have a problem with word 'give' between rocks or stars, and even more with "freely for its own sake and asks nothing in return for the effort". The physical connection is always reciprocal just for 'being' sake. >3. >The stuff of the world evolves by fated dispositional tendencies. These bents and traits are habits and rituals that have become laws from sheer routine regular repetition. The conduct of matter and life is an inclined leaning, so that such stuff will do as it must by law, because it simply cannot act in any other way. For example, water on earth runs down hill by the laws of gravity, since it can do no other. The laws of nature, to include the laws of mathematics and logics and science, are objective phenomenal constructs that the human mind merely discovers accidentally, rather than invents arbitrarily. What is found however is not a rigid mechanical world of action predetermined by some agent of design like a god, but rather is a rigorous phenomenal world of action determined by the evolutionary process of purposive telic design, whereby the natural agent of design is a fated dispositional tendency. -I can live with that. >4. >Now, if a nonhuman organism attends to itself or to some other self, via say playing or grooming or gaming, it will be for the sake of some other reason, such as to get food or sex or help; but, if a mature normal human being attends to an object like itself or a work for purely aesthetic or artistic purposes, it is then for its own sake solely alone and for no other reason. Only humans will be attracted to or be engaged in funning or joking or playing or preening or grooming or gaming for its own sake; and this evolutionary fact is likely the original source of art. -A mature normal human being attends to an object like itself or a work for purely aesthetic or artistic purposes, it is then for its own sake and for the sake of the whole society. Evolution is a progress for the sake of survivability. Art is one of the mechanisms that makes society function. >5. >The evolutionary process that makes matter into life, and then life into mind and especially mind into consciousness, is a magical mystery still as yet unknown to the field of science. If there is to be a supereal "spiritual" component here it simply lays in the spirit of life that makes the biotic organism a live soul and even last a human being. The connectivity between matter and mind or between human and art is all part of the same evolutionary process. Since mind is of matter, then it can rightly and justly be held that matter is effete or weak mind that engages in pseudo or quasi thought, because there is as yet no other explanation of how a mature normal human being attends to an object like itself or a work for purely aesthetic or artistic purposes, it is then for its own sake solely alone and for and as the mechanisms they are. The connectivity might be best defined in the logical terms of relativity or of contextual relations. Agree, except 'solely alone'. Boris Shoshensky Boris wrote... I am sorry I complemented you on separating human attraction to the aesthetic of beauty in arts and human and animal attraction to purely physiological elements in the mechanisms of survival. I don't like recycled discussions, but I will help clarify your own writing for you. Experiencing the work of art is much more then attraction of a bee to the flower. The difference is a spiritual component and involvement of a human creation. To use the word attraction in the connection between earth and sun is stupid, so I try to avoid to do that. They are not biological systems. Their survival depends on physical laws, not 'Darwinism'. Chris wrote... Given his past interest in considering aesthetics as a biological process, I was hoping that Boris would jump at the opportunity to discuss beauty as a kind of attraction, and then discuss attraction as a biological principle (the attraction of bees for flowers, vultures for carrion, male for female, etc). Indeed, I was even hoping that Boris would expand that discussion to the rest of our universe (the attraction of the earth for the sun, positive ions for negative ions etc), and perhaps connect it all to the inclination of things "to evolve in the direction of good end goals, aside from any bad exploratory paths temporarily taken." (as Francis has put it) But alas, he would seem to prefer to distinguish beauty from attraction. It's just that he hasn't begun to do that either. Perhaps the hot summer weather has addled him. Perhaps it has addled me as well, because I finally appreciate some of Frances' tedious prose: "The aesthetic and artistic differentia of natural and cultural objects and their forms with their "qualities" is to further be found in the force and power they have to reflect worthy values and to evoke intense responses in extraordinary ways. The differentia of artworks is found in the ability of their form to be empowered and reflective and evocative in ways not possible with ordinary objects of nonart. The form of an aesthetic object to be agreed as a work of art must bear and yield this power, and to further show this power as being able to reflect worthy values and to evoke intense responses." The phrase: "power they have to reflect worthy values" should be added to Michael's aesthetic credo, although his modern self would probably recoil from it for a variety of reasons. (which both Cheerskep and William would be happy to provide, were they not also on summer vacation) ____________________________________________________________ Protect your home before it is too late. Click here for homeowner insurance information. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYVwirfi7bvB2K0DEoGnjalVa nzqn6WrtESqx0KrsmBp0QCtsnuK6M/
