On Dec 10, 2013, at 5:16 PM, William Conger wrote: > If the aesthetic is always a matter of pure subjectivity and can't be isolated > from the person who claims that aesthetic sensation, then how can you make > general statements of what those sensations are for someone besides yourself? > If what you say is true there is no way to ascertain it because it's locked > in subjectivity, inaccessible. How do you know that "non-aesthetic and > aesthetic are often times interchangeable..? Further, I don't see how you > proceed from 'degrees of ugly' to the sublime. What are degrees of ugly and > how can anyone know them when all such feeling, and thus all mental activity > is forever locked inside someone's head as pure subjectivity? > > Whatever > feelings we have, sensations of experience, we learn to categorize them as > belonging to this or that condition or cause. We learn to like certain kinds > of music because of our cultural associations and habits. The aesthetic must > be one of those categories of learned associations for subjective feelings. > Yet there may also be particular brain structures, pathways, etc. that have > been favored in evolutionary development and these may be common to all or > most humans and they may be associated with or trigger certain feelings that > we may call pleasing or aesthetic. So culture plus evolution plus > setntimental memories of personal experience may be the basic architecture of > the aesthetic, and it certainly would allow for an infinite variety without > negating that basic order. > > wc > > ________________________________ > From: > armando baeza <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > armando baeza <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 6:49 > PM > Subject: Re: comment invited > > > I believe that only each individuals can determine their own feelings > between personal likes and dislikes, yet persuasion by the more > experienced can always sway any individual that allows it.
I stand be this statement, because i've seen it happen. > Yet Non-aesthetic and aesthetics in individual minds are often times > interchangeable . > What i mean by this, is that one may have a change of opinion within > a very shot time, as i have. I realize my writing is fuzzy . > > If aesthetics has always been about the sublime, why does it > need degrees of ugly to get it there. I see the word "Aesthetics "as just a > What i mean here is that there are lesser degrees of beauty,the sublime most rare, > which I've only have felt it in music,never in art, mine or others. > That does not mean that i don't love my own work. > I lost this last line > ab > ab > > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:50 PM, William Conger wrote: > >> The whole > point of seeking a definition of the aesthetic is to distinguish > it >> from the > non-aesthetic. If, as claimed below, there is no distinction > between >> the > aesthetic and any other 'sudden' feeling then we don't have a > definition. >> If > it can't be falsified, as the scientists like to say, it can't be > claimed >> as > a defintion or theory. I would suppose that the sensation of being shot > is >> > not an aesthetic one. When I stub my toe on the damned table it is not an >> > aesthetic feeling. In history, the aesthetic has always been associated > with >> a sensation of euphoria or a sense of helpless dread or awe, as is > typically >> associated with the sublime. >> >> wc >> >> >> ________________________________ >> > From: >> armando baeza <[email protected]> >> To: > [email protected] >> Cc: >> armando baeza <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:00 >> PM >> Subject: Re: comment invited >> >> >> Tom, you ,once referred to an aesthetic >> experience as when at the >> final > second of a football game your team caches the >> long pass in >> the end zone, > winning the game. as an aesthetic experience as ( >> pleasure) >> And I agree > with that. But another person of the opposing team felt >> the >> same aesthetic > experience as (displeasure) >> I take the word "aesthetic" to >> be equal in > meaning as the word "temperature" >> A place one can feel extremely >> cold to > one that's extremely hot, and in >> between. >> ab >> >> >> On Dec 9, 2013, at >> > 11:45 AM, Tom McCormack wrote: >> >>> On Dec 9, 2013, at 12:03 AM, armando baeza >> wrote: >>> >>>> "Aesthetic experiences" as i originally understood it, was > that >> any thing >>>> under the umbrella >>>> between the two extremes of taste > ,likes >> and dislikes. >>>> good-bad,ugly-beauty,etc could >>>> be an "aesthetic >> experience". >>>> To me,that means that any sudden feeling of any kind from >> > nature or man >>> made >>>> art could >>>> be an aesthetic feeling. >>>> The > problem I >> see is that some people get a pleasant surprise feeling, >>> while >>>> others >>>> >> may feel the opposite from the same experience. Yet both are > really >>>> >> "aesthetic >>>> experiences",. >>>> ab >>> >>> Not for me. Someone > recently sent me a >> series of precarious >> mountain-climbing >>> photos. Every > single one was scary. I >> guarantee I got a "sudden feeling" >> from >>> some of > them. But I have no >> inclination to call that feeling an "aesthetic >>> > experience". Why, though? I'm >> ready to call the experience occasioned in me >> by >>> very disparate things like >> a Dickinson poem, a Hokusae wood print, > and >>> Beethoven's Ninth "aesthetic >> experiences", but not a photo of a > gruesome >> car >>> crash, or the photo of >> someone jumping out of the > ninetieth floor on 9/11. >>> Why? There'a lot to be >> learned about just what > is going on when we hear a >>> Mozart piano concerto, or >> watch Allegra Kent > dancing >>> L'aprhs-midi d'un faune.
