On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>
> The definition of beauty that I like is that
> beauty is unity in diversity.
>
>
>
Hi Roger,

As I mentioned, I think its very hard/perhaps impossible to tie down like
that, even though I think I can grasp what you mean. For instance,
concerning the definition you mentioned: is that diversity harmoniously
completing itself, starkly contrasting itself, even in conflict with itself
to appear unified on some other level? Picking up the last: you can have a
narrative pitting protagonists against each other say in a film with heavy
conflict. And their conflict produces a more convincing unified whole that
is beautiful. Then take the wholeness of humans or machines on this planet
and look at the conflict of war.

Placing now aside, that people "die physically" in wars and not in fiction
(there are many stuntmen that have died...) and pretending all were fiction
to exercise more aesthetic, instead of moral, judgement: in both cases you
have diversity as conflict and a wholeness (protagonists/whole film against
vivid description of humanity in war). Still, Its really difficult to
answer whether one is more beautiful than the other in some absolute sense,
or to pin down properties or hierarchies that would make this so. But show
a person both films you've made, and they will prefer one over the other.
In other words, we know it when we meet it, or we see it in past or future
through introspection. So employing fuzzy metaphors instead of defining it:
it is a wild animal hard to catch, but universally present and always
easily accessible.

m



> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 10/9/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-10-08, 11:58:53
> Subject: Re: On Zuckerman's paper
>
>
> Hi Stephen, Bruno, and Jason,
>
> Do I understand correctly that comp requires a relative measure on the set
> of all partial computable functions and that for Steven "Both abstractions,
> such as numbers and their truths, and physical worlds must emerge together
> from a primitive ground which is neutral in that it has no innate
> properties at all other that necessary possibility. It merely exists."
>
> If so, naively I ask then: Why is beauty, in the imho non-chimeric sense
> posed by Plotinus in Ennead I.6 "On Beauty", not a candidate for
> approximating that set, or for describing that "which has no innate
> properties"?
>
> Here the translation from Steven MacKenna:
>
> http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/beauty.htm
>
> Because, what drew me to Zuckerman was just a chance find on youtube...
> and seeing "Infinite descending chains, decorations, self-reference etc."
> all tied together in a set theory context, I didn't think "Wow, that's
> true" but simply "hmm, that's nice, maybe they'll elaborate a more precise
> frame." I know, people want to keep separate art and science. But I am
> agnostic on this as composing and playing music just bled into engineering
> and mathematical problems and solutions, as well as programming and the
> computer on their own. I apologize in advance, if this is off-topic as I
> find the discussion here fascinating and hate interrupting it.
>
> Mark
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to