On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 10:32:22 AM UTC+1 telmo wrote:
> > > Am Do, 10. Dez 2020, um 20:48, schrieb PGC: > > > > On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 4:14:42 PM UTC+1 telmo wrote: > > > Mindey asked a very interesting question, and I've been thinking about it > while following the discussion. I don't have a good answer, but I might > have a good question. I propose another take: the discussion so far has > been in terms of quanta, but what if we reframed it in terms of qualia? > > Imagine the "universe" in terms of the set of all first-person experience > moments of all of its inhabitants. Is there a limit to novelty here? Or can > qualia also display unbounded complexity? > > > No serious philosopher/linguist I know of argues for a bound there in > principle. At least not in my modest reading of antique treatments, and > neither more recently in Baumgarten, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Valéry, > Heidegger, Adorno, and contemporary thinkers. I wouldn't think Bruno does > either with []p & <>t & p. > > > It did not occur me to ask linguists, but fair enough. I would say that > there is a correspondence between language and qualia, but that is a deep > rabbit hole. Language clearly has boundless complexity, but this does not > convince me that the qualia it points to also do. We can easily fall into > Borat's "and is this cheese?" scenarios. > The why is of interest here: that Borat cheese clip illustrated how an extreme form of whataboutism was effective, that remains pertinent given how social media provides everyone a platform to distribute information and form what are effectively "news" networks accordingly; often falling prey to the rhetorical act of constantly raising another issue and/or tweet. Assuming that the store owner was not stupid, this prompts us to ask why he would comply? It is reasonable to bet that Borat's publicist/agent reaching out to the store and offering them coverage, in addition to the presence of a professional camera crew, and Borat's foreign appearance/accent/mannerisms sufficed in staging enough legitimacy for the store manager to accord him practically infinite permission to continue to raise another issue. The extreme flavor of this here, was that Borat didn't even have to change the issue. It sufficed for him to pick up another bag of cheese, which was enough to elicit consideration and response, as the store manager felt compelled to continue providing him the floor to pose a question even after a hundred repetitions.That would be a linguistically oriented aesthetic appraisal, where we are less concerned about general or consistent states of affairs, and more concerned about what makes an experience or its product particular and special. If Chomsky wrote about manufacturing consent, the digital age begs the question of manufacturing legitimacy across screens. The ubiquitousness of which may drive folks towards "this is also fabricated". Re your qualia concern: what is the upper bound to literature that writers produce (fiction and/or scientific)? What would be the absolute boundary of the literary imagination? Sure, it cannot replace experience itself or acquire scientific insights by force, but it is its own kind of experience with the potential of inspiring scientific advances, and can indeed loose or find itself principally describing all possible experience. > > And moving from sensation to aesthetic sensation, or sets of sensations > pursued as ends in themselves, subjectivity liberates the richness of > reality (or Bruno's "p" if you want) to be experienced as a pleasurable > confirmation of its broad and limitless accessibility to us. We pursue that > unbounded complexity. > > > Yes, but what if "richness of reality" is just a qualia without much > diversity? > The subject's aesthetic awareness would seem confined by virtue of either suffering or believing such a proposition for some reason. Without the ability for openness and awareness towards novelty/uncertainty, people will tend to confuse even the high probability pleasurable future experiences as a danger to their control due to their inherent uncertainty; mostly forgetting that their sense of control is manufactured or, to use Brent's term, "fabricated" by themselves and their usual interactions with the world in the first place. The known miseries being preferable to the unknown potentials for not misery. Hopefully we are able to get some control over the pandemic. Then, the next aesthetic chapters for yours truly would be skydiving and learning how to fly airplanes, gliders, anything I can afford. Of course, there is anxiety of making a mistake, lol. Yet, jumping out of an airplane and learning how to fly it, seem to be rich prospects for diversity in what yours truly considers to be real. And there will always be a next thing. personally, the list is huge. There's even sense in saving some of the unexecuted unknown experiences with a high probability of pleasurable content for later points in life, and stating "I'll want to remain naive on that until I run low on inspiration fuel lest I be trapped in fooling myself of having control/stability". There's always another dish, book, experience, etc. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1d03d0d1-4201-412c-9aa7-d9fb0333a140n%40googlegroups.com.
