On 18/01/2012, at 4:46 PM, David Barbour wrote: > I would note my topic line is `inspired 3D worlds`, not `inspiring 3D > worlds`. There is a rather vast difference in meaning. ;)
Oh, beautiful wordsmith, treat me one time of thy intellect distilled. :) > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Julian Leviston <[email protected]> wrote: > you may find on closer inspection that there can be things that are > intrinsically beautiful, or intrinsically awe-inspiring to humanity as a > whole. > > Even an anthropocentric statistical metric will be subject to cultural > influence. I do grant that humans are likely to find `great heights` and `big > explosions` and `loud music` and other such things awe-inspiring on a very > primitive level, but I imagine that cultural exposure to them would suppress > the feeling in a statistically measurable way. Noted, but not relevant to my point. > > it nonetheless matters in a general sense to aspire to such a high standard > of quality in everything > > Do keep in mind the fallacy of the beard. There is a significant relationship > between quantity and quality, even if it isn't an obvious one. There are also > relationships between costs and quality - e.g. flat pay-per-text can > completely undermine various story or data distribution models. I'd posit that everything is inherently related. I call this inherent relationship context, or "is-ness" if you will. > Given limited resources and limited control over our environment, it does not > always make sense to aspire to high standards of quality. > Evidently. > > Also, a question that springs to mind is... do you find any of the popularly > "impressive" movies or graphics of the current day awe-inspiring? > > Sure. Over at http://hof.povray.org/ Sorry I was implying given a technologically-driven only context. (As in... impossible without high technology) All of those works could be theoretically done more or less with an analogue medium, no? I was thinking more of things along the lines of the commodore 64 game Archon... which is a boardgame similar to chess with a twist (take a piece and you have to fight out for the square's possession in a real time arcade-type simulation fight). Chess is a great example of something where the meaning isn't changed if played on a physical board versus an electronic one. I actually find real life chess more impressive in terms of the medium than I do the digital variety. The digital variety is often times more convenient (I can play it over the internet from my phone that is in my pocket for example), but the graphics aren't as good on the phone as they are in reality... ;-) > > > I find them quite cool... impressive in a technical sense, but not in a > long-lasting impacting sense... > > I do not believe awe-inspiring connotes long-lasting. Ever seen an > awe-inspiring thermite fire? judo throw? belch? live theatrical play? > long-lasting impacting meaning "the impact lasts for a long time" not as in the sense that the activity itself is long-lasting. (ie getting punched in the face by an assailant while standing waiting for a train takes a moment, but it would impact you quite a lot if it broke your nose - this is what I mean by long-lasting impact). > Regards, > > Dave > > > > On 18/01/2012, at 3:06 PM, David Barbour wrote: > >> I understand `awe inspiring` to be subjective - hence, subject to changes in >> the observer, such as ephemeral mood or loss of a sensory organ. You seem to >> treat it as a heuristic or statistical property - i.e. it's awe inspiring >> because people have felt awe in the past and you expect people to feel awe >> in the future. >> >> I suppose I can understand either position. >> >> But it's silly to say that awe inspiring is just a property of the object - >> i.e. you say "without something being awe-inspiring, there's no possibility >> for awe to be inspired when the conditions are right." That's just too >> egocentric. People find all sorts of funny things awe-inspiring. Like >> football. Or grocery bags in the wind. >> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKg6OJ6zhhc) >> >> Regards, >> >> Dave >> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Julian Leviston <[email protected]> wrote: >> No, I find it IS awe-inspiring all of the time. >> >> I may not necessarily be full of awe or actually be inspired at any >> particular one time... however, this doesn't change the fact that certain >> things or people themselves are awe-inspiring all of the time to me. In >> other words, if I'm in a bad mood, this is in itself not necessarily any >> fault, consequence or relationship of or to the fact that Alan Kay is still >> an amazing person. Even in my bad mood, I recognise he is awe-inspiring. >> >> Guess this depends what you mean by awe-inspiring (as I originally said). If >> you re-read the original context, he was talking about inherent breathtaking >> beauty being required or not. I think to make something inherently beautiful >> or to construct it with detailed thought is actually very worthwhile. >> Without something being awe-inspiring, there's no possibility for awe to be >> inspired when the conditions are right. When something is awe inspiring, it >> doesn't necessarily always follow that awe will be inspired, though ;-) >> >> :P >> >> Julian >> >> On 18/01/2012, at 11:34 AM, David Barbour wrote: >> >>> You don't find it awe-inspiring "all the time". (If you do, you're >>> certainly dysfunctional.) But I readily believe you still find it inspiring >>> "some of the time" - and that is enough to be an enriching experience. >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
