On 18/01/2012, at 6:47 PM, David Barbour wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Julian Leviston <[email protected]> wrote: > > Noted, but not relevant to my point. > > Oh? You say that without any explanation? Perhaps you need some hand holding > to follow my logic. > > 1) You make an argument about contexts being `awe inspiring to humanity as a > whole`. > 2) Given the human potential for psychopathy, autism, aspergers, and other > psychological classifications, it is impossible to find anything > awe-inspiring to all humans. > 3) Therefore, your `humanity as a whole` reduces to a statistical argument > about a group of humans. > 4) I describe your argument as `an anthropocentric statistical metric`. > 5) I point out that even such metrics are influenced (subject to) culture. > 6) Therefore, my argument is relevant to your point. > > Indeed, I believe it completely undermines your point. `awe-inspiring` is > simply not an objective property.
No hand-holding required. Really? Lack of capacity in the beholder is your argument against the existence of the objectivity of the impact of certain parts of art that I'm here calling "objective art"? Would you also say that the inability of certain individuals to understand certain difficult parts of math renders those parts false? I think you might be getting caught up on individual words I'm using rather than their meaning in sum. It might simply be that we'll have to agree to disagree. You don't seem interested in understanding what I have to say, which is just fine. > > > I'd posit that everything is inherently related. I call this inherent > relationship context, or "is-ness" if you will. > > How is such a position - which doesn't seem to make any distinctions - useful > in this context? Actually, how is it useful for anything whatsoever? > To those who this matters to, this is possibly the most useful thing there is. Hehe... I present one of the most fundamentally interesting and "obvious, yet missed" aspects about life (for me, no doubt), and you subtly deride me for it. :P >> >> 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? > > Speaking of the theoretically possible is always a fun and fantastic > exercise. Theoretically, all the oxygen in your room could just happen to > miss your lungs for the few minutes it takes to die. Theoretically, cosmic > rays could flip bits into jpeg-encoded pornography on your computer. > Theoretically, yes, those images could be generated on an analogue medium. > I've seen similar such works to (almost?) all of the images on that website generated in analogue media. My point here is that certain things can't be done in analogue media. I'm feeling a bit like you don't like my word choice of "theoretically". I'm sorry that choosing that word has irritated you as much as it did or didn't irritate you. > But if we speak in practical terms - of what is `feasible` rather than what > is `possible` - then, no, those images would not be created in an analog > medium. They are the result of trial and error and tweaking that would be > `infeasible` in human time frames without the technology. The precision of > light and shadow would similarly be infeasible. I disagree. Given enough time and photoshop or illustrator, people could build those images. > > > long-lasting impacting meaning "the impact lasts for a long time" not as in > the sense that the activity itself is long-lasting. > > Of the things I've found inspiring that had a long-lasting impact, none > inspired `awe`. > I'll take your word on that. > Regards, > > Dave >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
