Quoting Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > [Krimel] > > I am certainly willing to reconsider. Especially when I find anti-Randian > > liberialisms like this coming from Einstein: > > "A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life > > are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I > > must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received > > and am still receiving..." > > [Platt] > . . . which does not detract one iota from the magnificence of his > individual achievements. > > [Krimel] > So he had superior insight into the nature of the universe and the human > heart but he was confused about politics.
Where did I say that? You did read things into statements that aren't there, don't you? No very "scientific." > > [Krimel] > > I believe what both men are talking about is exactly what you previously > > claimed not to understand about how physicists see things. > > [Platt] > When and what did I claim not to understand about how physicists see things? > > [Krimel] > Perhaps I misunderstood but on June 6th In the Paradise in Cyberspace thread > you said: > > "Anyway, why beauty shows up in the equations of physics has never been > explained by those who reduce everything to quantum fluctuations." Oh, OK. > And so I stated: > > > [Krimel] > > Beauty in this sense refers to elegance of thought, harmony of concepts > > and simplicity. It has to so with seeing the connections between > > apparently disparate things. > > [Platt] > I don't think beauty in "this sense" is experienced any differently than the > than the beauty felt listening to a Rachmaninoff concerto. > > [Krimel] > I suppose, but then why beauty shows up in the dreary pounding of the piano > has never been explained by those reduce everything to emotional > fluctuations. Right. Beauty has never been explained, period. Except Pirsig comes close with his premise of Dynamic Quality and how, when you were in the presence of beauty, DQ all around "shone through." > > [Krimel] > > It is why it in not scientists who are missing an aesthetic sense so much > > as romantics who find ugliness in what they are unwilling or unable to > > understand. Come to think of it perhaps it is the whole idea of > > understanding that is beautiful and failure to understand that is ugly. > > [Platt] > Depends on what you consider to be "understanding." From what I gather from > your exchange of views with DMB what you consider to be in the realm of > understanding is somewhat limited. > > [Krimel] > Since that "exchange" has been almost entirely one sided even I am not sure > what to make of it. Feel free to join in Dave seems to need a little help. > > [Platt] > Perhaps, but I suspect you have "blown away" by something beautiful more > than once. > > [Krimel] > In an Einsteinian sense I am with you on that one. I think he was pretty > spiffy anyway you slice him. But let me share this one. When I was a > teenager I had an elderly aunt and uncle. They never had children and filled > their home with leaded crystal and other breakables. She suffered greatly > from arthritis and was more fragile than cut glass. Once in an otherwise > unremarkable incident I watched my uncle assisting her as she was trying to > get into the back of a '68 Ford. His tenderness and concern with her well > being in that moment is still among the most beautiful things I have ever > seen. Thanks for that. A truly "shining" moment. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
