Freethought & Rationalism Archive

philechat · 07-06-2002, 05:00 PM

~The world as it is, the numena, the unity and diversity of the numena, is without meaning, without truth, without identity until a "consciousness" is evolved to interact with the numena

~The interaction of the consciousness and the numena causes the formation of phenomena, which we treated as experience.

~We have assess only to the phenomena, and we interpret the phenomena, a mental picture formed in our mind, with our symbols, giving unity and identity to our experiences.

~Science tries to unite the experiences under tightly controlled conditions, attempting to predict future experiences (of phenomena)

~Art and religion are also interpretations of phenomena, serves to unite experiences into an identity or coherent whole.

~Now the problem of science, art, and religion. Are religions wrong in offering us a coherent interpretation? Is science the only one that has truth-value to our experiences?

~Science, art, and religion are all intersubjectivity, because of their relience on symbols which attempts to transcend the boundary of individual subjective experience toward a collective experience. How are they different from one another? Could we defend one kind of intersubjectivity over another? Could we ignore any?

~An analogy to visual art could be used to distinguish them. Science is to experience as photography is to visual art; religion is to experience as artistic convention is to visual art.

~Photography captures the scene with a higher accuracy than painting. When one sees the photography of a certain location one expects the visual experience of the location to be similar to that expressed by the photography. However, photography still contains a perspective; one's experience of the location would incoperate more perspectives than those expressed in the photographs. Science was but an incomplete description of experience.

~Let's suppose an artwork of the location now that is more concerned with artistic conventions than of accurate description; such is the essense of religion to experience. In the artwork one recognizes immediately that a given shape corresponds to a given object. The green ovals always represent the leaves of the tree, and the white pentagons, houses. In this depiction one could still form a mental picture of the possible experience of the location.

~Therefore there's no incompatibility between science and religion; they are but seperate interpretations of the experience.

~The problem comes when religion tries to imitate the forms of science. Historicism. Literalism in art. Paintings that are concerned only with details and photographic depiction of the scene. And then a convention that prohibits all other kinds of artistic conventions. French academic school of the 19th century. They call such art realistic depiction of experience, while it was but a severe lack of aesthetic taste. In them art is sacrificed.

~Each artwork should be of its own form. An art that sticks to only one convention would soon exhausts itself of greatness. And for the beloved painter that insists on literalism (for some reason this particular form is popular)--may you please kindly go to hell.

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]

Ierrellus · 07-07-2002, 03:35 AM

philechat,

I agree that an aesthetic perpective should be preserved. For me, the problem is which perspective ought we to perserve? Bad art and bad religion persist for centuries. Bad science probably can't last a decade. In contrasting science and aesthetics, you seem to forget the aesthetic beauty of many scientific discoveries. In including religion with art, you seem to forget the human deaths and slaveries imposed on the masses by the major religions.

Ierrellus

PAX

[ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]

philechat · 07-07-2002, 05:04 AM

Science is a kind of art. Photography is a kind of visual art. They could both be extremely beautiful, sometimes even more beautiful than the experience itself. Science is not without perpective, but who says that a science with a perspective is wrong?

What I deem wrong in my last analogy is when religion tries to imitate science (literalism in painting, the emphasis that only a certain form of art represents experience). When religion thinks that only a given perspective should be perserved it kills its beauty. When visual art insists that it describes reality like photography it kills itself.

An aesthetic sort of religion (like the pluralism/syncretism of Roman Empire) might not be "harmful" if practiced correctly. Unfortunately too many people treated religion literally as if it was science.

Personal-god monotheism, for example, is one kind of religion that should kindly perish in hell

[ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]

Keith Russell · 07-09-2002, 08:29 AM

Greetings:

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality, according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."
--Ayn Rand.

The problem with defining art, is that few agree as to what constitutes 'selectivity'--let alone 'reality'.

For Rand, photography is not 'selective' enough to qualify as an art form.

Others have the same problem with Tray Emin's "Bed".

Still, even if everything 'can be' art, that doesn't mean that everything 'is' art.

(And even if everything 'is' art, that still doesn't mean that all is 'good art'.)

Keith Russell
Synthetic Sky Studios
Science Fiction Fine Art
<a href="http://www.syntheticsky.com" target="_blank">www.syntheticsky.com</a>

WJ · 07-09-2002, 10:00 AM

As a musician, who/what determines whether art/science is good or bad? Bad art, science or music can, does, and will exist forever. It is people who create both and determine by some [imperfect]criteria which is most useful/beneficial/beautiful for a society to value.

IE, 1. Treating the symptoms and not fixing the cause. 2. Setting up criteria that is based upon any form of judgement/rationale.

If science (mathematics) and/or aesthetics are to be created and valued based upon there useful eloquence, what else is there or left to pass perfect judgement? In other words, as Keats once said;

'Truth is beauty, beauty is truth. That is all ye know, and all ye need to know'.

What is absolute beauty? What is absolute [beauty in] science? What is truth? What works and doesn't work?

Perhaps they are all tools of expression/comunicating a need; a need to know, thru the experience of life and living.

Walrus <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

philechat · 07-09-2002, 02:09 PM

Interesting, isn't it? Let's say that the most stable sound is an octave, since the sound waves are synchronized, with little interference. But do humans thus judge the most consonant chord to be the the most beautiful? No.

Dissonance of varying degrees are also tested in people with different levels of musical trainings. The tests show that the most simple music (church hymns, folk) does not arouse the most interests from people. A certain level of dissonance is intrinsically beautiful to the human ear.

A more interesting point is that the longer and more advanced a person's musical training is, the more dissonance he/she could tolerate. A piece by Bartok or Alban Berg may sound like deranged noise to most people, but drive a classically trained musician to ecstacy.

There are also studies that show creative individuals to prefer a higher level of complexity and dissonance (in all kinds of art and science) than average. Therefore I think beauty is subjective to a person's nature and training, and more than one aesthetic criteria should be used when accessing any arts.

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]

James Still · 07-09-2002, 02:33 PM

Quote:

~The world as it is, the numena, the unity and diversity of the numena, is without meaning, without truth, without identity until a "consciousness" is evolved to interact with the numena

~The interaction of the consciousness and the numena causes the formation of phenomena, which we treated as experience.

In describing aesthetics you've also described the basic position of postmodernism. Postmodernists hold that the physical world is without truth. Truth is a function of language and language requires thinking subjects like us. The strange thing about postmodernity is that it is actually premodern (since it's been with us since at least the ancient yogis as codified by Patanjali in the second century BCE).

WJ · 07-10-2002, 05:00 AM

James!

I'd like your opinion. I agree that postmodernist's hold that physical truth lack a complete meaning of truth, but I didn't think that language was very important to them. Since coherent language is tied very closely to the basic tenants of logic and rationalism for its so-called criteria of truth (for lack of), I would think the postmodern man would poo-poo that particular method or quality as the sole means to a discovery of a particular truth in one's life.

I think it goes back to Kant's critique of pure reason...

...I'll be thinking of some examples....

Walrus

Keith Russell · 07-10-2002, 07:28 AM

Greetings:

I view 'truth' as 'existence' itself.

Art has both objective elements, and subjective elements. Art is created by the artist according to his or her concepts, translated through craft and skill.

The result is a tangible, conrete work of art, a 'thing' with a specific, objective identity.

The audience then perceives this conrete work according to the both accuracy of their perceptions, and whatever mental ability and information they possess, through which their perceptions are translated.

What is created may not be exactly what the artist 'had in mind', and what is perceived might not be exactly what the artist created.

Cool, huh?

Keith.

John Page · 07-10-2002, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by James Still:
Postmodernists hold that the physical world is without truth. Truth is a function of language and language requires thinking subjects like us.

Hi James:

I'm a little confused about what PostModernism is supposed to be, and maybe there isn't a very clear definition which would be consistent with some claims that philosophy, Post Modernism, is a confusing mess. If you have any good references that might help to unconfuse me (or at least help me understand the confusion) I'd much appreciate it.

I'm interested in your "Truth is a function of language" statement. In what sense are you using the word "truth"? My concern is that while many things can be described as a function of language, the latter turns out to be a web of adjectives using circular definitions - requiring an existential reference point (other than an instance of language itself) to be meaningful.

From Walrus' post I think he's headed in the same direction (Hi Walrus - ready to reKant?)

.

Cheers, John

07-06-2002, 05:00 PM	#1
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	In defense of aesthetic perspectivism ~The world as it is, the numena, the unity and diversity of the numena, is without meaning, without truth, without identity until a "consciousness" is evolved to interact with the numena ~The interaction of the consciousness and the numena causes the formation of phenomena, which we treated as experience. ~We have assess only to the phenomena, and we interpret the phenomena, a mental picture formed in our mind, with our symbols, giving unity and identity to our experiences. ~Science tries to unite the experiences under tightly controlled conditions, attempting to predict future experiences (of phenomena) ~Art and religion are also interpretations of phenomena, serves to unite experiences into an identity or coherent whole. ~Now the problem of science, art, and religion. Are religions wrong in offering us a coherent interpretation? Is science the only one that has truth-value to our experiences? ~Science, art, and religion are all intersubjectivity, because of their relience on symbols which attempts to transcend the boundary of individual subjective experience toward a collective experience. How are they different from one another? Could we defend one kind of intersubjectivity over another? Could we ignore any? ~An analogy to visual art could be used to distinguish them. Science is to experience as photography is to visual art; religion is to experience as artistic convention is to visual art. ~Photography captures the scene with a higher accuracy than painting. When one sees the photography of a certain location one expects the visual experience of the location to be similar to that expressed by the photography. However, photography still contains a perspective; one's experience of the location would incoperate more perspectives than those expressed in the photographs. Science was but an incomplete description of experience. ~Let's suppose an artwork of the location now that is more concerned with artistic conventions than of accurate description; such is the essense of religion to experience. In the artwork one recognizes immediately that a given shape corresponds to a given object. The green ovals always represent the leaves of the tree, and the white pentagons, houses. In this depiction one could still form a mental picture of the possible experience of the location. ~Therefore there's no incompatibility between science and religion; they are but seperate interpretations of the experience. ~The problem comes when religion tries to imitate the forms of science. Historicism. Literalism in art. Paintings that are concerned only with details and photographic depiction of the scene. And then a convention that prohibits all other kinds of artistic conventions. French academic school of the 19th century. They call such art realistic depiction of experience, while it was but a severe lack of aesthetic taste. In them art is sacrificed. ~Each artwork should be of its own form. An art that sticks to only one convention would soon exhausts itself of greatness. And for the beloved painter that insists on literalism (for some reason this particular form is popular)--may you please kindly go to hell. [ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

07-07-2002, 03:35 AM	#2
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	philechat, I agree that an aesthetic perpective should be preserved. For me, the problem is which perspective ought we to perserve? Bad art and bad religion persist for centuries. Bad science probably can't last a decade. In contrasting science and aesthetics, you seem to forget the aesthetic beauty of many scientific discoveries. In including religion with art, you seem to forget the human deaths and slaveries imposed on the masses by the major religions. Ierrellus PAX [ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

07-07-2002, 05:04 AM	#3
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	Science is a kind of art. Photography is a kind of visual art. They could both be extremely beautiful, sometimes even more beautiful than the experience itself. Science is not without perpective, but who says that a science with a perspective is wrong? What I deem wrong in my last analogy is when religion tries to imitate science (literalism in painting, the emphasis that only a certain form of art represents experience). When religion thinks that only a given perspective should be perserved it kills its beauty. When visual art insists that it describes reality like photography it kills itself. An aesthetic sort of religion (like the pluralism/syncretism of Roman Empire) might not be "harmful" if practiced correctly. Unfortunately too many people treated religion literally as if it was science. Personal-god monotheism, for example, is one kind of religion that should kindly perish in hell [ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

07-09-2002, 02:09 PM	#6
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	Interesting, isn't it? Let's say that the most stable sound is an octave, since the sound waves are synchronized, with little interference. But do humans thus judge the most consonant chord to be the the most beautiful? No. Dissonance of varying degrees are also tested in people with different levels of musical trainings. The tests show that the most simple music (church hymns, folk) does not arouse the most interests from people. A certain level of dissonance is intrinsically beautiful to the human ear. A more interesting point is that the longer and more advanced a person's musical training is, the more dissonance he/she could tolerate. A piece by Bartok or Alban Berg may sound like deranged noise to most people, but drive a classically trained musician to ecstacy. There are also studies that show creative individuals to prefer a higher level of complexity and dissonance (in all kinds of art and science) than average. Therefore I think beauty is subjective to a person's nature and training, and more than one aesthetic criteria should be used when accessing any arts. [ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2002, 08:29 AM	#4
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: "Art is a selective re-creation of reality, according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments." --Ayn Rand. The problem with defining art, is that few agree as to what constitutes 'selectivity'--let alone 'reality'. For Rand, photography is not 'selective' enough to qualify as an art form. Others have the same problem with Tray Emin's "Bed". Still, even if everything 'can be' art, that doesn't mean that everything 'is' art. (And even if everything 'is' art, that still doesn't mean that all is 'good art'.) Keith Russell Synthetic Sky Studios Science Fiction Fine Art <a href="http://www.syntheticsky.com" target="_blank">www.syntheticsky.com</a>

07-09-2002, 10:00 AM	#5
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	As a musician, who/what determines whether art/science is good or bad? Bad art, science or music can, does, and will exist forever. It is people who create both and determine by some [imperfect]criteria which is most useful/beneficial/beautiful for a society to value. IE, 1. Treating the symptoms and not fixing the cause. 2. Setting up criteria that is based upon any form of judgement/rationale. If science (mathematics) and/or aesthetics are to be created and valued based upon there useful eloquence, what else is there or left to pass perfect judgement? In other words, as Keats once said; 'Truth is beauty, beauty is truth. That is all ye know, and all ye need to know'. What is absolute beauty? What is absolute [beauty in] science? What is truth? What works and doesn't work? Perhaps they are all tools of expression/comunicating a need; a need to know, thru the experience of life and living. Walrus <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

07-10-2002, 05:00 AM	#8
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	James! I'd like your opinion. I agree that postmodernist's hold that physical truth lack a complete meaning of truth, but I didn't think that language was very important to them. Since coherent language is tied very closely to the basic tenants of logic and rationalism for its so-called criteria of truth (for lack of), I would think the postmodern man would poo-poo that particular method or quality as the sole means to a discovery of a particular truth in one's life. I think it goes back to Kant's critique of pure reason... ...I'll be thinking of some examples.... Walrus

07-10-2002, 07:28 AM	#9
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: I view 'truth' as 'existence' itself. Art has both objective elements, and subjective elements. Art is created by the artist according to his or her concepts, translated through craft and skill. The result is a tangible, conrete work of art, a 'thing' with a specific, objective identity. The audience then perceives this conrete work according to the both accuracy of their perceptions, and whatever mental ability and information they possess, through which their perceptions are translated. What is created may not be exactly what the artist 'had in mind', and what is perceived might not be exactly what the artist created. Cool, huh? Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.