A River of Dreams

[Blue]

Aesthetics also deals with the question of whether such qualities are objectively present in the things they appear to qualify, or whether they exist only in the mind of the individual; (((So this is THE individual correct, or all individuals on average?))))) hence, whether objects are perceived by a particular mode, the aesthetic mode, or whether instead the objects have, in themselves, special qualities—aesthetic qualities. *Did anyone see this, am I missing something?
===============
I didn't miss it, VC, as I thought you might have realised... from my points.

I am still not sure what you are trying to say or imply with the quotations you have pasted?

Are you, or are you not, still maintaining that personal taste is THE arbiter of your judgements?

Or are you now, because of the contents of the quotation, agreeing with me that other factors should play a part, in a way attested to down through the ages from at least the days of the ancient Greeks?

You singularly fail to discuss my point re: 'liking' what is patently 'poor' artistically, which is just as possible as disliking what can be recognised as 'good' artistically? Do you recognise such distinctions or not?

Are you denying the techniques employed by artists in all fields of artistic endeavour in seeking to communicate with the audiencenot only satisfyingly aesthetic principles as I have referred to, but deliberately seeking to create a sense of the sublime in their paintings, sculptures, words, buildings, etc?
Are you further denying that artists from time immemorial CONSCIOUSLY seek to produce works that affect the audience in the artists' desired ways rather than just satisfy themselves?

I have to say, it does still seem as if you are thinking that I deny the value of purely personal affective judgements. That is not so. I have singularly failed if that is the impression you have, or seem to still hold in your final comments.

Discrimination, rational evaluation of techniques and skills cannot be ignored in artistic judgements... especially those made public.
Yes, we react any way we are moved to react on meeting the new poem, the new painting, new piece of music, or whatever... but if you just stop - remain in a state - of saying... "I liked that. It was sublime..." or whatever, or "I didn't like that, it was ugly and crass..." then that's fine, but it is NOT the whole story, as it were. Surely we have a right in discussion to know why you reacted the way you did, and if you can cite no reasons... we may justifiably wonder about your judgements. Reason, rational considerations of the skills,techniques employed, considerations of style, content and methodology should also play a part... whether we like the work or not!
If you are happy to have no reasons, or a desire to seek to understand your personal reactions, that's fine too, if rather limiting IMHO.
Hopefully, we could say, of a 'great' work that we not only like it, we KNOW why we like it so much! We 'see' beyond the instant responses, and appreciate the reasons for those responses. (That is consideration of the aesthetic qualities!)

[Virtual_Cliff]

Just a quick note for Blue: I still intend to reply to your post number 27, health - mine and my PC's - permitting. I think Aladdin has something different to say but I'm not sure what it is.

[Blue]

health - mine and my PC's - permitting
=========
I do hope sincerely that things improve soon, VC.

Best wishes, and Happy New Year.

[Virtual_Cliff]

*Why do you on the one hand uphold problems with a concept of 'consensus' in these concerns and then illustrate the basis of that 'consensus'? ("millions... throughout the ages"?)

I tried to support what I was saying by using something you esteem - consensus. I thought it might carry more weight with you. Oh well...

*As to the conclusion of 'science', that in some (mystical?) way you say has limitations in its methodology, I think you are just proving to us all that you do not understand scientific methodology.

This is what I was trying to say: scientific method is incremental. It is a closed loop. It can never define anything that lies outside of itself. If it were an express train it would never get to America. The examples I gave are of phenomena that defy scientific explanation - not just the unexplained but the inexplicable.

Human computers - the original use of the word 'computer' was 'someone who computes'. Some people have the ability to perform complex mental calculations instantly. They themselves cannot explain how they do this.

Remote viewing is the ability of trained people to visualise what an accomplice in another location is seeing. It is claimed that the technique has been developed to the point where the presence of the observer is no longer required. What I am suggesting is that we need the equivalent of the shift from Newtonian to Einsteinian - only this time we shall need to redefine everything we thought we knew. We haven't even got a definition for 'life'.

*Does that actually make the cigarette lighter 'magical' and an 'instrument' of the aliens or the Gods, or whatever

...but isn't it curious that people now have the same trusting and ignorant belief in science that they used to have in superstition?

I had mistaken you, Blue, for a materialist, but I was wrong. I think you are a neo-Platonist since you are convinced that the artistic ideal has some independent existence somewhere. I take the rather more Aristotelian view that the ideal is a construct that we place on what we see. I suspect that we're not going to achieve a rapprochement on this.

[Blue]

Many thanks for your considered reply.
...........................
"This is what I was trying to say: scientific method is incremental. It is a closed loop. It can never define anything that lies outside of itself. If it were an express train it would never get to America. The examples I gave are of phenomena that defy scientific explanation - not just the unexplained but the inexplicable."
============
1. "It can never define anything that lies outside of itself."
I do not understand this. Why should it try to define what lies outside its sphere of enquiry? What is the point being made?
2. "The examples I gave are of phenomena that defy scientific explanation - not just the unexplained but the inexplicable."
But they are not phenomena in any external sense... How does anyone know what is or is not explainable/explicable in any future time? It is a matter of comparing probabilities. The nature of the atom was hypothesised quite accurately by Lucretius. It was not explainable in detail at the time beyond his limited observations. There wasn't the technology to do so, but his observations and logic can not be faulted. It is now explainable in quantifiable terms.
=============
Other points:
1.
I hope no one has a simple trust in 'Science',because 'science' can err... and that is taken account of in scientific methodological considerations of anything.
2.
You say:

"Human computers - the original use of the word 'computer' was 'someone who computes'. Some people have the ability to perform complex mental calculations instantly. They themselves cannot explain how they do this.

"Remote viewing is the ability of trained people to visualise what an accomplice in another location is seeing. It is claimed that the technique has been developed to the point where the presence of the observer is no longer required. What I am suggesting is that we need the equivalent of the shift from Newtonian to Einsteinian - only this time we shall need to redefine everything we thought we knew. We haven't even got a definition for 'life'."

Re: human computers. The analogy simply doesn't hold water. A computer is a computer, as defined.
Human beings can compute. A Human being is not a machine. The machine cannot be personified. Many of the human beings who can calculate very quickly indeed have explained very convincingly the methodology by which they achieve their amazing results... so much so their techniques can be taught. The Internet and the University sites are a good source here.

Re: Remote viewing: Sincerely,where is the empirical evidence for this hypothesised faculty in human beings?

Re: "We haven't got a definition for 'life'"? Of course we have... it can be found in any first year Biology course textbook.
If you mean 'life' as some mystical and supernatural quality, that is another question I will try to answer in the next post.

Finally, the taste and qualities recognised universally by true artists in composing and developing their creative efforts is continually apparent. They are the measures they set themselves in composition, etc., whether poets, painters,muscicians, etc., and the effects are immediately apparent in their work and the judgements of their peers, even evidenced from Art History, when one artist disliked the work of another... the skill was still recognised (Ref: Vassari writings on the matter).

I dislike the the idea of labelling anyone as Platonist or any other variety... things have moved in since those days to an age more comfortable comfortable with phenomenalism and other conceptualisations often supported by findings in clinical psychology.

As you say this is maybe time to beg to differ... but do considermy next post which I think will be relevant... though you may think otherwise.

Many thanks for an interesting discussion, and I hope the problems with the computer,etc., are now resolved.

[Blue]

Simplifying somewhat, I think it is worth considering the following, because I think it is relevant:

1) "The world is all that is the case"

Most importantly, Wittgenstein, is saying that everything anyone can think is due to things and their relations in the world.

2.)
"How things are in the world is a matter of complete indifference for what is higher.  God does not reveal himself in the world."
 
"To view the world sub specie aeterni is to view it as a whole -- a limited whole.
Feeling the world as a limited whole -- it is this that is mystical."
 
"There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words.  They make themselves manifest.  They are what is mystical."
 
All the above quotes are from:  
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein

I am suggesting that just considering the import of these words is valuable, because in all matters artistic, it is ultimately what is there in the musical score and performance, the painting in its composition, colouring and skilful performance, and the perceptions of the viewer, determined greatly not just by personal preferences, but how we 'see' gestalts,for example. The same goes goes for artistic endeavours whether appreciated by mass audiences or not,the artist being famous or not.

The rules of composition are derived from what is effective upon the audience... the fact is Tracey Emin's tent does just not measure up against such judgements. Of course the judgements are all value judgements, but a even a cursory view of Vassari, or the whole of human 'art' from cave -paintings onwards proves the point of what is 'universal'. Whatever one's cultural traditions and nurture the Chinese admire French cave paintings as much as any other cultural grouping and the reasons are to do with 'taste' and 'discrmination' in value judgements built over centuries and in accord with our psychology as human beings.
This is not presuming anything of the 'ideal', or 'ultimate'. There is no reason why human nature should not change and evolve over thousands of years in the future...but I hazard the probability that discord will still highlight harmony far into the future, and the common 'rules' of composition, etc., will continue to enhance appreciation and people's value judgements in matters artistic.

There is only what is.

You see, you never did answer my point about personal preference being the key arbiter of judgement in the Arts.

It is simply my contention, that personal preference is NOT the key arbiter of such judgements.

Sorry to repeat myself:
I can dislike a great and recognised great work of art on purely personal grounds, BUT still recognise its undoubted qualities as 'what is'.
I am also at liberty to like the tasteless and totally lacking in artistic qualities, just as well... indeed, recognising those tasteless, unskilled, unartistic qualities at the same time.

A good novel is a good novel in spite of any personal dislike I may have with the composition and form, language or content/subject matter. Similarly, I am perfectly able to recognise how poor a novel is against the agreed measures, and enjoy it enthusiastically: knowing it is a 'bad' novel.

In all sincerity, why should purely personal judgements hold sway over agreed measures, as I think you have suggested,VC?

[Virtual_Cliff]

Just a few brief word of explanation, then I think we've bottomed this out. The point about inexplicable phenomena was that there are I maintain some things - very important things - that the incremental chain of reason will not lead us to - because they lie outside reason. Beauty perhaps is one aspect of this unknown terrain.

We do not have a definition of life. We have a list of characteristics of most of the living organisms in our biosphere, but even these are ambivalent when it comes to, say, viruses.

My wife is studying BA Art. and believe me, questions of aesthetics do not enter into it. Even craft skills are totally ignored. This is the modern consensus, for better or for worse.

Blessings,
VC