In other words, the mathematical apparatus of a physical theory can be couched entirely in the vocabulary of B Series alone

So then the concept of time is not needed for what mathematicians do, it becomes a question of frequency and repetition for them, not time. For the mathematician it is the manipulation of mathematical expressions in space? They don't try to capture the richness of the experience of a moment, only its basic abstraction.

The other conception of the B series is historical, what happened in a chronological or some other type of order, say cyclic, it seems to be more about time as we more commonly understand it.

No, they are both legitimate, and I think it is fair to say that the introduction of the Fearless Girl onto the scene makes it relevant to our time. It was initiated on the day prior to International Women's Day in March. Whether this acquisition of meaning is fair to the original artist I don't know, that's one of the reasons for bring up the question. He clearly does not think it is fair and I don't think that it matters what he thinks, even though I think he is obviously right.

This does not change the fact that the bull stands meaningfully without her, while she is a simply a girl without him.

Que?

Yes, the Spartans saw it that way.

I don't think that it's fair to say that it turns the bull into a villain, or misrepresents a thing. She doesn't have a weapon, and isn't there to kill it. The bull is there to symbolize intimidating strength, and the little girl is there to be unintimidated by it, while bolstering no such pretensions in her own representation.

Well it is a matter of opinion as to whether it makes the bull into a villain, but the artist seems to think so. I don't really think he has a say, but that is what he says.

Anyway, the Girl means very little aside from her fake confrontation with the Bull. The Bull on the other hand is not beholding to her at all.

Today obviously is a thick present. If what is present is whatever can be synthesized in experience for purpose of empirical investigation or practical reasoning (e.g. assessment of present opportunities for action) then there is no a priori limit to how thick the present can be as it might be conceived to appear in the middle of some essentially subjective A-Series.

So are you suggesting the B series is theoretically collapsible into the A series, probably no, but then where is the measure, how thick can a moment be before it is history? What separates the flow of time from its chronology. I don't think the experience of a moment can be separated into present, past and future, they stab too much into each other.

Do you think that time's flow requires an individual self that can experience that flow. Seems as though there would have to be some point of reference to experience time as a flow if time's flowing is not an illusion or a physical limitation.

A picture says a thousand words.

Neither by connotation or denotation, only by location.

The intrinsic beauty of all art is held in its ultimate irrelevance. Carry on.

You mean like the confederate flag in the South?

Oh yea they took a few of them down a couple of years ago up by you, didn't they?

I agree, Guernica is a great work of art, which deserves its own thread. I think it transcends its political aspect, as a work that demonstrates man's inhumanity to man, in the abstract, which I think is quite amazing. I think it is far easier to horrify in realism, it is quite an accomplishment to be able to elicit this reaction to an abstract piece. But that just grazes the surface. The New York Times reported on Feb 3 2003 that the White House had Rockefeller's tapestry of the work covered up prior to Colin Powell's infamous speech about Iraq, which spurred on the anti-war protestors.

I saw the original at MOMA way back when, it's awesome.

I think the bull is superfluous, because it is just a metaphorical description of what is already present at Wall Street: a bunch of aggressively enterprising animals.

I think "superfluous" is the wrong word. The culture in US fetishizes imagery and the "Charging Bull" reifies "Wall Street [as] a bunch of aggressively enterprising animals" as an economical image.

The "Fearless Girl" would not be "Fearless" unless facing something to be feared. It is an advertising/marketing ploy as previously indicated. The City of New York is known for its love of confrontation, and it loves the confrontation between the Bull and the Girl. (I am a native New Yorker).

But I think the Fearless Girl derives its power from the Bull, its meaning is dependent on it, as a work of art, otherwise what do you have...

Yes, a really interesting facet of this jewel is the artist still owns the work, the City has only permitted its use at this location. I think it can be argued that the public has taken it over by kinda of eminent domain. Similar to some of the arguments I have read about citizens complaining when a building owner carved a Bansky off the side of a building he owned to sell it at a gallery. The citizens arguing that it was owned by the community (shipped it to Miami of course).

I was also unaware of these laws. Regarding its application:

VARA covers only limited, fine art categories of "works of visual art": paintings, sculptures, drawings, prints, still photographs produced for exhibition. Within this group, only single copies or signed and numbered limited editions of 200 or less are actually protected. VARA does not apply to any of the following: works made for hire, posters, maps, globes or charts, technical drawings, diagrams, models, applied art, motion pictures, books and other publications, electronic publications, merchandising items or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, packaging material or container, nor does it cover any work not subject to general copyright protection.

Here

(Y)

I like the Charging Bull, its massive form, and the power and danger it expresses.. The Bull's dynamic stance suggest its uncertainty for all that pass. It ideologically links up with power and force of Wall St., which it reifies on a massive scale. But beyond any critical interpretation, which are apparently not lacking, it is something the City and its visitors enjoy and Society determines the value of art, this work's commodification lies in its enjoyment by the many.

Adrian Benepe, the New York City parks commissioner, said in 2004, "It's become one of the most visited, most photographed and perhaps most loved and recognized statues in the city of New York. I would say it's right up there with the Statue of Liberty."

In fact some tourists give its presence as their reason some for visiting NYC.

The "Fearless Girl" was commissioned by State Street Global Advisers, its stock symbol is SHE, and this creation was the idea of McCann Erickson one of the largest marketing/advertising companies in the world.

The Bull artist

Di Modica states the statue corrupts Charging Bull's artistic integrity by distorting the intent of his statue from "a symbol of prosperity and for strength" into a villain, and does so for SSgA's commercial gain. Siegel[Attorney] said a lawsuit had not been filed as of yet]

I think he's right.

I also like the pigeon, at least it knows which target is easier to hit.

So i've found myself in a loop hole of questions , i've been trying to find out what is the purpose of life, but there are thousands of "purposes" some say happiness, some say love

Interesting way of putting it.

By "loop hole of questions" do you mean that your thoughts keeping going around in circles and you get nowhere or do you mean that by asking these questions you escape having to make a decision?

There really isn't one. It's just that I'm wondering what's causing the placebo effect?

The expectation of benefit causes the placebo effect, our mental states causally affect our physical state, and our physical state causally affect our mental state.

The stronger the expectation, the stronger the effect that can be experienced. Each person is different and there are gender differences, all react differently to the psychological expectations that the medical profession proposes for its treatments. Many drugs target the body's own chemicals to correct imbalances, and these same chemical balances can be causality targeted by the expectation that this procedure, or medication will have such & such an effect.

Recent tests suggest that some people are genetically more predisposed to the placebo effect. Other studies suggest that increased psychological support, solidifying patient's expectations of a good outcome can significantly improve their prospects for recovery from a major procedure.
.

Opposite suggests location, across from, as across from orange on the color wheel is a shade of blue. Negative suggests a valuation as in a denial versus an affirmation.

This thread is very confusing.

Is it meaningful to talk about intentions, beliefs and desires - which I find generally to be constitutive of having a consciousness - w.r.t to the unconsciousness? For it at least seems that part of what it means to have these intentions, beliefs and desires is that one directly realizes them.

The person who has a neurotic issues such as undesirable compulsions, may not understand why they are compelled to act the way they act. Anorexia, bulimia, agoraphobia,.. are behaviours which are not under the complete conscious control of their victims. Freud and others thought that such compulsions express lacks; desires caused by some mistake in the structure of a persons fundamental development. The neurotic tends to repress the experiences which give rise to their compulsions, a defensive maneuver, an attempt to offset an imbalance. What they lack they make up for by fasting, purging them self, avoiding crowds and so on, a kind of transference.

I think Libet's experiment measured muscle memories ability react instinctively prior to thought, like the way muscles react instinctively for a person skiing moguls.

I see that as one function among others that imagination performs. I think of the imagination of children; the ability to be ridiculous. The artist Makoto Fujimura, who's painting "Walking On Water" is in my avatar, says that imagination and creativity are gratuitous. He's willfully repurposing that word here (repurposing being an action that artists regularly perform; philosophers seem to dread it). In other words, imagination serves no utilitarian purpose. I would amend that to say that imagination is not confined by a utilitarian purpose, and as such is free to serve any purpose, including the ones you describe. But fundamentally, it's completely free and not bound by anything.

It seems at least apparently on one level that you are looking at kinds of imagination, not imagination itself. The "imagination of children", the "imagination and creativity" of the artist. Yes, I think these are related and that they share aspects of what is meant by having an imagination. Whether or not our imagination has a purpose or not, I think is closer to question of what constitutes the imagination.

I look at Makoto Fujimua's "Walking On Water" and I think how watercolors behave. If you put pigment on a brush and then brush it on to very wet paper, the pigments 'explodes' on the surface the way it does on Fujimua's work. The explosion of color, creates what we see, it has a sudden quality to itself, reminds me of how a film's latent image 'magically' appears when you put it in a tray of developer.

Imagination brings sense and intellect together, it is the 'medium' of our interaction with the senses. The imprint of a sense experience on the memory is recalled, how pigment behaves on wet paper, along with its 'explosive' behavior is recalled and reimagined. There is no reason why the paint walks on water the way it does, similarly a work of art does not have a reason beyond itself, a purpose beyond what it is.
The recollection and re-imagining of our experiences is basic to how we experience and make sense of the world. Imagination does not have a reason, it is a functional part of what it means to reason, it expresses the movement from sensing to understanding, it is movement of thought regardless of its truth or falsity, its utility or gratuity, its seriousness or its "ability to be ridiculous".

I wonder how you describe imagination.

Imagination seems to me to be the dynamic medium in which and along which all of our other facilities flow, how we synthesize reason & experience.

So yes.

I think life is a state of matter. What differentiates it ?

Scientists suggest that all life must be able to reproduce, have a metabolism and it must have a form in which it is encapsulated. Fine, but so far the best of efforts have yet to produce life. Another effort, synthetic biologists are trying to put life together from existing parts.

Nether side has any definitive answers at this point, but they seem to be both making progress. In a contemporaneous thread, "How did living organisms come to be? Sophisticat posted a very good summary description of where things stand for those trying to build life from scratch.

The secret of how life on Earth began

I think they may be able to do it, but I don't think they will be able to explain their results objectively, using only a material/objective level of description. I think they will have to develop a subjective explanation (a subjective ontology) to explain the 'vital'/causal aspects of life. Life is a state of matter, but one whose explanation is not reducible to the level of objective ontology description without loss of its 'vital'/causality.

Thoughts:

Suppose that spirit is a potential state of matter, a sort of panpsychism where matter contains within itself the potential possibility to be alive, or spiritual. A subjective ontological state that can't be reduced to an objective state without loss of the causal nature we describe as life or spirit. Here spirit/life is a different level of description of a property of matter, as a realized state of matter.

I like Geertz's description of religion, it contains no mention of spirit:

"(1) a system of symbols (2) which acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men (3) by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations

Carl Schmitt asserted that "All significant concepts in the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts"
— Cavacava

AT LAST!!! The occasion where one of my favorite quotes (since 1983) is appropriate: "Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics." Charles Peguy (a late 19th century early 20th century Frenchman).

The secularization of the mystical also secularized need for religious purity, which becomes violence in its secularization. For some this became the quest for ethnic/class purity as sought by the Nazis, Stalin & Lenin.

This is why many hold that there can be no exceptions to law, that all laws flow from norms, and the judiciary like priests there to interpret what the law entails. [reminds me of the debate between the divine command theory versus the restriction of God by his laws] The US Constitution has a statement regarding the availability of exceptions to the legislative branch. The following from Article III section 2 of the US Constitution:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

This is a big gaping exception that means that Congress can craft a law not subject to judicial review. While questioned by justices (John Marshall 1803), there are no laws I am aware of crafted using this exception, but it was attempted in the Marriage Protection Act of 2003 which passed the House but failed in the Senate. Here from the proposed law:

No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.

Wikipedia

Not sure. Modern political theory places national self interest (national happiness) above the moral intent which rules suggest. Public self interest has more of a pragmatic basis (this is good for us because it will enable so & so...) it is easier for politicians to explain and make such actions palatable for their constituency. What is in the National interest seems to be determined more by the anticipated consequences that an action will have on the majority of its citizens.

Ideally, I think you are right (de jure), but I don't see its force in action (de facto).

Utilitarianism maximization of pleasure or do not harm, as ethic views seem to hold more weight in the public sphere, where benefits that affect the whole of society are important. It seems to me as though collective agreement is easier to discuss using Utilitarian principles. Perhaps the collective aspect helps offset confusion about what is best? Rule based and emotive ethicals systems, I think offer better individual guidance.

Can a world exist where everyone is happy?

No, but I think Utopias are goals worth striving towards. I'm not sure if happiness and suffering necessarily imply each other as light/dark or raw/cooked. Suffering has a biologic component that can be independent of our conscious control, happiness seems to be somewhat more amenable to our control, but it too has its biologic component.

When you try to measure the immeasurable, or compare the incomparable, confusion results.

A problem for utilitarianism.

Philosophy of the Individual in the West
'
Carl Schmitt asserted that "All significant concepts in the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts"

A few thoughts:

I notice that capitalistic societies have substituted the word 'citizen' with the word 'consumer' assuming their equivalent value. Companies study consumer behavior, and they develop & market products that people will consume. They make a profit and that is 'good', as long as these companies protect "consumer rights". Consumer rights and the rights of citizens have become conflated in our society, I think.

Is what is good for a citizen, also good for that person as a consumer. A citizen is a 'free agent', a 'moral agent', a consumer has choices, 'caveat emptor' applies it is the consumer's responsibility to inspect carefully prior to purchase. The consumer expects the market's providential behavior she expects to be satisfied, the citizen becomes reconciled with problematic aspects of reality.

They map pretty well in time.

A concept is an idea, a thought and a sentence expresses a complete thought, and it is composed? No?

Pure concepts of the understand (timeless) vs empirical concepts (constructed in time) temporal time series ... "Time is a dimension. It's an aspect of an object"

This came to me again today while I was listening to a Cure cover of a Jimi Hendrix song. It took me back to my childhood when the door to the future seemed like the gate on oblivion. There was a lot of pessimism about there being any future for the human race.

I like their Stone Free cover.

The concept of the object is a the construction that takes place in time,
until its got the rhythm "to ride the breeze" of your imagination,
Stone free, yeah, to do what I[you] please

Similar to a music you can anticipate future beat.

Today's Philosopher Kings are lawyers, collectively the Supreme Court rules over petty politicians

Yesterday at Boca Raton Inlet. Spectacular day here.

I suppose the biggest question is the issue of sincerity. That's what I alluded to at the end of my last post. Does the artist have genuine feelings concerning the portrayed event, or is the artist opportunist, looking at potential controversy as a chance for notoriety and personal benefit. That would be a problem, for a white artist (or any artist for that matter) to take this "American Image", which was really a dreadful occurrence and shamelessly use it for personal advancement. Don't you agree that this would be bad taste?

Of course we cannot ask Shakespeare if he was being sincere when he wrote Hamlet. We have to wing it based on what is presented in the play. While Schutz is no Shakespeare, she is a well known and well regarded as an artist. More to the point, Emmett Till's mother asked for the casket to be left open so the world could see the evil violence that racial bigotry caused. His death was a trigger event for the social revolution that was taking place and took place over the next ten years in the United States.

Shutz's abstraction does not do justice to the reality of his violent death. Some think that by abstracting Till as Shutz has done, she has closed the casket because we don't see the essential, revolting realism. and this denies Till's mother's request.

We cannot really turn to the artist to ask this question, and artists are notoriously vague and obscure when describing the motivations behind their work. They prefer that we see for ourselves, what is within the work, and only tend to offer corrections if they think the critics have gone way off track. So the claim that it's an "American Image" is just an attempt to counter the charge of social appropriation, which I would agree is way off track.

Several levels of description are possible but if we deny authorial intent, then we cannot question Shutz's intent as the primary criticism of her work. I think that every work of art must be first and foremost understood, interpreted, criticised as a work of art, a monad, a 'universal' particular that stands for what we see in front of us and not extraneous contents. In other words, we should be able to critique the work as if we knew absolutely nothing about the real Emmett Till. It can and it is criticised on other levels as we have discussed in this thread.

But we still have the issue of the artist's sincerity, and the possibility of bad taste. We have to find hints of this within the work itself, true expressions of feeling would demonstrate that the artist is genuine. If it is true, as you say, that the image is of a sacred icon, then this would be an indication of sincerity. But I'm not sure that I see that. The beige could be an aura or halo, like you say, that makes sense, but it doesn't quite look like it to me. Is that really what the artist intended? What makes you say that it is? Why is there a straight edge and a sharp point at the top? I find the border at the top of the painting to be very interesting. I do see flowers there, as well as a white hand. What makes you think that the white hand is praying rather than preying?

I like the icon idea, it explains the work as such, and the more I look at it, the more I feel it fits (down to the tilt of the head). The painting is of a casket, and as such flowers, hands, praying are expected. What perhaps is tough to explain is why they are white...except that if you were to accept my interpretation, then it is heaven, & all those little angels that hover around saints that form the top border of the casket, hovering above Emmett.

As you stated. it is tough critique a work of art based on a photo. I understand that Schutz used cardboard to provide depth to the painting, with deep gashes, which is not readily apparent on the photos I've seen.

Schutz recently responded to criticism saying:

‘I Feel Somehow That It’s an American Image’

and that explains a lot, at least for me. You asked about the white, and the beige in her painting, well I see the white as petals, hands, perhaps praying, the beige is Emmett's aura/halo, and his face is a sacred icon.

Her image of Till is that of an sacred icon.

It's interesting that Till tragic end was instigated by a lie told by a white woman, and all the current uproar is also instigated by a white woman...

If humanity were to create a technology that could connect all of our minds to create a single mind, should it be done?

It may already exist. The Internet is kind of a hive mind.

Germans seem to have cultural knack for order & efficiency, and the Italians a flair for design. [which do you think is more likely to get you laid, driving: a Porsche vs a Lamborghini, a Mercedes vs a Ferrari, a VW vs an Alfa Romeo?]. Germans & Italian fascists both shared a fascination for the color black.

Any political system that doesn't allow opposing views to at least to give them a say will end up as a very harmful system

Pax romana lasted approximately 206 years, the longest period of relative peace the Western world has yet experienced was achieved under totalitarian rule. How is rule by the mob better than rule by the boss?

Rimbaud saw the rise of the middle class, and its ideological demand on the arts for the continual creation of new works. I think he saw the way art is consumed by its audience, how it becomes valued in society. I have not seen this societal attitude change, in fact, I think our technological achievements have accelerated society's desire for the new. It is an ideological fetish and the public is ravenous.

Not quite sure what you mean when you say:

Outside modernised societies it is easy to find art which is not modern, but also inside modernised societies you can find contemporary art which seeks to be eternal rather than fashionably transgressive or whatever it means to be modern.

Perhaps it has to do with the society that nurtures the artist. I think that all art has a political aspect, its development can be with or against the prevailing cultural interests. The artist can confront but I can't see her escaping these interests. The way she thinks, the limits of her thoughts, even her language are loaded with predetermined values common to the culture. She may decry popular values, but that reaction is a reaction, it's not an escape.

Ok, MU so getting back to the OP. How do you interpret Dana Schutz's work. She said she was prompted to create the work due to all the Black Lives Matter disturbances that we going on around the country when she did the work back in July of 2016. When she was asked to defend the fact that she is not Black and therefore could not understand the Black Experience, she said that she's is a mother, so she can imagine what losing a child would mean. Can you integrate what you're saying into an analysis of the work.

Just to be clear. I agree with dialectical materialism, which while derivative of Hegel's thought, is not how he formulated it.