Have you considered that a dog's "conceptual" system may be geared towards scent. I note that they tend to sniff and sniff around until they find just the right spot and I have read that wolves and other animals urinate to establish their territory.

Do they systematize their experiences differently than us?

Yes, I agree that sensory perception precedes classification, but I think "instantaneous classification" is due to its habitual re occurrence. I think that we become aware of something, and then classify it into our conceptual structure....such as a face.

If what we sensuously perceive does not fit into our concepts, we ignore it because there is no place for it in our imagination.

I stated that without the concept or idea of what a tree is, there is/may be no tree. What is observed has to fit into person's conceptual structure in order for us to recognize it, in order for reality to be coherent. What we are sensuously aware of is always classified by us in some manner. This all happens in less than 500 milliseconds.

Have you ever tried to figure out what something is in the dark.

and organized his observations into a consistent world-view - all without classifying his observations with words

His "consistent world-view" are the concepts he works with, how he classifies his experience and makes reality coherent regardless of whether this is in words or not.

So consciousness perceives a tree in a certain way, 'it's a green tree' which corresponds to its concept of a tree in itself, and which allows for the possibility of error. What we perceive is tainted by our concepts, we may not be even able to be aware of an object unless it is among our concepts.

There is a claim, "it's something", and then the classification "its a green tree". The claim is sensuously given, the statement is a mental construction, without which there is no awareness of a tree.

So is perception of a tree... phenomenological given and therefore we play a passive role or is the tree a representation which we actively construct, and are responsible for?

Necessity

"The future is the drink that makes the present sweet." (Y)

A couple of paintings from my recent trip to Porto, Portugal. It's beautiful town set on hills over looking the Duero river.



Porto has a statue for just about every square

The beauty in a work of art pushes past our "fixed meanings" as it enables the free play of our imagination and it, the creation of new concepts.

The aesthetic affect lies in how the poet's meaning is conveyed in a single 'comical' image, which in this poem is as much tied to nature as it is to man. The poem draws us into its narrative, but peonies are self fertile, and I suspect that Basho was aware of this, given the Japanese love of peonies. The bee is 'staggered' by the aesthetic of the peony, its shape, its color, and its aroma its beauty, the same as we are, but not quite the same, the difference lies in the word 'staggered'.

Ecclesiastes 7:7-12

For oppression makes a wise man mad, And a bribe corrupts the heart. 8 The end of a matter is better than its beginning; Patience of spirit is better than haughtiness of spirit. 9 Do not be eager in your heart to be angry, For anger resides in the bosom of fools. 10 Do not say, "Why is it that the former days were better than these?" For it is not from wisdom that you ask about this. 11 Wisdom along with an inheritance is good And an advantage to those who see the sun. 12 For wisdom is protection just as money is protection, But the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the lives of its possessors.

I think this addresses aspects of wisdom as forms of comportment, in a way which is wholly human.

Oppression (life) makes a wise man mad because he is powerless to it, all fruits that life has to offer in this oppressive situation can corrupt even a wise man's heart. The writer (Solomon) suggests that rather than assuming a ridged self righteous attitude, a wise man must be patient in life, and see what happens. What initially looks good may not end up being good.

Being angry, having an intensely affective reaction to life's travesties is rash, and only fools are rash. Life is constantly changing, nostalgia negates acceptance of life as it is and can be, for what it was. Solomon joins wisdom and Inheritance, which I take as knowledge and good luck. We ought to take advantage of good situations because life always changes.

Wisdom is a "protection", a defense (word also means shadow in Hebrew, linking it with the "Sun") it is defensive as knowledge along with good fortune is demonstrative of wisdom. Unlike money (good fortune or luck) which is can always change, knowledge enables one to know what to do, this is how it preserves, defends the wise in the face of oppression.

But could it not then just be the case that my experience-orb really is just 'ontologically private', it really is completely cut off from everything, or nothing lays beyond, and I've just mentally structured my own experience in such a way as to generate an experience of others. So I have these perceptions and experience, and I mentally identify myself with a particular part of it, or you could say I structure my experience so it is in a particular mode (of say, being this body, within this external public space), which, due to my natural inclination to by analogy mentally place other 'windows upon the world' into the eyes of humans around me, causes my visual field - the world around me - to be experienced as public?

Sloping towards idealism isn't it?

I think these experiences work by doing something to impair our normal sensory processing and mental schema of reality that allows us to perceive the really real that is always there

If the following information is correct, these drugs appear to open up channels, which are normally segregated, or which became segregated as we matured. It renews connections between what is normally segregated and parts of the brain that don't normally communicate but now do under these drugs.

I don't know. Can we play with the definition of truth like that? It's odd how the paradox depends on fixed meanings of truth and fiction and your solution tweaks them.

To my mind truth is a kind of un-concealment (disclosure-alethea), expanding our determinate concepts ("fixed meanings"), as part of our ongoing process of trying to understand the world and our relationship to it. The work in a work of fiction conveys new meanings and expands the narratives/history that orientate/contextualize us in our world. The work can accomplish this by virtue of its aesthetic affect. A work of fiction can pull us into its narrative. Our imagination is freely displaced by the fictive narrative. We can feel, experience what the fiction goes on about and in this process the work can un-conceal existential truths about the world and our relationship to it. The beauty in a work of art pushes past our "fixed meanings" as it enables the free play of our imagination and it, the creation of new concepts.

A Bee - Poem by Matsuo Basho

A bee
staggers out
of the peony.

A monkey picks up a bone and discover's it can crack nuts with the bone, a tool. He takes the tool and uses it in battle with other monkey's....he realizes that value of what he has discovered and flings it to the sky where it's transformed into a spacecraft, which leads to a kaleidoscopic imaginary blast!

Fiction, watching the movie had aesthetic effect...intense, empathetic, wondrous ambiguity, which along with the movie's fantastic audio/visual affects... it was a powerful experience. The 'truth' of a movie lies in its power to inspire us, to make itself into an unforgettable experience, one that changes the way we think about tools, machines and life. This is a thicker concept of truth.

In a good work of fiction we suspend our belief systems. The work's aesthetic activates our imagination hooking it up with the aesthetic narrative of someone else's belief system, which we experience as if it were our own.

It varies:

Where Does Morality Come From?

Immorality.

[quoteIt is hope that is the opiate of the masses. Existence is an instrumental thing. We survive, to survive, to survive. We entertain, to entertain, to kill time, and not be bored. We are deprived and need to have our desires fulfilled to have yet other desires. What keeps this whole instrumental affair going? Hope is that carrot. The transcendental (i.e. big picture) view of the absurdity of the instrumental affair of existence is lost as we focus on a particular goal/set of goals that we think is the goal.. We think this future state of goal-attainment will lead to something greater than the present. Hope lets us get caught up in the narrow focus of the pursuit of the goal. But then, if we get the goal, another takes its place. The instrumental nature of things comes back into view as we contend with restlessness. Then, we narrow our focus (yet again) to pursue (yet again) what is hoped to be a greater state than the present. The cycle continues.
[/quote]

I think hope is inherent in our cultural bias towards the future, towards the open possibilities that lie ahead. But our desires, what we hope for are not our desires. The house, the wife, the kids, the job... is the dream of a society, a collective dream, which many take as their own, which even when it is satisfied, can't satisfy. The things we hope for are not ours, and because of this we are not satisfied even when we achieve what we have hoped for. So yes it is like an opium dream, good as long as it lasts. but always depressing, always on a run, and we don't even have to put a spike in our veins, but many do.

What I mean here is that there is no interest extraneous to the work, which makes the work beautiful.
— Cavacava

I'm not sure how an "interest" would make a work beautiful, but isn't context something extraneous to the work that makes it beautiful, as you say bellow, more or less?

The beauty in a work of art evolves dialectically out of its normative context. The negation of what is contained in the concept of the object enables new concepts to be formed or associated with the object. The beauty in the work frees our imagination from the normative constraints of our concept of the object which enables us to associate new ideas, concepts with objects such as with Van Gogh's shoes. [/quote]

Yes, there no single correct interpretation of a work of art, but some interpretations are better informed than others and several interpretations may share similar points.
— Cavacava

Better informed about what? If there are lower and higher levels of being informed (education, if you will), does that mean there can only be better informed and less informed interpretations of art? If so, how would that matter if no interpretation is "correct"? What's the value of being better informed about a piece of art if there are no "wrong" interpretations? Why not just experience art without any information? I'm not sure you can have "no single correct interpretation", but then also have a hierarchy of interpretations. The hierarchy suggests an underlying objective value; "no right [and therefore no wrong] interpretations" doesn't suggest value beyond the subjectivity of the individual interpretation.

I believe that our judgement of what is or is not aesthetically pleasing is a question of taste and some people have a better senses of taste than others. A person who is tone deaf is not going to have the same taste as a person with perfect pitch. Who would you rather hear whistle a tune?

A great work of art is a unique experience that expands our horizons. The value of an interpretation of a work of art lies in its ability to describe the work and some descriptions are better than others. Whether it is superior knowledge, or sheer talent, it does not make a difference. A good interpretation provides a guide for the observer, it establishes connections which may not be apparent to all observers. The experience of a work of art is personal, but it may be enriched if you understand more about the work. I would have had no idea of Radiohead's hidden syncopation in its "Videotape" without the tube video, it was there but I was unaware, now I listen for the beat, and it enriches my experience of the song.

We, the observers are as necessary as the artist, as the work, as the whole history of art.
— Cavacava

Yeah, again, i've made that point on this forum for awhile now. I'm not sure how it's a response to my question about beauty being it's own referent.

Your question is in response to my statement that art:

If it had a purpose then it could not be beautiful, because what is beautiful must be beautiful as such with no ulterior motive or interest beyond itself as it is.

What I mean here is that there is no interest extraneous to the work, which makes the work beautiful. A work of art such as many of Norman Rockwell's Saturday Evening Post covers are witty and extremely well accomplished, but they are kitschy, because their aesthetic effect relies on our momentary empathetic response.

But what fascinates, what sets our imagination on fire is the work it self (not its context but certainly its contents)
— Cavacava

What? How can you say the audience is as important as the artist, and then say that context is not as important as content?

The beautiful work of art is a product of its context, but it is not a beautiful work of art unless it transcends that context, unless it is avant-garde, in this sense. A concept limits meaning to what is denoted by that concept, a beautiful work of art utilizes the free play of the imagination to illuminate new meanings beyond our ordinary concepts. [like Van Gogh's 'Shoes' The negative part of the dialectic.

Since all experiences are different there is no single correct interpretation as I said previously and as I think we have discussed in the past the experience of a work of art depends on how in tune one is with the work.
— Cavacava

Wait, so which is it, according to you? Is there no single correct interpretation of a work, or does "how in tune one is with the work" determine the interpretation?

Yes, there no single correct interpretation of a work of art, but some interpretations are better informed than others and several interpretations may share similar points. I don't think what is beautiful in a work of art can be pinned down into singular terms. The experience of a beautiful work of art transcends the art object, it plays with our imagination freeing it to explore new options, vistas, concepts and relationships. In order for this to happen the observer must connect with the work, on its level.

I wonder whether beautiful means 'beautiful' in the conventional sense in art. I think Lucien Freud's works are beautiful, but not in the way the word in generally taken.

I have read through it a couple of times, and I like his ideas about Corelationalism and what he calls Facticity

The only problem is that I keep losing the damn book,it's a great size for carrying around, Just lost it while on vacation, left it in a plane. I found a copy on line, now all I have to do is re-find it, but I like physical books better than their virtual equivalents.

If you look at the progression of a painter's works, especially early 20th century painters, there is a strong tendency to start with nature and then simplify it, following and contributing to the trends of other painters, some of these painters eventual produce something that has little visible relationship with nature. An example of this kind of progression are the works of Piet Mondrian.

We, the observers are as necessary as the artist, as the work, as the whole history of art. But what fascinates, what sets our imagination on fire is the work it self (not its context but certainly its contents) and what we experience in such a work opens up new possibilities which were not there prior to our experience of the work. Since all experiences are different there is no single correct interpretation as I said previously and as I think we have discussed in the past the experience of a work of art depends on how in tune one is with the work.

If it had a purpose then it could not be beautiful, because what is beautiful must be beautiful as such with no ulterior motive or interest beyond itself as it is.

We can discuss it, if you are looking for a full blown theory then no. I think natural beauty is where all art starts. Our fascination with of what we see around us, what interests us with no purpose such as a sunset, the ocean, the sky and on and on, I think man takes from nature and transcends nature in art, producing something of higher value to others, a different kind then what is found in nature.

If by "aesthetic" you mean surface then yes, it stems from what we see in nature, but that does not limit it, rather nature forms the basis from which our imagination works.

I think the origin of art lies in the beauty/ugliness of what we see around us. Nature is the true artist.

The question, for instance, of why Cooper's face is super-imposed on this scene, and eventually says "we live inside a dream" at half-speed, is a question that's never resolved in the show. What this scene does is create a mood, and a general feeling of nausea, which is definitely a theme in the last two episodes of the show.

I watched the original series and a few of the episodes from the return, which were very good, it takes me a long time to watch a TV series generally.


OK, he starts to dream, unaware that he is dreaming, then he sees the clock running backwards and he realizes that he is dreaming, his slow motion realization is that he is dreaming, at which point his face is super-imposed to suggest that he is aware of what is happening in his dream. Then as his dream progresses he loses this awareness of dreaming and the super-imposed image is gone.

Do you believe Lynch, does he have any right (authorial intent fallacy) or is his interpretation as valid as any other interpretation? I am undecided on this, but I tend to think the author may not be the best source for an unbiased interpretation of his work.

This brings up an interesting philosophical problem: does art reflect reality? Should it? Does art carry an intrinsic message?

I think Art necessary starts with reality and then transcends it to become what it is, whatever that is, a reflection, a message, a dream...

Are you on Monsanto's payola?

Report by Wiley 5/17/17

An analysis of data in Illinois has found a link between higher county-level use of an herbicide called glyphosate and reduced abundance of adult monarch butterflies, especially in areas with concentrated agriculture.

Good thing Bayer is purchasing them, no bugs will remain. Or perhaps not...

If there were an evil empire it would be Monsanto. They are audaciously corrupt paying off scientists and ignoring EU parliamentary hearings.

Their product has been linked to cancer by one expert WHO panel.

Forget Monsanto.

To be a performance artist, you have to hate theater,". "Theater is fake… The knife is not real, the blood is not real, and the emotions are not real. Performance is just the opposite: the knife is real, the blood is real, and the emotions are real."

On a Freudian basis she broke through the societal taboos that are common to men and woman. Her work, the art, liberated the audience. It enabled them to act out their deep fantasies. Art is not moral it enlightens, it illuminates our nature as humans.

More Philosophically, the being of the work, the thing that glues society together became loose. Unlike Sartre's character sitting in the park beside the chestnut tree, who suddenly understands his connection with the being of the world, her work punches and disconnects any connection cracking our mirror, exhibiting the audience's most instinctual and profound wishes and desires, the reality.

She disconnected her body from subjectivity. She abandoned her self to the audience, who saw a body but not a corpse, something alien, more than what it presented. Its power liberated them, and enabled them to act in ways that no other art work could achieve. The beauty of the work lies in its liberation of the audience, in its ability to allow them to follow through with their fantasies.

The people fled because she became a self once more, and as such she was all fucked up, by them.

What would be the difference between possessing and not possessing "human nature?"

Man has a history, which I think encompasses his nature;

I'll stick with GDP, it gives a clearer picture of size than Purchasing Power Parity, which,

takes into consideration the relative costs of local goods and services produced in a country valued at prices of the United States. It factors in exchange rates and the inflation rates of each country. Further, GDP at PPP reflects the purchasing power of a citizen in one country to a citizen of another. For example, a pair of shoes may cost less in one country than another, so purchasing power parity is needed for fairness in the calculation.

It is not measuring size, it is measuring purchasing power.

GDP (PPP) measures what that money can actually buy.

Nope:

gross domestic product (at purchasing power parity) per capita, i.e., the purchasing power parity (PPP) value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given year, divided by the average (or mid-year) population for the same year.

Using GDP (PPP) Qatar is top country for the IMF & World Bank, your claim is ludicrous.

You have an internet, use it,

The following based on World Bank data 2017:

Third to China and the EU, GDP (PPP); The Marshal Plan is over, but one belt, one road has just started. The USA can do its own dirty work.

Funny that's not what EU said when Trump threatened to leave NATO because they were not paying their fair share.

US may be fucked up in many ways, but it still has the largest economy in the world. The Marshal Plan is over, and here is one point I agree with Trump, it is time for other countries to ante up.