It is simply a fact that he experienced this glee, say, and by itself, phenomenologically, that is, it is Good. What makes it bad is the context. — Constance

This is nonsensical. You cannot have an out-of-context experience.

The good and the bad is not about guns, but about the bad or good that is embedded in experience. — Constance

Right, you appear to be claiming that aesthetic experience or art is embedded in experience, which is like saying that 'good' is embedded in experience. It's like saying that everything from gummy bears to guns IS inherently good, and it's just that in some circumstances we don't realize that they're good.

People who make claims like this are motivated by a desire to control the views of others, so that they can be perceived as an authority. Creepy as fuck but all too common.

... art is not some special feature, or assembly of features, but something we bring into the object as an object, Something, already there, in the structure of experience itself. — Constance

You're making the same fundamental assumption as RussellA, that inherent value exists in all things, which I suppose is some form of idealism.

All observable things and their features can be art. — Constance

All observable things and their features can be seen as good, or be seen as bad. It depends on what our motivation or purpose is, amongst other factors. Guns can protect us, so they're good. :up: Guns can harm us, so they're bad. :down: There's no "already there" structure in the universe that makes guns only good or only bad.

when I am in the presence of any object, even though all objects have a temperature, I am not always appreciating that object's temperature. — RussellA

This is a very poor simile because temperature is a physical fact and in that way objective. Under the same conditions, anyone can measure the temperature of an object and it will be the same, though we may subjectively experience the temperature of the object differently relative to our own temperature.

So it's like you're saying that all things have a factually objective aesthetic value in the same way that an object has a factually objective temperature. If that's what you believe, do you also believe that all things have a factually objective moral value?

I would guess that our aesthetic sense is determined by natural aesthetic intuition, culture, and our own individual development.

What may induce an aesthetic experience in one individual may inexplicably cause a panic attack in another. If you've ever had a panic attack you would know just how unaesthetic an experience it can be.

Summary
Every observed object is an artwork and has an aesthetic, but the aesthetic value of some artworks is higher than others. — RussellA

This is like saying that all people are sexy and some are just sexier than others. The fact of the matter is that we don’t always view others in terms of sexuality. When you’re in the presence of your mother are you always appreciating her sexuality, for example?

Also, you say the aesthetic value of some artworks is higher than others, but also say “the aesthetic experience is subjective rather than objective” and “there may be general agreement between different observer's as to the aesthetic value of a particular object.” I think this indicates a few important points:

• Failure to have an aesthetic experience rests entirely on the individual.
• Individual aesthetic experience is constrained by culture.
• Some individuals are more constrained by their culture/society than others.

Why the fuck would anyone want to constrain their aesthetic experience? In a word, because they’re insecure.

Dewey held that as we live and breathe, we experience the world aesthetically, AS art, if you will. — Constance

That is obviously not true, and Dewey doesn’t hold to this. I spent a few minutes reading about Dewey this morning and he appears to claim that there’s always the potential for aesthetic experience. It is plain silly to say that we always experience the world this way.

I can’t tell if you’re having language trouble, or understanding Dewey trouble, or just goofing.

You've never had an aesthetic experience?

So I experience the poor garden. In the most basic sense it could be said that I'm aware of the garden, and that I'm aware of how I feel about the poor garden experience. It is not an aesthetic experience though it could be under different circumstances or if it were 'framed' propely for someone with my sensibilities, I suppose.

I did a bit of reading on Dewey just now since our new friend Constance is apparently incapable of relating Dewey's ideas well. I copied this bit from Stanford.edu:

From a Deweyan viewpoint, aesthetic experience, then, has roughly the following structure. The experience is set off by some factors, such as opening a book, directing a first glance at a painting, beginning to listen to a piece of music, entering a natural environment or a building, or beginning a meal or a conversation. As aesthetic experience is temporal, the material of the experience does not remain unchanged, but the elements initiating the experience, like reading the first lines of a book or hearing the first chord of a symphony, merge into new ones as the experience proceeds and complex relationships are formed between its past and newer phases. When these different parts form a distinctive kind of orderly developing unity that stands out from the general experiential stream of our lives, the experience in question is aesthetic.

Are you saying that by failing to experience the world aesthetically we are, in a sense, not fully experiencing it?

Surely you're aware of the poor garden, so you're perceiving it. But in another sense, you aren't seeing it. — frank

I don't know what you mean.

Vaguely.

The "artwork" lies in taking something AS art. But then the final question remains a mystery: what is it to take something as art? — Constance

To see something aesthetically.

You’ve claimed that the aesthetic is an integral part of experience itself, however, which seems to mean that we always view things aesthetically. Clearly that is not the case, so once again I’m asking what you mean by that claim.

The way I see it, the pothole in front of my house is a nuisance and an obstacle to my daily affairs … we forget it's art. It's a rug. — Constance

What about your claim that the aesthetic is an integral part of experience itself? You seem to be describing situations where there is not an aesthetic experience.

None of that explains how “the aesthetic is an integral part of experience itself.” In the etymology of the word aesthetic, it at first only meant perception. Maybe you mean it like that? Perception is an integral part experience.

... the aesthetic is an integral part of experience itself ... everything already IS art. — Constance

This could use some explaining, don't you think?

Ice is just slow H20, smart guy.

… like pointing out that water is not dry. — javra

Except when it's not (as when frozen), of course. :razz:

No-self is just a common term in the enlightenment biz and nothing to get especially excited about. Empty doesn't mean non-existent, or rather it means both existent and non-existent, and neither existent nor non-existent... and I've gone crosseyed. Anyway, I'm still curious about what @Alkis Piskas thinks about all this emptiness boloney.

I’m pretty sure that most Buddhists don’t claim to be their bodies.

What is important is that there is a possibility they actually believe there's a spirit which is connected to a body. — Alkis Piskas

I'm curious what you think of Buddhism and other Eastern belief systems, which have existed for thousands of years, and its doctrine of no-self. They believe that this intuition that you hold so highly is the primary cause of all human suffering. Are the millions who've held such a belief throughout history all deluded fools or are they on to something important?

The global financial ponzi scheme depends on economic growth.

There’s some ‘degrowth’ movements cropping up, mostly in Europe, I believe.

They were generally technical reports. They required as much of my creativity as the poetry I've written did. — T Clark

Cool to hear someone describe it this way, as being creative is so commonly only associated with the arTIST.

Not sure how else to respond to the claim that Theravada Buddhists don't believe in emptiness.

If your true nature is to be a Mahayani, yes. — baker

Theravadins also believe in the twelve links of dependent origination.

What a stupid and overdramatically grandiose OP!

Jeez,some of you need to get out more or look at the considerable motes in your own eyes.

Tim is watching too much TV and consuming too much American media.
Relax Timothy. — Ambrosia

You’ve taken it personally. I wonder why? :chin:

Ignorance of our true nature, rather, and what is our true nature you ask? Emptiness.

After all, do physical things exist in the absence of minds?
— praxis

It depends "who" would replace humans as to observe it I guess.
But I am not sure about the answer either. We, humans, name the world "physical" . But is it indeed or only what we can perceive?Our limited "reality"? And isn't " physical" just one more "human invention"? Named that way due to his limited sensations? I think that might be a discussion for another thread.

But for one thing we can be sure." Something" exists for sure!
For me, the existence of mind is the strongest evidence for humans that there is much more than we see . The way we can be so sure for our mind existence i always found it a really miracle!
That's why I think that physical (body-what we perceive) interacts with something non psychical (the whole "invisible world" that we can't perceive or we perceive it different, limited) . That interaction brings in life Mind.
Maybe Mind is Spirit after all. — dimosthenis9

Posts like this are becoming the new normal.

That's the million dollar question for me. I can't answer you that, cause I have no idea how it is done. — dimosthenis9

Or maybe it would be better to think of it in a different way. In a way, everything we experience is a simulation and both 'body' and 'spirit' are part of that simulation. Seen in this way, everything is non-physical. After all, do physical things exist in the absence of minds? I don't believe that they do, or they both do and don't exist, or however best expresses non-duality.

Your sleep should improve if you give up caffeine.

For me human brain generates/or interacts with something clearly non psychical (mind). — dimosthenis9

How can something non-physical interact with something physical?

Hint: It has to do with realization, not concepts — Alkis Piskas

Realization is a concept. I think you may mean what some refer to as trans-rationality, as opposed to rationality or irrationality, and generally speaking, the realization is that ‘spirit’, and indeed everything, is illusory.

If you are a mind or a soul, then why do you say 'my mind or my soul', 'I have a mind or I have a soul', and so on?"
— praxis

BTW, this is my quote. (Actually it's part of my description the topic). praxis just quoted it — Alkis Piskas

Not quite, I switched it up on ya, substituting soul for body. After asking four times you finally addressed the question by asking a question, the point of which, you pointed out, is that you can be and have a spirit because the spirit in not physical. I then explained how both body and spirit occupy the same existential footing, proving your “argument” to be every bit as nonsensical as it appears to be on the surface.

I think that is a very important point. The subjective unity of consciousness is very hard to explain in physicalist terms. One aspect is the neural binding problem, specifically that there is no identifiable neural system which integrates disparate visual data into the integrated whole we actually experience. — Wayfarer

I just finished a book on thousand brain theory that accounts for this, I believe. Take a look if it interests you.

Feel bad about the cheetah cub. Thoughts and prayers. :pray:

This is nonsensical.
— praxis

Well, examine better what the other said before coming out with criticsm. More specifically examine again the meaing of emotion. I have put time axplaing all this to you and you seem to ignore what I said.

OK. That's it for me. I'm out of this utterly failed comminication. — Alkis Piskas

You could at least try to make sense.

How is being and having a body is fundamentally different from being and having a spirit?
— praxis

OK, I'm really sorry that I put into that trouble and waiting.

I will answer with another similar question: "How is consuming and having an apple different from solving and having a mental problem?" Semantically, their difference lies on physicality. One is physical and the other non-physical. Otherwise, linguistically they are parallel grammatical constructions. — Alkis Piskas

You appear to be suggesting that it's impossible to be and have a body because the body is physical and that it is possible to be and have a spirit because it is not physical. Is that right?

I think the trouble you're having is due to not realizing that both 'body' and 'spirit' are concepts. Both of these concepts refer to particular phenomena and neither of them is the thing itself. My body and spirit differ from your body and spirit. I could recognize your particular body or spirit if I knew them well enough, knew their unique characteristics.

Spirit, by itself, doesn't refer to any particular spirit and is nonphysical, right?

Body, by itself, doesn't refer to any particular body and is nonphysical, right?

Your spirit refers to your particular character, how you act and react, which are physical phenomena, right?

Your body refers to your particular body and its various unique features, which are physical phenomena, right?

Anyway, both eating an apple and solving a problem require a brain.

What the brain gives you is a physical response to an emotion. Not the emotion itself. The brain is only a stimulous-response mechanism. The vibrations you mentioned are such a response. The adrenaline you may feel in your body (they say dogs can smell it) from a strong fear is such a response. And so on. — Alkis Piskas

This is nonsensical. You say that the brain is a stimulous-response mechanism and that emotions are part of that mechanism (“The vibrations [feelings] you mentioned are such a response.”), and yet claim that the brain doesn’t produce emotion itself.

Can you please remind me exactly what that question was? — Alkis Piskas

How is being and having a body is fundamentally different from being and having a spirit?

Fourth time I’ve asked.

One thing to consider is that the body continually changes, and indeed every cell is replaced every seven years, but the self maintains a sense of continuity. That is related to the issue of the unity of subjective experience - that although the body is composed of parts, indeed of billions of cells, the self is a simple unity. Which suggests that the self transcends the physical body in being able to create and maintain a sense of continuous existence, while the body itself is subject to constant change. — Wayfarer

Maybe I’m missing the point here but the concepts of ‘body’ and ‘self’ both change, are composed of parts, indeed millions of neural connections, yet have a simple unity.

Indeed Buddhism considers the spirit, the mind and the body as one enity. Also Buddhist medicine is based on a holistic view of the human being. However, the meaning and use of term "spirit" is different in Buddhism. They have another term for what in the West we call "spirit": Atman. So it's just a different word. Taosim uses the word "ghost" for we call "spirit". And so on.

Anyway, even if I agreed with your point, this would not be "opposite" of what I indicated. It would be just a case where my indication could not be applied. But this would not mean that dualism is inexistent in the whole Eastern philosophy! (E.g. Hinduism, Yoga, Taosism) — Alkis Piskas

Atman is Hindu, Anatman (not-self) is Buddhist.

So, what I can see and didn't like at all, is that you tried to find a way to totally refute my indicating of the Eastern philosophy by just mentioning Buddhism, based on the word spirit". This is unfair. Not OK! — Alkis Piskas

:brow: It’s not OKAY that you still haven’t answered my question about how being and having a body is fundamentally different from being and having a spirit. This is the third time I’ve asked.