It's embarrassing. — T Clark
All things have their foundational grounding in the aesthetic dimension of our existence, for as Hume said of reason, the same holds for information: in itself, it is empty. — Constance
So the basis of the scientific method being used to validate Experience, would only ensure the solidifying of a grand circular idea?? — PseudoB
Many have said there is more Truth in the first ten scriptures of Genesis than in all the libraries of the world. To answer the question, “what is Truth”, I can only answer: what has no opposition, and is always, regardless of Experience. Truth accounts for all experience of solidity, where all came from a Water.
I hope I have not overstepped. — PseudoB
Well, without being too open, I will try to point at it. Reason being because one must invest into the equation, to have a personal experience with the Truth, else one is just taking another’s experience as Gospel, with no personal evidence.
The scientific mind is indeed the closest to the Truth in these days, but on needs to see the relationship between where we came from and how the four Elements function. The relationship of the Elements, in practice, presents as a fire heated seven times hotter than normal.
This furnace is depicted in every Cathedral, and the hints in concrete and metal artwork throughout history. The Key allows for the greening and growing of Splendor Solis, that is also in every business building’s artwork, whether in stone or art.
Once one can see this unspoken Cabala all throughout every aspect of society, as a constant reminder of the renewing of the mind needed to accomplish the Worke.
Many have said there is more Truth in the first ten scriptures of Genesis than in all the libraries of the world. To answer the question, “what is Truth”, I can only answer: what has no opposition, and is always, regardless of Experience. Truth accounts for all experience of solidity, where all came from a Water.
I hope I have not overstepped. — PseudoB
What is truly embarrassing is how a dim wit and lack of any substantial argument whatsoever, will not prevent some from expressing their consciousness, mistaking their opinions for something of philosophical worth, like royalty. :lol: Far out!
Most people would understand the first time, but it seems you need to be told again - put up or shut up! — Pop
I think one always has to keep Wittgenstein in mind. The Good, he said, was divinity, but one may not speak of it. It is a given, and language cannot penetrate this, so one should simply not try to speak of it.
I think art is to grounded in the aesthetic, and the aesthetic is to be grounded in affect. — Constance
So can anyone explain why “the Good”, in and of itself, supposes the opposite to have to be?
I understand that most use contrast to justify this, but clearly the Gnostics have found no need to maintain giving life to death. To be clear, I am not set on any particular “religion”. I do however equate the Experience of Solidity whatsoever with Truth, and all Ideas as a Water, thus making much sense, or shall I say, making such Thoth, Thought, sensible, tho clearly Cabalistic in revelation.
This Absolution of Good, presents as an accessible Kingdom, a Realm in which Mind is a realm tainted by Division. This division is maintained throughout all society, and as noted in the scriptures, “a house divided cannot stand”. It may be necessary to maintain a Forceful mindset, but to maintain Humility in a Circle would put Nature under Subjection, and without Force….
Some would call this the Stone. — PseudoB
This clarifying what is at a distance from what language can say clearly is philosophy's job.
But here again, the Experience of Solidity is only justified by the existence of Truth, imo, yes, but I see no other possibility. — PseudoB
Claiming that art is an expression of consciousness in no way contradicts aestheticism.
— praxis
I don't wish to say that art is not aesthetic, plainly it is. However all experience is aesthetic, so to focus on aesthetics as the defining feature that separates art from everything else is an error. — Pop
So art is information about the artist's consciousness (hopefully you understand consciousness a little more broadly by now). — Pop
Yes art is aesthetic … You can not, and you have not put forward any arguments or propositions that define art in terms of aesthetics — Pop
… most pertinent element of all art - that it is information about consciousness. This makes all art meaningful, as an expression of consciousness, regardless of anybody's personal preferences or motives, or understanding. — Pop
so if I understand our differences, the core issue is that I see a nonphysical, spiritual core, if u will, behind all Experience, whereas you do not…. Am I correct here? — PseudoB
I am a writer Tom. — PseudoB
As you have said, you don’t believe anything immaterial exists, basically. — PseudoB
Yes, some may call it Faith, but that is only the initial step in belief in something one cannot sense. From there tho, it is surely a Science, which, as I have found, is quite like our laws of motion according to Newtonian physics, applied to “invisibles”. — PseudoB
Not to provoke, but just a quick note: this cart before the horse? The real construction of horses and carts lies in the hor-ca-se-rt. This is phenomenology. Dewey was close to this, but like I said, he missed the boat...or cart. — Constance
Pop, TC's not the only one here who thinks your idea is empty. But don't make it about him. Abusing the man isn't an argument. — Tom Storm
They have an information theoretic running through them, which I am in the process of understanding. — Pop
I will not tolerate histrionic whinging and whining, or backhanded derision without reciprocating. — Pop
Your mate did not understand what a scientific definition of art even means. It means that the definition is relevant for all art ever made, regardless of culture, from the furthest past, to the most distant future. — Pop
Not really sure what this means. Nevertheless, I am impressed with your energetic, and enthusiastic, philosophy. If you don't mind, I would like to tell you why I hold the fort pretty well. My understanding is based in systems theory, constructivism, enactivism, integrated information theory, and yogic logic. Half of these are main stream science, and the other half are about to be, and Yogic logic agrees with a lot of it. They have an information theoretic running through them, which I am in the process of understanding. They create a picture of everything existing as interactive systems and subsystems in an enmeshed and interdependent evolutionary process. This mix of theoretical understanding unifies and integrates very well, and can be used to understand almost any system or situation, from complex financial systems, to tiny simple microorganisms.
As I see it, most contemporary understanding is based on a mix of these theories, spiced up with insight and data from here and there. Such as this theory of individuality released last year. Unfortunately most understanding on this forum is rather old - being based on old philosophy that did not have the benefit of these theories, or the contemporary view that information is something fundamental. Most of this older philosophy is fundamentally flawed in this way, and as a result so is the understanding that is based on it. This is largely my opinion, which I thought I'd share with you if you are interested. I thought it might be something you might want to look into as a way to strengthen your philosophy, by expanding it to incorporate an information theoretic. Of course it is hardly my place to tell you what to do — Pop
My trouble, as I read through this, is that it is entirely a quantifiable analysis. Aesthetics is not quantifiable, or it is (in some hedonic scheme), but this is not the point; the point is, quantifying is altogether absent of the quality, and aesthetics is all about quality. All talk about complex transmissions of information may be true, as the actuarial tables are true for people selling insurance, and no one can say such tables are false, or wrong. They're not. But then, life and death qualitatively has nothing whatsoever to do with actuarial tables. This is why your announcement that art in information offends others here. They think art is profound, religious, or deeply meaningful. Others look to the meanings in play, how truth connects to images, how images are iconographic reflections of the self; and so on. — Constance
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.