It's embarrassing. — T Clark

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!

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

I would agree that all things have their foundational grounding in experience, which is inherently aesthetic ( is painful or pleasant ). But we can not put the cart before the horse. Before we can have value, or meaning, or aesthetics, we need information - as information is the fundamental observable. It is the first thing we have, through which the other things - value, meaning, etc, emerge and evolve.

I think, we are not so far apart, except perhaps in this understanding of fundamentals.

So the basis of the scientific method being used to validate Experience, would only ensure the solidifying of a grand circular idea?? — PseudoB

Circular in that a pragmatic theory of knowledge knows no way out. Peirce was the only one who had this "long run" part of his thesis that suggested that affairs in a community of inquirers eventually would resolve in something inevitable, and opposition would be won over. Something like that. Rorty seemed to think something along these lines, holding his liberal irony thesis in which ethical systems would eventually become stable out pure pragmatic necessity. I'd have to read his Contingency, Irony and Solidarity again to recall it well. He said the world is made, not discovered. I think he is both right and wrong.
But look at the scientific method. It is the conditional logical structure of causal events in the world. What is a star, for example? It is, "when one observes a star, certain effects result, and are designated by erms like brightness, distance, doppler red shifts, and so on. Of course, the whole matter is extremely complex, but that is what knowledge is, the "forward looking" anticipation of a thing that predelineates the thing antecedent to encounter. So, to know, is to anticipate what will happen with regard to engagement. This is the hypothetical deductive method, so called. Pragmatists think this is what a knowledge experience is, an event that confirms an anticipation. Circular? There is in this no Hegelian finality.
But then, while I agree that this is what knowledge of object is about, and this is a temporal theory, which has to be the case, I don't believe it is the be all and end all of our being in the world at all.

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

Ok now I get where you are coming from. Since we don't share the same worldview or assumptions there's no point me firing anything back.

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

As for me, I don't think you overstep at all. It is rather welcome, and this is because, while I don't attend much to religious scriptures, I do take them seriously as a means of addressing the world at the threshold of thought where the totality of ideas meet their match and simply have to fall away.
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. This goes to aesthetics, for these feelings and these extraordinary encounters at the threshold of things in music and art are absolutes. Value is an absolute. An unpopular position, but then, everyone else is wrong on this. I would make the point that philosophy can make inroads into religious matters. The way to do this lies with ethics and aesthetics, or, more precisely, metaethics and metaaesthetics. MetaValue! This is at the philosophical core of religion.

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

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. Keep your sense of humor about it.

I've long moved on from your argument for reasons I have stated several times. Sounds to me like a few of us just think it is better to move on. No harm done. You've been indefatigable in trying to defend your view. Good for you. I'm just not going to read any more until you find something new to say.

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.

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.

;)

I think art is to grounded in the aesthetic, and the aesthetic is to be grounded in affect. — Constance

@Constance "Calling an eclair sweet is certainly not a priori"

(y) True. As further described by post-Darwinian "evolutionary aesthetics" and "evolutionary ethics", humans are born with certain innate abilities, in that the brain is not a blank slate. The contemporary word "innate" serves the same purpose as Kant's 18th C word "a priori".

There is a certain ambiguity in the phrase "a priori knowledge". On the one hand it can mean a priori knowledge of the subjective experience of the colour red, sweet taste, aesthetic form, etc. On the other hand it can mean that some people have a genetic predisposition to certain skills and abilities, whether being naturally good at languages, mathematics, people skills, dance, football, etc, where such innate knowledge is not of the goal itself - but an instinctive understanding of how to achieve the goal

IE, it is a priori knowledge of how to achieve a goal rather than a priori knowledge of the goal itself.

@Constance "visual form may elicit the aesthetic...........form itself is not aesthetic"
@Constance "Affect is..............the essential feature of art"
@Constance "I think art is to grounded in the aesthetic, and the aesthetic is to be grounded in affect"

(y) I agree. Clive Bell proposed the concept of "Significant Form", where "There must be some one quality without which a work of art cannot exist; possessing which, in the least degree, no work is altogether worthless" and "lines and colours combined in a particular way, certain forms and relations of forms, stir our aesthetic emotions".

Commentators write "the origin of the aesthetic emotion is within the object itself", but such explanations are ambiguous. Someone observes an object, and there is something about the particular form of the object that induces an aesthetic experience in the mind of the observer. The thing to note is that the object only has a form that is significant to the observer, not that the object has a significant form that is independent of any observer

IE, "significant Form" exists in the observer, not the object observed.

@Constance "This brings the issue to Wittgenstein and why he refused to talk about ethics and aesthetics"

(y) Wittgenstein wrote in TLP 6.421 "It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental".

In a sense Wittgenstein refused to talk and ethics and aesthetics, but as Bertrand Russell wrote in the introduction to the Tractatus "Mr. Wittgenstein manages to say a good deal about what cannot be said, thus suggesting to the sceptical reader that possibly there may be some loophole through a hierarchy of languages, or by some other exit".

In a letter to Bertrand Russell, Wittgenstein complained that the British philosopher did not understand the main message of theTractatus. He explained that “the main point is the theory of what can be expressed by propositions—i.e., by language . . . and what cannot be expressed by propositions, but only shown; which, I believe, is the cardinal problem of philosophy”

But in practice, philosophers have made reasonable livings from teaching and writing books about aesthetics and ethics, so it cannot be as clear cut as Wittgenstein suggests.

It is interesting fact that I know for certain that my private subjective experience of the sweet taste of an eclair and aesthetic form are the same as yours, as much as I know that there is a cup of tea on the table in front of me.

So how is it that communication using language is possible, using public words such as sweetness of taste and aesthetic form, where such public words refer to private subjective experiences that can never be described in words.

So how do I know for certain that my private subjective experience of aesthetic form is the same as your private subjective experience of aesthetic form, when the only thing they have in common is the public word "aesthetic form".



Using only six pictures, I believe the meaning of "togavata" would be generally understood, sufficient to be able to classify the final picture on the far right as either "togavayat" or not "togavata"

IE, I cannot describe my private subjective experience of "togavata", yet I can relatively easily communicate my private subjective experience of "togavata" by attaching a public word to it.

Language is thereby able to communicate private subjective experiences by linking public words to them, thereby allowing language to be used to communicate private subjective experiences, whether aesthetic form, sweetness of taste, the pain of a headache, etc.

IE, Wittgenstein could have sensibly talked about aesthetics and ethics by linking public words to his private experiences of them.

But we can not put the cart before the horse. — Pop

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.

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?

But all Experience is based on perception, which is the same but different for all. The reality of things sensible being made of things not sensible, proves to be indisputable, once one recognizes that what we are able to sense is limited only by our beliefs, which are non sensible in and of themselves. Their final product is sensible but the belief itself is not. It is merry thought, or spirit, however one wants to word it.

I know many see the “invisibles” as Descriptors of some thing presented to the senses, as attributes of some preexisting Matter, but it is just as rational to say that those “attributes” are what makes up the Experience of Matter.

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

Lots of metaphors in there. Perhaps you could say it in straight prose. Doing this, using language with as much clarity as possible, without yielding to dogmatic clarity, which I think is what analytic philosophy has done, is the only way to reveal the idea.
On dogmatic clarity: this is the insistence that meaning is confined to the accessible, familiar language possibilities. Alas for this as an abiding principle, the world is not like this at all. It is a mystical place, to put it flatly, the foundations of which are intimated as revelatory. This is why I don't condemn such talk as yours as blatantly obscurantist. It is obscure, but the world is obscure at the level of basic questions. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best to clarify---not at all. This clarifying what is at a distance from what language can say clearly is philosophy's job.

This clarifying what is at a distance from what language can say clearly is philosophy's job.

I am with Boethius, in describing what is Philosophy? Basically our Philosophies determine what is Sensible to us.

But here again, the Experience of Solidity is only justified by the existence of Truth, imo, yes, but I see no other possibility.

But here again, the Experience of Solidity is only justified by the existence of Truth, imo, yes, but I see no other possibility. — PseudoB

But what does this mean? Solidity? Truth? These are meaningless without context, even if the context is talk about acontextuality, which would need further discussion. Explanations can be a way to terminate explanations, in Occam's razor fashion. But this has to be, well, explained, laid clear.

Ok, I see Truth and “fact” as different. I see Truth as that which “is”, regardless of Experience. I understand “fact” to be an honest depiction of personal Experience. So the Experience of Solidity, would be contrasted by the Experience of Liquid or even Air (which is water in different degrees). But the Experience does not necessitate the Belief. Rather, the belief necessitates the Experience. Thus presenting us with a Science of Manifestation. Which does in fact give us an explanation of lying manifestations, appearing Real. Also shines Light on why this understanding is utterly required to escape a “lower realm” that is divided and doomed to destruction, imo.

Truth, being that which is, regardless of Experience, this Truth provides for the Experience of Realms of Belief. From here, Newtonian laws of motion apply more to “invisibles”, just as stated in Hebrews 11:1-3 kjv.

This “key”, opens a Door, that once shut cannot be opened and once opened (understood) cannot be shut (ignored).

This Key and this Door, if applied to the Four Elements and their Relationships, are a Furnace, by which to purify Gold. Some would say, to MAKE Gold, to Transmute what appears as Lead initially, into the Experience of Gold.

Knowledge of BOTH good and evil, provides for the Experience of BOTH. This divided house cannot stand, in that it does decay, does, gets lost, stolen, etc. Without the knowledge of evil, the Experience would in fact be impossible, however the Fire required to put the fires under subjection is “insanely” hot….

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

Aestheticism emphasizes aesthetic value and effects. It doesn’t deny other positions so this can’t be said to be a definition of art. What are you thinking?!

So art is information about the artist's consciousness (hopefully you understand consciousness a little more broadly by now). — Pop

I might understand your ideas about it if you were to ever expand on them. When asked, you mention various various philosophies and belief systems, some of which appear to contradict things you’ve said, but don’t explain your ideas in any depth.

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

Apparently I don’t need to.

… 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

Every expression is meaningful regardless of art. I can demonstrate this fact. Try to communicate something to me that is meaningless.

You have failed to show how claiming that art is an expression of consciousness contradicts (“is a thorn in the side of”) aestheticism.

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

No one has any knowledge of the non-physical, do you? I don't have any knowledge of how all experience functions - does anyone?

I notice you point to faith - the best definition of this is the excuse people give for believing something when they have no good reason. Are you here to preach or evangelise?

I am a writer Tom. My writing helps me work out mysteries. Helps me see things that otherwise remain hidden to myself, because it’s then placed right in front of me. 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”. I refer back to Scripture all the time because just as Constance has said, it is the meeting place of reality and thought or ideas, and this Science is rejected by the masses simply because they don’t believe a physics of matter has any effect of things immaterial. As you have said, you don’t believe anything immaterial exists, basically. Yet, I bet you believe in Momentum! Lol, immaterial, yes, but clearly has effects on material things. We are taught this is an attribute of Matter, but what I see is Ingredients of Matter. What hinders this are the beliefs we are born into the Momentum of. Trying to overcome these presents as a “fire heated seven times hotter than normal”. So the language provides the connections necessary, the meanings, etc. Quite scientifically, just upside down and backwards.

as to Experience of anything non physical, yes sir, I have had many such experiences. I have had dreams that end up playing out exactly. How I could have known the exacts of the most non meaningful things, months ahead of time, is an impossibility that our science of the day has left me with giant holes to fill in. Whereas other Philosophies have given a very scientific explanation, when understood nonphysically.

I am a writer Tom. — PseudoB

I'm sorry to hear that.

As you have said, you don’t believe anything immaterial exists, basically. — PseudoB

No - I said no one has any knowledge of non-physical things. A different nuance entirely.

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

Well, you quoted Hebrews 11, not me. So you seem to be calling it faith.

Anyway... back to art.

“Art” has always given a form to that which has no specific form. Beauty comes in all shapes and sizes. So does Death. So does Fear. So does Love. All invisibles, that, like Life, have infinite forms, but their essence or spirit is one. Life grows. Death consumes. As I understand things, us giving life to death is the cause of the momentum of iniquity, the belief of lies, that provides us all with an experiential realm which confirms our core beliefs by hiding them from us and keeping us focused on the forms it takes. You could be a bit more patient and less frustrated with me and my faith. Funny how Death prefers to even kill that which gives it life. But I’d be glad to kill Death :)

Seems to me the hardest part in killing the Experience of Death, in all its forms, is the Work it takes to overcome the beliefs that allow for the Experience. The person u were before reading this is no longer the same. Technically a part of you has died, by merely reading this. Call it an assault? Maybe. But if it leads to a better and more thorough understanding of the whole, then how can I deserve to be punished? At some point a stand must be taken, else one commits philosophical suicide.

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

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. :smile:

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

Your mate thinks he is entitled to troll this thread with vacant opinions, as if it was a facebook post or something. It is very low standard, and can hardly be called philosophy. It must be the fifth time he has made the same vacuous comment. I think I have been very patient in my response to people although most of the time the OP answers their questions, provided they make genuine enquiries. But I will not tolerate histrionic whinging and whining, or backhanded derision without reciprocating.

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. It also means it can be easily falsified - you can provide a work of art which the definition does not capture. I point out in the definition proof that this is not logically possible, and I would have thought most people of normal intelligence would understand this, but it seems not.

I'm sorry you find such things as a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art empty, but I am aware of flat earthers, Q Anoners, New world orders, etc, so nothing much surprises me.

:rofl:

They have an information theoretic running through them, which I am in the process of understanding. — Pop

For my own knowledge:

Is Norbert Wiener's 1950 The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society relevant to your position - where art is just a part of patterns of information within the world ?

Also, is the article Dissecting landscape art history with information theory 2020 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America relevant to your position - whose approach at a meta-narrative is that of a quantitative understanding of a landscape painting rather than a qualitative one ?

I will not tolerate histrionic whinging and whining, or backhanded derision without reciprocating. — Pop

Speaking of melodrama.

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

That’s super cool and all, but what use is it? You claim that it will put art back into the hands of intellectuals and artists, and put a thorn in the side of aestheticism, but can’t explain how. I hope you realize how clownish this makes you look.

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

Heh, heh, careful what you call old. Speaking for myself, the post, post modern works that have a lineage that reaches back to Kant, through, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Husserl, Heidegger, Levinas, Derrida, and into the current French Husserlians who examine the phenomenological reduction of Husserl, like Jean Luc Nancy, Michel Henry and others; and, speaking of yoga, the way the reduction aligns with, explains phenomenologically, yogic practices (yoga, from the Sanskrit meaning, to join. I suspect when you talk about yoga logic, you have this in mind. Keep in mind, the point here is to establish a union with something ultimate and profound), as well as others contributions.
I read through The information theory of individuality you provided a link for, about half way through. I find this:

Shannon did not describe entropy in terms of heat flow and work but in terms of information shared through a channel transmitted from a signaler to a receiver. The power of information theory derives in part from the incredible generality of Shannon’s scheme. The signaler can be a phone in Madison and the receiver a phone in Madrid, or the signaler can be a parent and the receiver its offspring. For phones, the channel is a fiber-optic cable and the signal pulses of light. For organisms the channel is the germ line and the signal the sequence of DNA or RNA polynucleotides in the genome

The virtue of this concept seems to lie in the way it describes the fluidity and interference in passing from one agency to another of some quantity, the original form of which is entropically diminished, distorted, etc. in transmission. The "information" designates a wide variety of possibilities, from sound vibrations across a wire to hereditary biological features found genetic material.

Such a concept even applies to the preservation of the self in time: how much is actually preserved of this constructed self in the transmission of self in time from past through to future? The self is in decay, or, each moment is an entropic loss of the previous, and perhaps a reconstruction: the self is thereby defined as a fluid reconstruction of information, what Husserl called predelineation: We live in an adumbration of the past that is presented in eidetically formed predicated affairs, to use his language. I find this interesting, and perhaps I will look into it.

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.

To me, it is a bit like looking at the human condition and its most meaningful dimension, and saying, well, what does the actuarial table say? You may be right, I mean, the table might be a true account. But how is this quantitative account even remotely adequate?

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

Strange take, I don’t know anyone who is offended by an actuarial table, or anyone who’s not emotionally affected by artistic quality.

Strange take, I don’t know anyone who is offended by an actuarial table, or anyone who’s not emotionally affected by artistic quality. — praxis

I cant match what you say here to what I wrote. They are wildly different.