Nonsense. Taoist literature should be read the same way as Machiavelli's The Prince. — baker

Your judgement and mine are often at odds.

I started a thread under Philosophy o Fart about a defaced painting, It won't go anywhere. — Bitter Crank

Just a reminder that you started this thread as a joke, a throwaway. It's turned into an interesting discussion. 65 posts and three pages. That's a respectable showing and we're not even done yet.

The pause mean.. 'but sentimental pap'. — Tom Storm

I don't think I buy this, but that brings us back to what is good and what isn't. There is a tendency for sophisticated people to see sentiment as overly sentimental. That's one of the raps against country music that I don't buy. Most rock and roll is unwilling or afraid to talk about mothers, fathers, children, friendships, families, communities. If I remember correctly, you're not a country fan. I am. Then again, there's good and there's bad.

On what basis are you saying it is not art - personal opinion? — Tom Storm

Let's say, "personal judgement". How else would anyone decide? — Bitter Crank

I think it's important to keep the question of whether something is art separate from whether or not it is good, although Robert Pirsig wrote that art is "high quality endeavor" in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." I don't buy that. That's why I like simple definitions. The simplest - Art is anything that is presented by someone for aesthetic judgement. It's similar to saying that it's art if I say it is, but not exactly. It's a rule that's easy to apply.

I think the question of what is good is harder, at least for me. There are a lot of things I really like that I know aren't high quality and there are a lot of things I don't especially like that I know are.

Picasso's imagination seems to have been much wider than Rockwell's, and he worked in several different forms. His "Mask" sculpture in Chicago is an example: — Bitter Crank

Rockwell's work is representative, while much of Picasso's isn't. It's hard to compare. I like some non-representative work. I might even get it sometimes, but it always seems like a joke. Maybe a pun. A play on images instead of a play on words. When you see how good a representative painter Picasso can be, it puts a whole different light on his work. It's not that he can't paint purty, he chooses not to. I believe there's something there, but I often can't see it.

They are not right or wrong about what they like, and what they like is probably what they judge to be better, more artistic. That's altogether understandable. Rockwell's Saturday Evening Post illustrations are part of my childhood, certainly; Picasso was not. Picasso and Rockwell aren't equivalent artists -- different times, different places, different environments, different sources of income, etc. — Bitter Crank

Rockwell is as much an illustrator as a painter. Even his paintings are really illustrations. Illustration is a different art than fine art painting, but it is worthy of respect. Different standards apply. I still vividly remember when my father read Verne's "The Mysterious Island" to my family. N.C. Wyeth's great illustrations were a big part of the experience. They still move me today. Put me right back lying on the floor as my father read.

This found object could be mounted on a nice hunk of wood and be called a sculpture. I'm pretty sure it would pass muster as art for a fairly large number of people. I really like it, but I don't think it is art, any more than an interesting mollusk shell is art, beautiful though it may be. — Bitter Crank

I think the act of mounting it on a block of wood is what would make it art. It would be an announcement that it should be seen as more than just an object. The frame draws you to step back and think about it from an aesthetic point of view, which is one of the definitions of "art" I find most satisfying.

Cosmic Latte starts out as a tiresome shade of pale and goes downhill from there. Yet another way the universe sucks. — Bitter Crank

Agreed, but, since I put if forward for aesthetic judgement, it's art. The knowledge that it represents a representative color for the entire universe contributes to its significance and, thus, to my experience.

Except Thomas Kinkaid: His gooey, treacly, cloying sentimental village scenes are a criminal aggravation — Bitter Crank

Agreed. He makes Norman Rockwell look like Salvador Dali.

Again, you have affirmed that my perspective is intellectually lazy or dishonest. The affirmation was yours. Its up to you to cogently justify it. — javra

I've stated my case several times. I don't feel like doing it again.

Yeah you do. — dimosthenis9

Not interested. We can leave it at that.

where does scientism and/or physicalism any empirical science contradict my propositions? — javra

Is that how it works? You don't have to show how you're contention might be true, I have to prove that it's wrong?

Decoration, however, isn't art, in my opinion. — Bitter Crank

I understand the point you're making and I agree all the way up until I don't. Your standard of art is tougher than mine. I think you're making it more highfalutin than it needs to be. I think it makes sense to say that art is anything that someone presents for aesthetic judgement. Then we get to decide if it's good art or not. For me, that judgement is based on what I experience when I look at it. As you noted, the experience I get from the mural in question is a pleasant appreciation for the color and composition and not much else. Yes, it could qualify as decoration. Can decoration be art? I think it can. I think decoration can even be good art.

Painting a wall color #F0EAD6, otherwise known as eggshell (type of bird not defined) is not art in any way, shape, manner or form. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps not, but it might be if you painted it Cosmic Latte as @jorndoe explained last week:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/636858

Hotels, hospitals, and clinics buy cheap reproductions of recognized art work to hang on the wall. They also buy framed photographs of trees and flowers, hills and mountains, water etc; truckloads of occasional furniture of various styles, even manufactured assemblages of bits and pieces that have a Duchampian 'found art' appearance, but are not. The overall effect is kind of neutral, not bothersome, sort of pleasant. — Bitter Crank

Actually, I find this kind of decoration soul-deadening. Not neutral at all, especially in hospitals and nice hotels where they are supposed to care about us. This type of decoration provides little messages over and over every minute - You are not worth putting any effort into providing a comfortable, attractive place for you to stay. You mean nothing to us.

Is evolution randomness devoid of any selective forces? — javra

Do these selective forces select for that which is most accordant to what is objectively real? — javra

Mutations are the random factor in evolution. These sometimes lead to changes in the organism which have a differential impact on it's survivability in a particular environment. If by "most accordant to what is objectively real" you mean "survivable in a particular environment," then we are probably on the same page, although your way of saying it is vague and likely to lead to misunderstanding.

Considering that comprehension of what I've written occurs, where is the intellectual laziness or dishonesty in this, um, perspective lets call it? — javra

As I noted, your explanation, as expressed in the post I am responding to, is close to agreement with existing science. But you've said more in previous posts:

then one again can begin to accommodate the perspective wherein absolute love, which might also be interpreted as absolute good, is the ultimate reality which serves as "goal" for evolution's processes. — javra

my own presumption is that evolution in some way works with the will to “be/become conformant to objective reality - both metaphysical and physical”. — javra

This is where my accusation comes in - you use science when it fits with your worldview and ignore it when it doesn't.

I started a thread under Philosophy o Fart about a defaced painting, It won't go anywhere. — Bitter Crank

See. You were wrong. It's a very successful thread. I've had the opportunity to insult you not once, but twice.

how is "the process of evolution selects for that which is most conformant to objectivity via variations" intellectually lazy or dishonest. You mean to say evolution doesn't do that? — javra

I don't even know what that means. The quote below is the type I am finding fault with.

I grant that there is a will to [something] in respect to the process of evolution, but, given the aforementioned, it can’t be a will to survive/exist [for clarity: as a selfhood-endowed being/entity]

------

Though I doubt this will be much of a contender, I’ll add to the mix of ideas as regards possible answers: my own presumption is that evolution in some way works with the will to “be/become conformant to objective reality - both metaphysical and physical”. Those changes (mutations, etc.) or properties that deviate the being/entity (e.g., species) from objective reality to a sufficient extent tend to cause the being/entity to cease to be. Those changes or properties that conform the being/entity to objective reality to a sufficient extent tend to cause the being/entity to continue remaining - albeit, often in changed form. Mere poetics as is, but I like it: shares certain attributes with "truth being a conformity with that which is real". Again, I acknowledge the mystical-ish poeticism to much of this. But in the absence of something more logically cogent given what I previously mentioned about evolution, I’m biased toward maintaining this point of view. This for whatever it might be worth. — javra

It also conforms to Duchamp's criteria: If the brush holder calls it art, then it IS art. That leads to this...

Or, your crooked snowman is art if you so designate it. (You are required to publish the announcement in the official Art Register, however.) Without proper documentation, millions of snow art pieces are lost forever. Just fucking tragic. — Bitter Crank

Yes, you're right. I'm glad we could finally enlighten you. Commie Philistine.

No,no -- you totally missed the point of the piece: the green splotches represent the sacredness of commercial activity in capitalist economies, threatened by the insidious creep of socialism--performed by the red blotches. I don't know how you could have missed that -- it is so obvious. — Bitter Crank

You fucking Marxists are all the same. "Oppression of the proletariat" blah blah blah. "Workers revolution" blah blah blah.

Chill we won't want to turn evolution into anything. We just share common questions, doubts and ideas about matters that still haven't definite answers. — dimosthenis9

I don't see any problem at all on that, as to use such heavy characterizations as lazy and dishonest. — dimosthenis9

I used those words because I think it is intellectually lazy at least to accept science when it reinforces your fantasies and reject it when it doesn't.

At the end why are there so many possible combinations in genes as natural selection to occur??
Could it be possible that all these "DNA errors" that cause mutations, as T Clark described them, to serve a purpose of survival? A purpose for the organism to go on living through that "error procedure"? Even death as you say seems necessary for life. — dimosthenis9

T Clark didn't describe them as just DNA errors, he described them as random DNA errors. Random, in this case, means they don't have any particular direction or goal. Again, you use what supports your vague vision and ignore what doesn't.

By the way you repost my response but I don't see any answers to my questions.And you know why? Cause you don't even know. And no one does. Yet at least. — dimosthenis9

What questions do you mean? Do you mean "At the end why are there so many possible combinations in genes as natural selection to occur?" If you're asking me how DNA based life developed from from non-living material, there are theories about how that happened, although they are not as well established as the theory of evolution by natural selection. That's irrelevant to the present discussion. How life began is a different question than how evolution works. Darwin was explicit about that in "Origin of Species."

Fact is, DNA is set up the way it is. It's set up in such a way that it allows evolution to proceed. Darwin's theory had nothing to say about DNA. DNA wasn't even discovered until almost 100 years after he first wrote about evolution. Darwin didn't even know anything specific about genetics. Mendel's work wasn't published until about forty years after Origin of Species.

Couple mistakes $400,000 art work for participatory art project"...

Question: If you can't tell where the "art work" ends and the "vandalism" begins, then how much creative value does the work have? — Bitter Crank

Seems like it aught to be worth more after the additions. It gives it additional authenticity.

Should we just call it garbage and be done with it? — Bitter Crank

Well, it is art by the @praxis criteria - It is presented with the intention that it be judged on an aesthetic basis.

It also meets my criteria - It is clearly presented to elicit an experience from viewers.

Also - I like it. The colors are pleasing and it has an interesting verticality. It clearly represents the journey and return of a soul - that orange blob in the middle - to a spiritual realm and then back.

Your thoughts, as Wayfarer's doubts too, seem like an oasis for me at this thread. — dimosthenis9

At the end why are there so many possible combinations in genes as natural selection to occur??
Could it be possible that all these "DNA errors" that cause mutations, as T Clark described them, to serve a purpose of survival? A purpose for the organism to go on living through that "error procedure"? Even death as you say seems necessary for life. — dimosthenis9

If you, @Wayfarer, @javra, and Teilhard want to turn evolution into a hugs and kisses spiritual love fest where rocks are conscious and everyone will eventually join with God, knock yourselves out. You guys just want to pick and choose those aspects of science that jibe with your magic-realistic world view and reject those that don't. That's intellectually lazy at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

How long is this Ching thing you've got going to last? — Bitter Crank

I've been around for 70 years. I figure I've got another 10 years give or take. So - let's say 10 years.

Would mediocrity be considered evil then? — john27

We're talking about good, i.e. high quality, vs. low quality. Not good vs. evil.

is mediocrity really so far removed from "good'? — john27

Yes.

I do appreciate you starting this.

Is there a defense for excellence? — john27

There's a saying - The excellent is the enemy of the good. My way of saying that is - Good is good enough. Sometimes, when I'm frustrated or lazy, I might say - Good enough is good enough.

So much in the world is not particularly good, it's mediocre. Aiming for good is an appropriate and honorable goal.

I don't know, those look pretty similar to me. — john27

If that's really true, and not just a rhetorical feint, there's not much else I can say.

Hmm...What does this poem mean by "low place"? — john27

Humility is a big deal in Taoism. Many verses talk about the danger of exalting yourself. Trying to achieve acclaim. One metaphor that gets used a lot is that Tao is like water. It always seeks out low places, but it has great power. In low places, things gain no advantage or acclaim. They are ignored.

Hm. What's the difference then? — john27

Definitions from the web.

Mediocre:

• Of ordinary or undistinguished quality. synonym: average.
• Of a middle quality; of but a moderate or low degree of excellence; indifferent; ordinary.
• Ordinary: not extraordinary; not special, exceptional, or great; of medium quality;

Moderate:

• Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme.
• Not violent or subject to extremes; mild or calm; temperate.
• Of medium or average quantity or extent.

The tallest poppy gets its head cut, therefore, it's the mediocre poppy that is the best one. — baker

Oh good. Another chance to use Taoist quotations. This from the Chuang-tsu, Thomas Merton's translation:

Hui Tzu said to Chuang:
I have a big tree,
The kind they call a "stinktree."
The trunk is so distorted,
So full of knots,
No one can get a straight plank
Out of it. The branches are so crooked
You cannot cut them up
In any way that makes sense.

There it stands beside the road.
No carpenter will even look at it.

Such is your teaching
Big and useless...

So for your big tree. No use?
Then plant it in the wasteland
In emptiness.
Walk idly around,
Rest under its shadow;
No axe or bill prepares its end.
No one will ever cut it down.
Useless? You should worry!

to act in moderation is in instant of a rationalized act, to be, in some way or another, perfect. — john27

Acting in moderation is not mediocrity. That's at the heart of many philosophical systems. The Middle Way is fundamental to Buddhism. Plato and Aristotle wrote about moderation. This is from the Tao Te Ching, Stephen Mitchell's translation of Verse 8:

The supreme good is like water,
which nourishes all things without trying to.
It is content with the low places that people disdain.
Thus it is like the Tao.

In dwelling, live close to the ground.
In thinking, keep to the simple.
In conflict, be fair and generous.
In governing, don't try to control.
In work, do what you enjoy.
In family life, be completely present.

When you are content to be simply yourself
and don't compare or compete,
everybody will respect you.

The question was 'Why should there be anything for natural selection to select?' — Wayfarer

Sorry. I don't get it.

Evolution 101 - but it doesn't address the question. — Wayfarer

Are you asking where the mutations come from? As I noted, they are random. I think some are spontaneous and some are caused by radiation and other factors. I'm stepping a bit beyond my level of knowledge here.

I decided to look it up on the web. The source I looked at says that most mutations are thought to be caused by spontaneous errors when DNA is copied.

If that's not what you're asking, I don't see how I didn't address the question.

Natural selection is like a filter, but is a filter responsible for generating what goes through it? Why should there be anything for natural selection to select? — Wayfarer

Random mutations lead to a change the genetic makeup of some organisms. Most of these changes lead either to no significant change in the organism itself or changes that do not increase or decrease the ability of the organism to survive in a particular environment. Some do increase or decrease that ability. Mutations that lead to improvements in survivability can be passed on to offspring.

Please die, thread. Poor thing, I should never have started you. — jgill

This, as so many others, is The Thread That Doesn't End.

This is the thread that doesn't end.
It just goes on and on my friend.
Some people started writing it, not knowing what it was.
Now they'll continue writing it forever just because,
This is the thread that doesn't end [repeat]

it's impossible not to hop or wobble when climbing the stairs... — Raymond

Not if it's an escalator. Step on and move in a straight diagonal line to the top.

Someone here even thinks they float straight up a stair... — Raymond

Ha! Float straight up a stair. That guy must be really stup...Hey... wait a minute. What if it's an escalator. Is there still a paradox?

Is that all it takes to get rid of this dumb-ass paradox - a motor and some gears?

This is the stupidest discussion I have ever seen on the forum... Well, that's not true. Pretty stupid though. Here's my favorite:

In my opinion, the philosophical paradox is only solvable having gained an intuitionistic understanding of the continuum and of point-free topology, due to the fact that intuitionism is better fitted to the phenomenology of mathematical judgement.

But for example with vaccinations when you "fight" the virus. It responds right? Some variations have much more resistance to vaccines. Trying to "fight back" and keep existing. Doesn't it change as to keep existing?
If it did nothing at all why not just fall apart from the first place? Doesn't that response indicates something? Maybe it doesn't but I don't know I find it weird. — dimosthenis9

So apparently you didn't buy my explanation of evolution by natural selection. If you want to buy into some sort of story about the struggling virus fighting against our attempts to kill it, there's not much more I can say.

I feel myself always hopping on a stair. My center of mass seems not to go in a straight line. Maybe you walk the stairs while your CoM floats linea recta. — Raymond

When you're walking up the stairs, your feet go up and down, just like they do when you're walking on a flat surface. I guess you're center of mass doesn't go in a straight line in either case. By your logic, when I walk a mile on a flat surface, I should say I walked more than a mile.

Isn't the distance traveled on the stairs always 2? You not go in a straight line on the stairs. Only on a flat slope, if not slippery. The paradox is that the length of the stairs seems sqrt2 but is 2. — Raymond

If I walk a mile on a flat surface, how far did I walk? A mile. I don't count the distance my feet moved when they went up and down as I walked. Why would I do that on the stairs? My feet don't follow the discontinuous path of the stair.