Ivor and Olive Lewis on sun 5 aug 07
Dear Friends,
When technical terms (jargon) are introduced into discussions that are =
not directly allied to the anticipated content of our decision group I =
often have problems in grasping the importance of some messages.
Terms from other disciplines may be accessible using a larger dictionary =
but even then the description of meaning may not be entirely clear.
QUALIA had me confused, my immediate thought being that it referred =
to"quality". A check with 'Webster' did not help in the context of the =
posting. Help came form another dictionary, that of Psychology.
Entry is "Quale...A term used by early structuralist for any simple, non =
interpreted element of experience..... " leading me to interpret =
Elizabeth Priddy's summation that "Qualia" are our self observed inner =
sensations. Beyond that the strands of the psychological discussion =
become controversial, dare I say...Metaphysical.
Best regards to all,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
South Australia.
,
Elizabeth Priddy on sun 5 aug 07
I was actually trying to clarify something Kathy was saying,=0Abut I must h=
ave muddled it even further.=0A=0APhilosophers use qualia to define those t=
hings outside the=0Arealm of physical experience. It is a term used to enc=
ompass=0Aall things notdirectly observable by scientific means.=0A=0ABeauty=
, as an experience, a thing you can observe, is essentially=0Aan element of=
qualia, rather than substance.=0A=0AI believe that connotative understandi=
ng of phenomena contribute=0Aheavily to the beauty of the object observed, =
music or art or things.=0A=0ALee likes nature, for instance and does not l=
ike man-made things as much.=0ASo any natural thing he observes seems to be=
more beautiful to him than =0Aany thing he might find that someone made. =
This is a matter of qualia, his=0Aexperience of the thing, rather than the =
thing itself.=0A=0AOr to put it more colloquially, to each his own.=0A=0AE=
=0A =0AElizabeth Priddy=0ABeaufort, NC - USA=0A =0ANatural Instincts Confer=
ence Information:=0Ahttp://downtothepottershouse.com/NaturalInstincts.html=
=0Ahttp://www.elizabethpriddy.com=0Ahttp://www.flickr.com/photos/7973282@N0=
3/=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Ivor and Olive Lewis dol@WESTNET.COM.AU>=0ATo: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG=0ASent: Sunday, August 5=
, 2007 12:34:33 AM=0ASubject: qualia, beauty, and clear speech=0A=0A=0ADear=
Friends,=0AWhen technical terms (jargon) are introduced into discussions t=
hat are not directly allied to the anticipated content of our decision grou=
p I often have problems in grasping the importance of some messages.=0ATerm=
s from other disciplines may be accessible using a larger dictionary but ev=
en then the description of meaning may not be entirely clear.=0AQUALIA had =
me confused, my immediate thought being that it referred to"quality". A che=
ck with 'Webster' did not help in the context of the posting. Help came for=
m another dictionary, that of Psychology.=0AEntry is "Quale...A term used b=
y early structuralist for any simple, non interpreted element of experience=
..... " leading me to interpret Elizabeth Priddy's summation that "Qualia" =
are our self observed inner sensations. Beyond that the strands of the psyc=
hological discussion become controversial, dare I say...Metaphysical.=0ABes=
t regards to all,=0AIvor Lewis.=0ARedhill,=0ASouth Australia.=0A=0A,=0A=0A=
___________________________________________________________________________=
___=0ASend postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org=0A=0AYou may look at the ar=
chives for the list or change your subscription=0Asettings from http://www.=
ceramics.org/clayart/=0A=0AModerator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be=
reached at melpots@pclink.com.=0A=0A=0A =0A_________________________=
___________________________________________________________=0ALooking for a=
deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.=0Ahtt=
p://farechase.yahoo.com/
Chuck Wagoner on sun 5 aug 07
One thing we can all agree on is it was "beautiful" when the CUBS won
yesterday. Now that was beauty! If we could just figure a way to work
Zambrano into the pitching order even when he is not on the mound.
Chuck
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or to put it more colloquially, to each his own.
E
Kathy Forer on sun 5 aug 07
Lost in the Clayart shuffle...
On Aug 3, 2007, at 2:55 PM, Lee Love wrote:
> On 8/3/07, Kathy Forer wrote:
>
>>
>>
hello?
> The main tool that saves us from relativism is to understand
> that we are always a little off when we try to put absolute values
> into language. (it is a language/thought probem, not one of reality as
> it exists.)
I don't wish to be saved from relativism. You might as well try to =20
tell me Schroedinger's cat is dead. Or talk me into believing that =20
all creatures were designed, created and fired by a Jomon Potter =20
10,000 years ago.
Relativism isn't the sump-pit of half-truths, amoral hate and =20
corruption that you propound. It's just a point of view that says =20
things can't be proven with absolute certainty, a position that =20
allows room for the existence of doubt and skepticism. Def: "the =20
doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to =20
culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute."
>
> If we understand this aspect and that it comes form our
> minds and not the external environment or object, then we can make
> adjustments. Just like taking windage into account on the rifle
> range.
You're saying that it's our own subjective and relative limitations =20
of thought and language that prevent us from knowing some absolute =20
and universal truth that is beyond description, unspeakable and =20
perhaps ineffable. And because of our imperfection in the shadow of =20
the perfection of the absolute, we need to compensate for our own =20
peculiar individuality.
I assert that it is our personal uniqueness that allows us to sense =20
or express any damn thing at all. Only an essential being could =20
channel another essential being or form, and as far as I know, most =20
of us live to be only about 60-100 years old and that's it. That is =20
our basic limitation. We are pinned to our time, no matter how much =20
we may change within it, or effect change around us.
Content can't exist without form, they're interdependent. Let the =20
absolute speak! I'm happy to hear and see it in mathematics, moral =20
laws, harmony and nature, but until it writes out a transcript =20
ultimately defining beauty and truth, I am quite content to seek my =20
own way, from my own perspective, within my own limited human life =20
span. Another problem I see is my absolute may be different than yours.
To say there is an absolute language that only needs the educated =20
quieting of static to know and understand is patronizing and =20
condescending, not to me or mine, but to the integrity of the =20
individual. I'm not sure how much freedom we have, that's an whole =20
'nother discussion, but I believe utterly in the sanctity and dignity =20=
of the individual. And if that leads to relativism, well, happy day.
Yes, we need to quiet static and compensate for "windage" but until =20
the individual and the universal are one, we can know only the part =20
of the elephant that we touch: trunk, torso, or tail.
Or like the Taoist tale, as told by J.D. Salinger in Franny and Zoe:
Duke Mu of Chin said to Po Lo: =93You are now advanced in
years. Is there any member of your family whom I could
employ to look for horses in your stead?=94 Po Lo replied:
=93A good horse can be picked out by its general build and
appearance. But the superlative horse =97 one that raises
no dust and leaves no tracks =97 is something evanescent
and fleeting, elusive as thin air. The talents of my
sons lie on a lower plane altogether; they can tell a
good horse when they see one, but they cannot tell a
superlative horse. I have a friend, however, one
Chiu-fang Kao, a hawker of fuel and vegetables, who in
things appertaining to horses is nowise my inferior.
Pray see him.=94
Duke Mu did so, and subsequently dispatched him on the
quest for a steed. Three months later, he returned with
the news that he had found one. =93It is now in Shach=92iu=94
he added. =93What kind of a horse is it?=94 asked the Duke.
=93Oh, it is a dun-colored mare,=94 was the reply. However,
someone being sent to fetch it, the animal turned out to
be a coal-black stallion! Much displeased, the Duke sent
for Po Lo. =93That friend of yours,=94 he said, =93whom I
commissioned to look for a horse, has made a fine mess
of it. Why, he cannot even distinguish a beast=92s color
or sex! What on earth can he know about horses?=94 Po Lo
heaved a sigh of satisfaction. =93Has he really got as far
as that?=94 he cried. =93Ah, then he is worth ten thousand
of me put together. There is no comparison between us.
What Kao keeps in view is the spiritual mechanism. In
making sure of the essential, he forgets the homely
details; intent on the inward qualities, he loses sight
of the external. He sees what he wants to see, and not
what he does not want to see. He looks at the things he
ought to look at, and neglects those that need not be
looked at. So clever a judge of horses is Kao, that he
has it in him to judge something better than horses.=94
When the horse arrived, it turned out indeed to be a
superlative animal.
Lee, you might read this same story and claim that it was because Kao =20=
dispensed with frivolous homely superficialities that he was able to =20
see beyond to some greater or absolute truth. I say that it was his =20
unique ability to know his perception, to really see, that allowed =20
him to go past the surface. He studied what was in front of him, of =20
the moment, and came up with an assessment. He didn't compare the =20
horse to a template of superlative.
Given the same horse to judge, Kao and Po Lo would each arrive at =20
their assessment of a "superlative animal" in different ways. It's =20
their journey to knowledge and understanding that's valuable, not the =20=
essential perfection of the horse that outshone other horses. For the =20=
superlative is only in the eye of the beholder and without the clever =20=
judges of horse-flesh that dun-colored mare or coal-black stallion is =20=
probably happily munching grass in a nice field somewhere.
Kao's keeps his own spiritual mechanism in view, not the horse's! And =20=
if that journey through his understanding shows the horse to be of a =20
different color, then so be it.
[Having just read Elizabeth's post clarifying the terme qualia, it =20
seems the qualities of a horse that make it so special would be those =20=
of substance, real, quantifiable things, but then again the story is =20
written to extoll the observer's personal knowledge and experience, =20
to see beyond the measurable and be a judge of the whole. The horse =20
may not, in any observable manner, be special, it's Kao's =20
"connotative" understanding that allows him to be a good judge. The =20
horse is quite happy and the same old horse as before without Kao's =20
judgment, though he may get some perks having been judged a =20
superlative animal.]
There's probably not a lot of difference between these viewpoints, =20
Big Endians vs. little Endians, and as you acknowledged to Vince =20
earlier, there's probably more in common than apart between =20
relativists and absolutists (blatherists alike), but I am wary of the =20=
didacticism which I hear so strongly in your approach as well as your =20=
judgmental attitude toward varied attitudes of belief and disbelief.
Wary not for you, you'll be fine, but I don't like to be told what to =20=
see, feel or do, and be told my point of view is invalid, that there =20
is some absolute higher point of view that with only the right keys =20
we can open the universe. Your willingness to divide us from children =20=
and say that children have access to pure perception and therefore =20
can see through to universal beauty whereas the rest of muddied grups =20=
only see the shmutz on our eyeglasses is an offensive thing. Yes, it =20
is wonderful to see with the eyes of a child, as things are new and =20
revealed, but there is no set of absolute perfect form abiding in a =20
realm only those without the spoils of "windage" can know. It's all =20
inside ourselves, not out there!
Experience and understanding are to be savored and revealed by the =20
artist or craftsman, not thrown out to see with blind eyes. It is by =20
getting to know ourselves that we can see more clearly, not by =20
conforming to some ideal role.
I guess I'm also arguing against Platonic form, of which a friend =20
assessed the Qualia Exists of Not argument to be a modern rehash. But =20=
I can't or won't go there except to say "Mind is the power of =20
becoming such objects without their form" -- Aristotle. As a =20
construct of the mind Perfect Form is just fine, great, but let the =20
mind contemplate while we sing and dance, or walk and strut our charms.
We could all 3000+ probably come up with a common list of absolute =20
good and absolute truth, but these would be heavily influenced by our =20=
culture and time. Item twleve on my list might be blue while it is =20
green or red on your list. And that's the way it should be! Your =20
experience, reason and understanding are different than mine, and so =20
we perceive differently. I would eschew any formulas or codes that =20
put us in universal agreement. Argh, the Borg!
It's wonderful when we are not alienated and have shared moments of =20
insight and revelation, but I assert these are based on experience =20
and personal contribution, not some system that forces us to access =20
#Ia3b68Q of the code in our owner's manual.
I haven't read "Religion Matters," the book you, Lee, suggested, but =20
Huston Smith wrote admirably about religion. In "Religions of Man" he =20=
has a very high regard for varieties of belief:
But we must also listen to the faiths of others .... We must =20
listen
to them, first, because as said at the outset of this book, our
times require it. The community today can be no single =20
tradition; it
is the planet.
I'm familiar with some of the arguments against scientific disbelief =20
and how relativism is a plague on the planet but I'd be surprised if =20
Smith would stand on his head to discount secular humanism or any =20
other belief system just because it doesn't fit one of his seven =20
major faiths neatly. His arguments against materialism and =20
consumerism seem to be defense against attack and decay from within =20
religion itself rather than creeping dissolution from contact with =20
degenerate relativists.
But now I'm arguing religion and not art and in any case neither is =20
at all arguable.
A flower is the bee's knees and dog shit is absolute beauty to a dung =20=
beetle.
"To each his own fancy," said the old lady as she kissed the cow.
Mwah! as Kathryn so eloquently exclaims.
Kathy
--
Kathy Forer
http://www.foreverink.com
Kathy Forer on sun 5 aug 07
On Aug 5, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> I was actually trying to clarify something Kathy was saying, but I
> must have muddled it even further. Philosophers use qualia to
> define those things outside the realm of physical experience. It is
> a term used to encompass all things not directly observable by
> scientific means. Beauty, as an experience, a thing you can
> observe, is essentially an element of qualia, rather than
> substance. I believe that connotative understanding of phenomena
> contribute heavily to the beauty of the object observed, music or
> art or things. Lee likes nature, for instance and does not like man-
> made things as much. So any natural thing he observes seems to be
> more beautiful to him than any thing he might find that someone
> made. This is a matter of qualia, his experience of the thing,
> rather than the thing itself. Or to put it more colloquially, to
> each his own. E
>
Not everyone may see them but if you do they completely distract from
the reading experience. I took our all the =0A=0As in Elizabeth's
post, but left the qualia or sense of the thing alone.
These =0A=0As are annoying, no question.
Kathy
> I was actually trying to clarify something Kathy was saying,=0Abut
> I must h=
> ave muddled it even further.=0A=0APhilosophers use qualia to define
> those t=
> hings outside the=0Arealm of physical experience. It is a term
> used to enc=
> ompass=0Aall things notdirectly observable by scientific
> means.=0A=0ABeauty=
> , as an experience, a thing you can observe, is essentially=0Aan
> element of=
> qualia, rather than substance.=0A=0AI believe that connotative
> understandi=
> ng of phenomena contribute=0Aheavily to the beauty of the object
> observed, =
> music or art or things.=0A=0ALee likes nature, for instance and
> does not l=
> ike man-made things as much.=0ASo any natural thing he observes
> seems to be=
> more beautiful to him than =0Aany thing he might find that someone
> made. =
> This is a matter of qualia, his=0Aexperience of the thing, rather
> than the =
> thing itself.=0A=0AOr to put it more colloquially, to each his
> own.=0A=0AE=
Elizabeth Priddy on sun 5 aug 07
when I reply, I am using plain text in Yahoo Beta mail. Anyone who can tel=
l me how to rid myself of those damned formatiing artifacts, please do so a=
nd quickly!=0AI do not see them at all on my end.=0A=0AE=0A=0A =0AElizabeth=
Priddy=0ABeaufort, NC - USA=0A =0ANatural Instincts Conference Information=
:=0Ahttp://downtothepottershouse.com/NaturalInstincts.html=0Ahttp://www.eli=
zabethpriddy.com=0Ahttp://www.flickr.com/photos/7973282@N03/=0A=0A=0A=0A---=
-- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Kathy Forer =0ATo: CLAYART=
@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG=0ASent: Sunday, August 5, 2007 2:34:32 PM=0ASubject: Re: =
qualia, beauty, and clear speech=0A=0A=0AOn Aug 5, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Elizab=
eth Priddy wrote:=0A=0A> I was actually trying to clarify something Kathy w=
as saying, but I=0A> must have muddled it even further. Philosophers use qu=
alia to=0A> define those things outside the realm of physical experience. I=
t is=0A> a term used to encompass all things not directly observable by=0A>=
scientific means. Beauty, as an experience, a thing you can=0A> observe, i=
s essentially an element of qualia, rather than=0A> substance. I believe th=
at connotative understanding of phenomena=0A> contribute heavily to the bea=
uty of the object observed, music or=0A> art or things. Lee likes nature, f=
or instance and does not like man-=0A> made things as much. So any natural =
thing he observes seems to be=0A> more beautiful to him than any thing he m=
ight find that someone=0A> made. This is a matter of qualia, his experience=
of the thing,=0A> rather than the thing itself. Or to put it more colloqui=
ally, to=0A> each his own. E=0A>=0A=0ANot everyone may see them but if you =
do they completely distract from=0Athe reading experience. I took our all t=
he =3D0A=3D0As in Elizabeth's=0Apost, but left the qualia or sense of the t=
hing alone.=0A=0AThese =3D0A=3D0As are annoying, no question.=0A=0AKathy=0A=
=0A=0A _______________________________________________________________=
_____________________=0APark yourself in front of a world of choices in alt=
ernative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.=0Ahttp://autos.yahoo=
.com/green_center/
Kathy Forer on mon 6 aug 07
On Aug 5, 2007, at 7:09 PM, Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> when I reply, I am using plain text in Yahoo Beta mail. Anyone who
> can tel=
> l me how to rid myself of those damned formatiing artifacts, please
> do so a=
> nd quickly!=0AI do not see them at all on my end.
Try using Rich Text. Just be careful not to do any text formatting
like Bold or changing fonts. What do other Yahooites use?
The problem is not so much a plain text vs. styled text issue as a
character set and mime limitation of the clayart listserv software.
It seems what's happening is that the current version 1.8d is not
very "mime aware" and doesn't know how to handle Yahoo's Beta version
of plain text email format, so converts it to "Content-Transfer-
Encoding: quoted-printable" (even when there are no 8-bit characters)
which gives you all those "=0D=0A"s for line breaks.
Quoted-printable encoding is used where data is mostly
US-ASCII text. It allows for 8-bit characters to be
represented as their hexadecimal values. For instance, a
new line can be forced by using the following string:
"=0D=0A".
I'm guessing, because the headers are stripped by the listserv
software, that Yahoo's rich text format will be
multipart/alternative; boundary="[some long alpha-numeric
here]"
and without extra styling or formatting it should get read correctly.
My last long post got turned into quoted printable even though I had
pasted it into BBEdit, selected it and "converted to ASCII" and then
pasted it back into Mail with Plain Text format. Somewhere along the
way it got converted to "Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=WINDOWS-1252" (an 8-bit charset) which triggered "Content-
Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable" instead of the usual "7-bit." I
didn't use any 8-bit characters that I know of, and converted back
and forth between Rich Text and Plain Text a couple times, so I don't
really know why it happened, but that's what changed. Slightly
different process but similar outcome.
I'll send this in Rich Text and see if there are still =20 at the end
of the line for me.
Looking at all there is to know about these standards, it's so much
easier to just let the bad form slide, or let someone else be the
nerdy geek egghead. Computers! tangible evidence of Platonic form or
simply a practical expression of theory?
Kathy
--
http://www.kathyforer.com
for more techy info, see
L&P=R2054>
Steve Slatin on mon 6 aug 07
Kathy --
You've hinted at what I saw in this thread from the beginning.
The urge to claim that there are absolutes in our world is
the first step for one who wishes to claim knowledge or
possession of those absolutes.
The step following claiming the absolute is to allege that
others lack access to the absolutes.
And the step after that is to denigrate those who fail to
agree with the claimant as somehow inferior --
unenlightened with the holy knowledge (lacking the 'gnosis'),
maybe unworthy, perhaps even belonging to an inferior race.
It goes on.
And, fundamentally, it starts with the abysmally stupid
Platonic idea -- that the concept of a thing is real, but
a thing itself is less real -- and ends in Dachau, and
the gulags, and the killing fields of Kampuchea.
The contrary belief -- that abstracts are less real that reality
(the language gives away the likely truth of this proposition)
demands admission of the possibility that those who disagree
with you may be, in some sense, right. Perhaps are equal to
you in moral worth. Maybe not just worthy of enlightenment
but possessed of it. Possibly equal, possibly superior
to you, even.
And this thought requires that you permit others whose
opinions do not agree with yours to live, and express
themselves, and explore their own paths without derision.
It is, in my opinion, the tonic for the disease of fascism.
The willingness to devalue the 'other' is at the root of
much of what is wrong in the world today.*
Best wishes -- Steve Slatin,
*Today, by conincidence -- August 6, Hiroshima Day.
Steve Slatin --
Took a hundred dollars off a slaughterhouse joe
Brought a brand new michigan twenty-gauge
Got all liquored up on that road house corn
Blew a hole in the hood of a yellow corvette
---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
Lee Love on mon 6 aug 07
On 8/6/07, Steve Slatin wrote:
> The willingness to devalue the 'other' is at the root of
> much of what is wrong in the world today.*
That is one aspect of a lack of balance in understanding relative
and absolute values, as I mentioned in my previous post, the
absolutist aspect.
But the other error is to only accept subjectivism and
relativism. And this also leads to facism, like when we see our
officials in government say, "It is true because I say it is true."
It is Lilliputian facism.
It isn't possible to hold these two values in balance from a
discursive/dichotomous/masculine perspective. It requires a
holistic/unitive/feminine perspective. Which was what artists,
poets and shaman, before post-modern times, were the guardians of.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
claystevslat on tue 7 aug 07
No, Lee, when a government official claims that
something is true because he says it is, he's
not representing relativism (the belief that there
are many separate truths), he's exercising
absolutism (denying the possibility of any
other position being right) and claiming
to possess ultimate truth.
Just like some people claim there are absolute
standards of beauty. And imply that they know
that standard. And that anyone who doesn't
agree with them is somehow deficient, or corrupt,
etc. (Remember the Nazi effort to wipe out
'degenerate' art?)
But as something of a relativist* myself, I do
recognize the possibility that you are right (or,
depending on the subject, that any other
absolutist** may be right). I just try to speak
clearly, and directly about issues that are
important to me.
As far as the rest of your post, it reminds me
of the official representations made by the
government of Burma in the late 1980's. There are
cultures that honor the 'middle path' as you
know, and oddly will insist on the opinion that
they are being moderate even when they are, for
example, murdering schoolchildren. It is easy
to claim to be a moderate while in fact being
an absolutist extremist, providing that one
also believe that there is an absolute truth,
and he possesses it.
-- Steve Slatin
*Though not an absolute relativist! I do, for
example, believe that eating people is wrong!***
** Politicians especially use the dodge of
refusing to consider the possibility that any
opinion other than their own may be correct. Our
current President in the US is a very prominent
absolutist.
*** The reference is David Lodge, I believe. As
a profound loafer, I reserve the right not to
stand up and check my library.
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Lee Love wrote:
>
> On 8/6/07, Steve Slatin wrote:
>
> > The willingness to devalue the 'other' is at the root of
> > much of what is wrong in the world today.*
>
> That is one aspect of a lack of balance in understanding
relative
> and absolute values, as I mentioned in my previous post, the
> absolutist aspect.
>
> But the other error is to only accept subjectivism and
> relativism. And this also leads to facism, like when we see our
> officials in government say, "It is true because I say it is true."
> It is Lilliputian facism.
>
> It isn't possible to hold these two values in balance
from a
> discursive/dichotomous/masculine perspective. It requires a
> holistic/unitive/feminine perspective. Which was what artists,
> poets and shaman, before post-modern times, were the guardians of.
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on tue 7 aug 07
Hi Steve, all...
It seems to me, from my own ruminations...
That 'Beauty' is an assignment we may make, to qualitys or dimensions of
experience which we may have, when contemplating any number of forms,
arrangements or situations or their depths...or in finding appreciations of
them.
We may even attribute 'Beauty' to the form, arrangement or situation itself,
naively, ( or, as an assigment of a property or quality we assume 'it' has,
rather than one our experience has, ) in our countenancing it in the way we
happen to, in order to experience it in that way.
This is my appreciation anyway...
Phil
l v
----- Original Message -----
From: "claystevslat"
No, Lee, when a government official claims that
something is true because he says it is, he's
not representing relativism (the belief that there
are many separate truths), he's exercising
absolutism (denying the possibility of any
other position being right) and claiming
to possess ultimate truth.
Just like some people claim there are absolute
standards of beauty. And imply that they know
that standard. And that anyone who doesn't
agree with them is somehow deficient, or corrupt,
etc. (Remember the Nazi effort to wipe out
'degenerate' art?)
But as something of a relativist* myself, I do
recognize the possibility that you are right (or,
depending on the subject, that any other
absolutist** may be right). I just try to speak
clearly, and directly about issues that are
important to me.
As far as the rest of your post, it reminds me
of the official representations made by the
government of Burma in the late 1980's. There are
cultures that honor the 'middle path' as you
know, and oddly will insist on the opinion that
they are being moderate even when they are, for
example, murdering schoolchildren. It is easy
to claim to be a moderate while in fact being
an absolutist extremist, providing that one
also believe that there is an absolute truth,
and he possesses it.
-- Steve Slatin
*Though not an absolute relativist! I do, for
example, believe that eating people is wrong!***
** Politicians especially use the dodge of
refusing to consider the possibility that any
opinion other than their own may be correct. Our
current President in the US is a very prominent
absolutist.
*** The reference is David Lodge, I believe. As
a profound loafer, I reserve the right not to
stand up and check my library.
stephani stephenson on wed 8 aug 07
i have been reading the posts with interest, catching
up on them in the last few days . It has been a lively
go, and some great examples given, vivifying and
elucidating (using those words without looking them up
:0 )
keeping alive a topic which easily can descend (in my
mind/reader's perception) into abstract mush ....
vague piles of tangled verbal threads, hooks and webs!
just to bring this to an everyday level, which has to
do with our trade...
something from a customer's visit yesterday which i
would like to share..and maybe which brings us back to
some of the original tack of the thread Elizabeth so
graciously started!
A couple drove down from Los angeles to visit the
studio...they have a small home built in the 1920s .
They have been looking for fireplace tile for over a
year, visiting every showroom, searching everywhere.
the woman said everything she saw just wasn't
right..
even though she couldn't define for herself exactly
what 'just right' was, she knew she wasn't seeing
it...
using some verbal clues and terms , which she gleaned
from tile lines she did see
(ones that came close)
she did an internet search
and my site popped up....
the photos hinted that this might just be the thing...
so the couple took the time to drive down.
when they saw the tile, they exclaimed that it was
exactly what they had been searching for, though
they had never seen any quite like it so had never
formed a picture of 'it' prior to seeing it..
other than the fact that i couldn't have been happier,
what interested me is how long these folks held fast
to something they couldn't define or visualize
clearly, enough to pass over hundreds and hundreds of
other tiles, stone, etc..... but recognized what they
wanted immediately when they encountered it.
it had to do with color and texture and something
which they felt connected them, their home , their
feeling about environment, an emotional quality as
much as a philosophical or reasoned aesthetic one,
etc. etc.
and it wasn't a fussy perfectionist sort of thing
either , not the same as the "this isn't good enough,
and this isn't good enough," attitude one sometimes
encounters....
It was clearly a concept riding ' under the
horizon' in that it was a not quite conscious , not
quite verbal , not quite defined concept.
i would guess this applies to many aspects of our
selves: the way we experience or recognize a
beloved,. On the flip side, applying to negative
aspects too, such as racial prejudices, etc. : long
held, reinforced... sometimes lurking beneath the
surface of our definition or recognition.
just an added everyday 'hmmmm' on the topic.
i think .
though i am relatively, though not absolutely ,
not sure about that......
arghh the yawning maw, the terrible taffy of abstract
reasoning is starting to
swallo...mwe....blaaaarg!
Stephani Stephenson
(p.s i appreciate and even converse abstractly, but
ony in tactile and visual terms ... for me written
or verbal communication must have a sumptuous repast
of similes, anecdotes yarns, and metaphors ,
preferrable mixed , to chaw on... thank you steve,
kathy,all, for some tasty,if not crunchy nuggets )
____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/
Lee Love on wed 8 aug 07
On 8/8/07, stephani stephenson wrote:
> or verbal communication must have a sumptuous repast
> of similes, anecdotes yarns, and metaphors ,
> preferrable mixed , to chaw on... thank you steve,
> kathy,all, for some tasty,if not crunchy nuggets )
Stephani,
Here is one I thought of, that shows how different Beauty in
Nature is compared to what we think of as beauty in people:
I have never had an argument over a beautiful sky (if
I or someone else says, "Ah, isn't that a Beautiful Sky!" But I
can't say the same where folks comment on the beauty of a person. In
people, beauty is much more relative. But of course, often, folks
are talking about attractiveness and not Beauty. Not that Beauty
cannot be judged in People, it is just generally our use of the term
where people are concerned, is often about attraction. To me, the
Calvin Klein "Heroin Chic" look is disgusting.
Was it Michael that said, in the study he read about where people
were judged the beauty of others, that they typically picked people
with features most like their own ethnic group? I find that
interesting, but it might depend upon how isolated the culture they
live in is.
For mates, I have always picked salt to my pepper. I
imagine it would be very boring to have a partner who is exactly like
yourself.
Traditionally, beauty in people was often associated with
fertility. But fertility is not as valued in modern life, so those
ways of judging beauty have fallen by the wayside.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Elizabeth Priddy on wed 8 aug 07
That example is the essence of qualia.=0A=0AOnly they could define it and i=
n that case,=0Aeven they could not. But awareness of a=0Athing lends it su=
bstance.=0A=0AThat is why very few would argue that qualia=0Ais a non-thing=
, that it doesn't exist. We have =0Aall been the couple you mention, with =
no means=0Aof explaining the essence of something we =0Aobserve and how it =
is or is not "just right".=0A=0AI think everyone understands the concept an=
d =0Ais familiar with its essentail meaning, and that=0Aonly die-hard nayse=
ayers would argue about=0Athe application of a word, however obscure, to=0A=
such a universally occurring phenomena.=0A=0ANow, complain all you like for=
the word being obscure,=0Ait is, granted. But on the rare occassion in li=
fe=0Athat it comes up in conversation, we can all use=0Ait now, wildly, con=
fident that we are using it right!=0A=0AClayart is great. Where else would=
so many muddle =0Aabout for so long to determine the right to exist of=0Aa=
"word", of all things.=0A=0ACool.=0A =0AElizabeth Priddy=0ABeaufort, NC - =
USA=0A =0APS =0A=0AKathy Forer started it !=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message=
----=0AFrom: stephani stephenson revivalsteph@YAHOO.COM=0A=0A=0Ajust to br=
ing this to an everyday level, which has to=0Ado with our trade...=0Asometh=
ing from a customer's visit yesterday which i=0Awould like to share..and m=
aybe which brings us back to=0Asome of the original tack of the thread Eliz=
abeth so=0Agraciously started!=0A=0A...=0AA couple drove down from Los ang=
eles to visit the=0Astudio...they have a small home built in the 1920s .=0A=
They have been looking for fireplace tile for over a=0Ayear, visiting every=
showroom, searching everywhere.=0Athe woman said everything she saw just=
wasn't=0Aright..=0A...=0A=0A=0A =0A_________________________________=
___________________________________________________=0ABuilding a website is=
a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get onli=
ne.=0Ahttp://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
Kathy Forer on thu 9 aug 07
On Aug 8, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> That example is the essence of qualia.
>
> Only they could define it and in that case,
> even they could not. But awareness of a
> thing lends it substance.
>
> That is why very few would argue that qualia
> is a non-thing, that it doesn't exist. We have
> all been the couple you mention, with no means
> of explaining the essence of something we
> observe and how it is or is not "just right".
>
> I think everyone understands the concept and
> is familiar with its essentail meaning, and that
> only die-hard naysayers would argue about
> the application of a word, however obscure, to
> such a universally occurring phenomena.
>
> Now, complain all you like for the word being obscure,
> it is, granted. But on the rare occassion in life
> that it comes up in conversation, we can all use
> it now, wildly, confident that we are using it right!
>
> Clayart is great. Where else would so many muddle
> about for so long to determine the right to exist of
> a "word", of all things.
>
> Cool.
>
> Elizabeth Priddy
> Beaufort, NC -
> USA
>
> PS
>
> Kathy Forer started it !
Thank you Elizabeth!
I started it, but you finished it!
Kathy
in NYC, NY, where I saw Xanadu on Broadway tonight which on looking
it up reminded me of Project Xanadu, the original hypertext model of
"deep interconnection, intercomparison and reuse," toward s
"transliterary standard. The musical was very entertaining. Terrific
dancing, a riveting tabletop tap-dancer, skating and song, Pegasus
and a Centaur, though mildly shrill or tinnish sounding to my ears
accustomed to "modulating my voice" and "enunciating clearly" to be
understood by someone who can't hear well. Joyful theater. Art to
help us understand our fellow and laugh at ourselves along the way.
Ivor and Olive Lewis on thu 9 aug 07
Dear Stephani Stephenson,=20
<<(p.s i appreciate and even converse abstractly, but only in tactile =
and visual terms ... for me written or verbal communication must have a =
sumptuous repast of similes, anecdotes yarns, and metaphors , =
preferrable mixed , to chaw on... thank you steve, kathy,all, for some =
tasty,if not crunchy nuggets )=20
I take it you are not averse to a pithy synecdoche.
Best regards,
Ivor
Tom Sawyer on thu 9 aug 07
"Fools tread where brave men hesistate" That said here you are!
Observations on Qualia, Beauty & Clear Speech discussion
I read Plato first and then Aristotle when I was in my late teens. I was
raised a Catholic and Plato appealed to me because he seemed to say that
absolutes exist and this conformed to my religious beliefs and teaching of
the Church Fathers, at the time. As I read further, Plato seemed to be
saying that while there are absolutes, they are unknowable because we only
see the shadows of absolutes and these are only knowable through the senses;
i.e. they are only "relatively" knowable.
I eventually realized that the Church Fathers and Absolutist took this one
step further and said we can interpret the shadows for you and these are the
absolutes. Do as you are commanded and told.
Aristotle on the other hand did away with absolutes and said knowledge is
based on empirical data. Since empirical data is probablistically based, I
consider him to be a true relativist. Since everything in life is changing,
all of nature, the Cosmos, ourselves physically and intellectually, I am
unconvinced there is an "Absolute". True there may be "stuff" outside our
ken in other dimensions but there is no more reason to expect this "stuff"
is absolute than relative so I hold my opinion in abeyance. I believe this
was Plato's great contribution - multidimensionality.
I agree with an early responder that absolutist generally have a motive for
trying to convince themselves and others to believe they possess "the
knowledge". Usually I find this to be based on ridiculous religious or
philosophical beliefs that are unfalsifiable.
Tom Sawyer
Edouard Bastarache Inc. on thu 9 aug 07
Tom,
did you also studied St-Thomas' philosophy under
the Fathers?
Gis la revido,
Edouard Bastarache
Spertesperantisto
Sorel-Tracy
Quebec
http://perso.orange.fr/smart2000/livres.htm
http://www.pshcanada.com/Toxicology.htm
http://www.ceramique.com/librairie/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30058682@N00/
http://myblogsmesblogs.blogspot.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Sawyer"
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: qualia, beauty, and clear speech
> "Fools tread where brave men hesistate" That
> said here you are!
>
> Observations on Qualia, Beauty & Clear Speech
> discussion
>
> I read Plato first and then Aristotle when I was
> in my late teens. I was
> raised a Catholic and Plato appealed to me
> because he seemed to say that
> absolutes exist and this conformed to my
> religious beliefs and teaching of
> the Church Fathers, at the time. As I read
> further, Plato seemed to be
> saying that while there are absolutes, they are
> unknowable because we only
> see the shadows of absolutes and these are only
> knowable through the senses;
> i.e. they are only "relatively" knowable.
>
> I eventually realized that the Church Fathers
> and Absolutist took this one
> step further and said we can interpret the
> shadows for you and these are the
> absolutes. Do as you are commanded and told.
>
> Aristotle on the other hand did away with
> absolutes and said knowledge is
> based on empirical data. Since empirical data is
> probablistically based, I
> consider him to be a true relativist. Since
> everything in life is changing,
> all of nature, the Cosmos, ourselves physically
> and intellectually, I am
> unconvinced there is an "Absolute". True there
> may be "stuff" outside our
> ken in other dimensions but there is no more
> reason to expect this "stuff"
> is absolute than relative so I hold my opinion
> in abeyance. I believe this
> was Plato's great contribution -
> multidimensionality.
>
> I agree with an early responder that absolutist
> generally have a motive for
> trying to convince themselves and others to
> believe they possess "the
> knowledge". Usually I find this to be based on
> ridiculous religious or
> philosophical beliefs that are unfalsifiable.
>
> Tom Sawyer
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or
> change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> reached at melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database:
> 269.11.10/943 - Release Date: 2007-08-08 17:38
>
>
Lee Love on thu 9 aug 07
On 8/9/07, Tom Sawyer wrote:
> "Fools tread where brave men hesistate" That said here you are!
>
> Observations on Qualia, Beauty & Clear Speech discussion
>
> I read Plato first and then Aristotle when I was in my late teens. I was
> raised a Catholic and Plato appealed to me because he seemed to say that
> absolutes exist and this conformed to my religious beliefs and teaching of
> the Church Fathers, at the time. As I read further, Plato seemed to be
> saying that while there are absolutes, they are unknowable because we only
> see the shadows of absolutes and these are only knowable through the senses;
> i.e. they are only "relatively" knowable.
Yes. The problem is with our perceptions of the world.
Asian philosophers agree with Plato on this. There is an objective
universe, but it can only be lived. It is impossible to speak
directly about it because once you do, you are back in the Cave with
the shadows.
> I agree with an early responder that absolutist generally have a motive for
> trying to convince themselves and others to believe they possess "the
> knowledge". Usually I find this to be based on ridiculous religious or
> philosophical beliefs that are unfalsifiable.
That's the "other" problem with not recognizing both aspects of
our existence. Absolutist destroy truth by thinking they can use it.
Relativists destroy it by saying it does not exist. But if you
recognize that both relative and absolute aspects of our experience
exist together, you avoid either fundamentalist view.
We can't do it by reduction, but only by unitive functions of
thought. But in the West, after the Greeks, we see everything with
the scalpel of the intellect It is better understood by Perennial and
Indigenous, pre-postmodern philosophers.
It is explained in Asia in sutras like the Sandokai (The
Merging Of Difference and Unity) and Hokyo Zammai ( Song of the
Precious Mirror Samadhi.) You can find these here:
http://www.berkeleyzencenter.org/texts.shtml I'd be happy to discuss
these privately or via a weblog. I can provide my Mingei log for it:
http://ikiru.blogspot.com/
I have Soetsu Yanagi's _Dharma Gate Of Beauty_ posted there
too. But it might not make sense to most people.
Our culture is somewhat behind in understanding these aspects
of our lives. As James Burke said in "The Day The Universe Changed",
while the West busied itself with manipulating the world, Asia focused
more on trying to understand it. We can multiply our understand
with a global perspective, drawing on the strengths of each culture.
My sense about my time in Japan and viewing its clay culture,
that it is now primarily internally inspired. And this has stunted
its growth. The the great innovations in clay in Japan came from the
cross fertilization and interaction with other cultures, from India to
China , to Korea to the West. America suffers from a similar myopic
perspective.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Tom Sawyer on thu 9 aug 07
No.
Tom Sawyer
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Edouard
Bastarache Inc.
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:26 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: qualia, beauty, and clear speech
Tom,
did you also studied St-Thomas' philosophy under
the Fathers?
Gis la revido,
Edouard Bastarache
Spertesperantisto
Sorel-Tracy
Quebec
http://perso.orange.fr/smart2000/livres.htm
http://www.pshcanada.com/Toxicology.htm
http://www.ceramique.com/librairie/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30058682@N00/
http://myblogsmesblogs.blogspot.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Sawyer"
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: qualia, beauty, and clear speech
> "Fools tread where brave men hesistate" That
> said here you are!
>
> Observations on Qualia, Beauty & Clear Speech
> discussion
>
> I read Plato first and then Aristotle when I was
> in my late teens. I was
> raised a Catholic and Plato appealed to me
> because he seemed to say that
> absolutes exist and this conformed to my
> religious beliefs and teaching of
> the Church Fathers, at the time. As I read
> further, Plato seemed to be
> saying that while there are absolutes, they are
> unknowable because we only
> see the shadows of absolutes and these are only
> knowable through the senses;
> i.e. they are only "relatively" knowable.
>
> I eventually realized that the Church Fathers
> and Absolutist took this one
> step further and said we can interpret the
> shadows for you and these are the
> absolutes. Do as you are commanded and told.
>
> Aristotle on the other hand did away with
> absolutes and said knowledge is
> based on empirical data. Since empirical data is
> probablistically based, I
> consider him to be a true relativist. Since
> everything in life is changing,
> all of nature, the Cosmos, ourselves physically
> and intellectually, I am
> unconvinced there is an "Absolute". True there
> may be "stuff" outside our
> ken in other dimensions but there is no more
> reason to expect this "stuff"
> is absolute than relative so I hold my opinion
> in abeyance. I believe this
> was Plato's great contribution -
> multidimensionality.
>
> I agree with an early responder that absolutist
> generally have a motive for
> trying to convince themselves and others to
> believe they possess "the
> knowledge". Usually I find this to be based on
> ridiculous religious or
> philosophical beliefs that are unfalsifiable.
>
> Tom Sawyer
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or
> change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> reached at melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database:
> 269.11.10/943 - Release Date: 2007-08-08 17:38
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Tom Sawyer on thu 9 aug 07
> But if you recognize that both relative and absolute aspects of our
experience exist together, you avoid either fundamentalist view.>
Lee, this is the problem; "we cannot recognize the absolute"; we only
imagine we can. The relative/probabilistic, I can recognize. You should
rephrase your sentence "But if you BELIEVE that both relative and absolute
aspects..
Why the passion to believe in imagine "stuff"? Relativist test and get back
result and believe based on probability and are willing to change their
opinion based on new data.
Why would any rational person "want to believe" in anything that isn't based
on some empirical data - something that someone else cannot falsify? I
believe in the Easter Bunny, I believe in Santa Clause, I believe the moon
is made of green cheese, I believe Mohammed is the true prophet, I believe
in Zeus, I believe in life after death, I believe Jonah was swallowed by a
whale, I believe in the Bible, I believe in Jesus ------Jheese. Why?
I trust what I can test or what people I trust have tested and who have made
there results testable for others. There may be other realities, there may
be an "Universe of Absolutes", there is a Universe of Probabilities and I
can test the probabilities; others can falisify my assumption; I can falsify
others assumptions about probabilities, why would anyone want to abandon
experience and say with absolutism there is something unchangeable,
something pure, something infinite, some absolute definition of Beauty? I am
truly befuddled.
My initial response was to say "no response one is unnecessary" but against
my better judgment, I wrote the above.
Tom Sawyer
| |
|
