From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Wed Nov 23 2005 - 15:05:29 GMT
[Platt]
Not much, if anything to argue about in your latest post. Such a shame :-)
Just a couple of comments.
[Case]
FYI, I am cutting that comment out and framing it. If I send it to you snail
mail will you sign it?
[Platt]
I don't see where biological metaphors are any more useful than than
Pirsig's hierarchy metaphors.
[Case]
I could easily fall into the habit of overusing the Blind Men and the
Elephant koan. But my position on metaphors has always been the more the
merrier. Even when they are wrong they help describe the indescribable. I
see them as providing added dimension to the thing described. A bit like
having two eyes gives us 3D vision and walking around something provides
added perspective.
[Platt]
Except for the words, I don't think beauty is any more "all us" than a
grizzly bear is all us. Most of us are convinced, except for some
postmodernist types, that words are not the same as their referents. Just as
a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, so also it's beauty remains
immutable.
[Case]
Much as I hate to spoil the love fest, I do not see beauty as describing a
thing but rather our relationship to the thing. Beauty is our response, not
a property of the thing itself. Our perception of beauty is one of those
things that comes through our individual experiences with similar objects.
If every time I see a rose, by whatever name, my nuts get tazered I am
unlikely to regard roses as beautiful.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 23 2005 - 15:15:36 GMT