Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,sci.psychology,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.bio,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
From: ch@chch.demon.co.uk (Charles Bryant)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!demon!betanews.demon.co.uk!chch.demon.co.uk!ch
Subject: Re: Roger Penrose's New Book (in HTML) 1.0
Distribution: world
References: <JMC.94Oct23231211@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il> <39drsi$7nl@crl10.crl.com> <39m0di$b69@onramp.arc.nasa.gov> <Cz2F9G.IHA@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com> <785119642snz@chch.demon.co.uk> <3aha8f$r6m@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: ch@chch.demon.co.uk
Lines: 47
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 20:44:43 +0000
Message-ID: <785537083snz@chch.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:101243 sci.skeptic:96146 sci.psychology:30210 comp.ai.philosophy:22470 sci.bio:23291 sci.philosophy.meta:14948

In article <3aha8f$r6m@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
           sarfatti@ix.netcom.com "Jack Sarfatti" writes:

> In <785119642snz@chch.demon.co.uk> ch@chch.demon.co.uk (Charles Bryant) 
> writes: 
> 
> >
> >In article <Cz2F9G.IHA@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com>
> >           pnorton@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com "Peter Norton" writes:
> >
> >> Haven't we learned yet that not all of Nature's phenomena don't fit 
> the
> >> neat little prescription of being 'quantifiable, repeatable, and 
> independent
> >> of observer'?
> >
> >It is futile to even attempt to discuss phenomena which are not
> >'independent of the observer'. If a phenomenon is dependent on the
> >observer then each person must investigate it for themselves and
> >discussion of it is pointless. Discussion of phenomena, unless for
> >aesthetic reasons or to satisfy curiosity, is only useful to the
> >extent that there is common ground.
> >
> >-- 
> >Charles Bryant (ch@chch.demon.co.uk)
> >
> 
> I would not say it is pointless unless you mean to say that all literary 
> and art crticism is "pointless" - or, I guess you mean that people in 
> the arts and humanities do start from some "common ground"? There is 
> still a problem - the problem in Tolstoy's "What is Art?". Some Art 
> seems objective and universal in its beauty - like the works of 
> Michelangelo, Mozart, Beethoven etc. - yet others ....? I mean the 
> beauty in the former seems to be hard-wired into our cortex and not 
> culturally dependent.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I would have thought that
literary and art criticism would either be included in the
'aesthetic/curiosity' exception which I mentioned, or be an analysis
of the universality of art.

By 'pointless' I don't mean that it shouldn't be done. Just that if it
is done, it must be done for its own sake. For example, try proving
that Shakespeare is better than Monet.

-- 
Charles Bryant (ch@chch.demon.co.uk)
