Subject: Re: Cool Sounds ... Proposition
From: sylvi macCormac (macCormac@shaw.ca)
Date: Tue Aug 02 2005 - 22:47:30 EDT
i'll ponder your questions :-) and wonder ... why ...
"Art bids us touch and taste and hear and see the world"
(Yeats W.B. Essays and Introductions p 292 US: Macmillan. 1962)
best, sylvi macCormac
Kevin Austin wrote:
> I would like to propose that the nature of the differences in the
> approach to the 'aesthetic experience' can be understood as being:
> absolute relative
> object-based perception-based
> finite infinite
> not time-reversible time-reversible
> Possibly [not] "time-reversible" is the most unusual, but it could be
> summed up in the question: "Would Bach have an aesthetic experience
> of art in listening to the Rite of Spring?"
> The "relative / perception-based / infinite / reversible" are based
> upon context [relative], learning [perception], process [infinite].
> This is a basis that religion cannot allow, being as it is based on
> one-god [absolute], figure(head) & (fixed) rules [object-based],
> finite [begins and will end], and progression (god > prophets >
> salvation / enlightenment) [not time reversible].
> For a religious person, this aesthetic position is a result of the
> belief system; for the person who doesn't embrace 'a religion', this
> mode of living is a determinant (not a consequence) of their life.
> The detail is in the detail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:09 EST