If something is noxious for any-body's cells it is not Art. You might found answer to what is art:). But seriously, some work, if it is a real thing, could be not in one's taste but it is always respected to a degree. Boris Shoshensky
-- "Geoff" <[email protected]> wrote: Boris: I would tend to agree that art is good for our cells. I understand that art however did not humanize the Nazi brass. I also assume that the art to which you might refer might be rather different for different persons. And that someone else's choice of art choice of art might be noxious for my cells. And then, is it all my cells and if not, which ones wouldn't benefit? Geoff C ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 9:02 PM Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art" > If you admit you understand an elegance of mechanism of the evolutionary > process, than it is obvious that art is one of the physiological and > psychological tools for adaptation of humans. > Art is good for our cells. Sorry, but I said it before and I say it again. > Boris Shoshensky > > -- "Geoff" <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess someone would have to change my beliefs. > Geoff C > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Conger" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:55 PM > Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art" > > >> If you admit you know little of art/aesthetics how can you be persuaded >> that something is relevant to it? >> WC > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click here for free information on how to reduce your debt by filing for > bankruptcy. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/PnY6rx9xtQZFOgKuMA9u7PCN0ddzCY > x7hAv47f8OCc0nEUa7wjZYo/
