Michael; Who among us can intelligently discuss the big bang? There are several newer popular books by noted physicists that discuss the problem of the unequal distribution of energy after the big bang. I've perused a few given to me by my daughter, a real research physicist, but have not read them. We can't discuss this topic. We do know a lot about art, however, and some things about perception the affective issues and so on. But why some folks prefer art of lesser quality, like a kitschy image of some sort, is a complex issue...not of the big bang level but tough enough because it's made up of so many slippery concepts. For one reason, culture, as you well know, has a lot to do with it. People attach meanings to cultural images for all sorts of reasons from sentimentality to class identity and when their pre-selected images occur, they are reinforced, or repulsed, in matching them to their chosen images. Another reason is that people have confined horizons with respect to having a catalog of mental images-experiences to match to what they experience. If the mental image ain't there, then the best bet is that the real thing will be rejected. That's the old "like what you know' concept. Another reason is aspiration, whic is the opposite of 'like what you know'. People often say the like something, an object or image, because they think they should, to identify with a desired class or social position. Then sometimes they really do like something but don't know why or want to examine why because it may shake their other strongly held values. Finally, we know that some artists, of all mediums, like to take kitschy images and put them into the context of high art. Ho-hum. Thankfully, that habit is now as worn out as a pair of old socks.
I recommend that you to give up on this query and go read your Montaigne who answered the question very well in his many, many essays. Then we can discuss some particular, relevant point in one of his essays. I think Montaigne was one of the first thinkers to take on the tropes of popular opinon and recast them in the context of the great minds in history. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, November 11, 2012 11:48:53 AM Subject: Re: Error and quality On Nov 11, 2012, at 11:44 AM, William Conger <[email protected]> wrote: > Can you determine error? What criteria do you use? Re error: Comparison and > contrast are essential to discovering differences in a set. One must choose > whether differences or similarities are the main criteria for error or accuracy. > If differences, then the most accurate example is the one with the most varied > differences in a set; if accuracy, then the best example is the set with the > fewest differences. Inexact replication. I am thinking primordially here, btw. Was the Big Bang perfectly equal in every direction? If not, why not? Was the very beginning of the Big Bang an event of perfectly equal and distributed energy? If not, why not? Why is there hydrogen and helium? How did it come to pass that an atom of atomic weight 1 changed into an atom of atomic weight 2? Again, I am not interested in instrumental or procdural explanations (how it happened), but of how it came about. When I track failures (not performing a task properly, e.g., a DNA split results in a mutated gene) I wind up at the molecular and then atomic levels and finally at Heisenberg's indeterminacy of a particle's position or velocity. (Does indeterminacy play a part in atomic behavior, bonding, etc.?) > Re quality: This relies on independent objective or > subjective criteria. If objective, then a rule or set of rules for quality can > be stipulated for comparison and contrast with the thing being valued; if > subjective, then it's a matter of personal taste and persuasion (by whatever > means from enticement to coercion); if a mix of the two, as is likely the most > common, then it's a matter of debate at best or the case remains unsettled. > That's what I think right now but I'm open to persuasion or intellectual > coercion, including witty rebuttals, nitpicking reason, shouts, cursing, > banging the table, throwing things, and threats against my character and > manhood, and solemn challenges to a duel -- with marshmallows, of course. I can't sing worth a damn. I've been told so by many people with odd looks on their faces. I cannot follow a melody very well, I cannot identify rising and falling notes reliably, and I cannot hear my own voice clearly enough to recognize all the tonal qualities of singing. I'm very good at controlling the inflections in speech. But singing well? Not in this lifetime! By comparison, I can distinguish an almost infinite range of colors, which other people just lump together as "tan" or "sea green." They see colors as badly as I sing. Those are examples of physical capabilities. I'm thinking more of quality of the art product. How is it that some people think that a kitschy image of a dog or bird or landscape is a suitable accomplishment? Do they just know their own limits and like when they reach those limits? or do they actually not discern the shortcomings? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
