If the aesthetic is always a matter of pure subjectivity and can't be isolated from the person who claims that aesthetic sensation, then how can you make general statements of what those sensations are for someone besides yourself? If what you say is true there is no way to ascertain it because it's locked in subjectivity, inaccessible. How do you know that "non-aesthetic and aesthetic are often times interchangeable..? Further, I don't see how you proceed from 'degrees of ugly' to the sublime. What are degrees of ugly and how can anyone know them when all such feeling, and thus all mental activity is forever locked inside someone's head as pure subjectivity?
Whatever feelings we have, sensations of experience, we learn to categorize them as belonging to this or that condition or cause. We learn to like certain kinds of music because of our cultural associations and habits. The aesthetic must be one of those categories of learned associations for subjective feelings. Yet there may also be particular brain structures, pathways, etc. that have been favored in evolutionary development and these may be common to all or most humans and they may be associated with or trigger certain feelings that we may call pleasing or aesthetic. So culture plus evolution plus setntimental memories of personal experience may be the basic architecture of the aesthetic, and it certainly would allow for an infinite variety without negating that basic order. wc ________________________________ From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 6:49 PM Subject: Re: comment invited I believe that only each individuals can determine their own feelings between personal likes and dislikes, yet persuasion by the more experienced can always sway any individual that allows it. Yet Non-aesthetic and aesthetics in individual minds are often times interchangeable . If aesthetics has always been about the sublime, why does it need degrees of ugly to get it there. I see the word "Aesthetics "as just a word that encompasses all matter of individual tastes,for the rich to play with. ab On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:50 PM, William Conger wrote: > The whole point of seeking a definition of the aesthetic is to distinguish it > from the non-aesthetic. If, as claimed below, there is no distinction between > the aesthetic and any other 'sudden' feeling then we don't have a definition. > If it can't be falsified, as the scientists like to say, it can't be claimed > as a defintion or theory. I would suppose that the sensation of being shot is > not an aesthetic one. When I stub my toe on the damned table it is not an > aesthetic feeling. In history, the aesthetic has always been associated with > a sensation of euphoria or a sense of helpless dread or awe, as is typically > associated with the sublime. > > wc > > > ________________________________ > From: > armando baeza <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > armando baeza <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:00 > PM > Subject: Re: comment invited > > > Tom, you ,once referred to an aesthetic > experience as when at the > final second of a football game your team caches the > long pass in > the end zone, winning the game. as an aesthetic experience as ( > pleasure) > And I agree with that. But another person of the opposing team felt > the > same aesthetic experience as (displeasure) > I take the word "aesthetic" to > be equal in meaning as the word "temperature" > A place one can feel extremely > cold to one that's extremely hot, and in > between. > ab > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at > 11:45 AM, Tom McCormack wrote: > >> On Dec 9, 2013, at 12:03 AM, armando baeza > wrote: >> >>> "Aesthetic experiences" as i originally understood it, was that > any thing >>> under the umbrella >>> between the two extremes of taste ,likes > and dislikes. >>> good-bad,ugly-beauty,etc could >>> be an "aesthetic > experience". >>> To me,that means that any sudden feeling of any kind from > nature or man >> made >>> art could >>> be an aesthetic feeling. >>> The problem I > see is that some people get a pleasant surprise feeling, >> while >>> others >>> > may feel the opposite from the same experience. Yet both are really >>> > "aesthetic >>> experiences",. >>> ab >> >> Not for me. Someone recently sent me a > series of precarious > mountain-climbing >> photos. Every single one was scary. I > guarantee I got a "sudden feeling" > from >> some of them. But I have no > inclination to call that feeling an "aesthetic >> experience". Why, though? I'm > ready to call the experience occasioned in me > by >> very disparate things like > a Dickinson poem, a Hokusae wood print, and >> Beethoven's Ninth "aesthetic > experiences", but not a photo of a gruesome > car >> crash, or the photo of > someone jumping out of the ninetieth floor on 9/11. >> Why? There'a lot to be > learned about just what is going on when we hear a >> Mozart piano concerto, or > watch Allegra Kent dancing >> L'aprhs-midi d'un faune.
