On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Julian Leviston <jul...@leviston.net>wrote:
> > Noted, but not relevant to my point. > Oh? You say that without any explanation? Perhaps you need some hand holding to follow my logic. 1) You make an argument about contexts being `awe inspiring to humanity as a whole`. 2) Given the human potential for psychopathy, autism, aspergers, and other psychological classifications, it is impossible to find anything awe-inspiring to all humans. 3) Therefore, your `humanity as a whole` reduces to a statistical argument about a group of humans. 4) I describe your argument as `an anthropocentric statistical metric`. 5) I point out that even such metrics are influenced (subject to) culture. 6) Therefore, my argument is relevant to your point. Indeed, I believe it completely undermines your point. `awe-inspiring` is simply not an objective property. > > I'd posit that everything is inherently related. I call this inherent > relationship context, or "is-ness" if you will. > How is such a position - which doesn't seem to make any distinctions - useful in this context? Actually, how is it useful for anything whatsoever? > > Sure. Over at http://hof.povray.org/ > > > Sorry I was implying given a technologically-driven only context. (As > in... impossible without high technology) All of those works could be > theoretically done more or less with an analogue medium, no? > Speaking of the theoretically possible is always a fun and fantastic exercise. Theoretically, all the oxygen in your room could just happen to miss your lungs for the few minutes it takes to die. Theoretically, cosmic rays could flip bits into jpeg-encoded pornography on your computer. Theoretically, yes, those images could be generated on an analogue medium. But if we speak in practical terms - of what is `feasible` rather than what is `possible` - then, no, those images would not be created in an analog medium. They are the result of trial and error and tweaking that would be `infeasible` in human time frames without the technology. The precision of light and shadow would similarly be infeasible. > > long-lasting impacting meaning "the impact lasts for a long time" not as > in the sense that the activity itself is long-lasting. > Of the things I've found inspiring that had a long-lasting impact, none inspired `awe`. Regards, Dave
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
