There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Tense Marking Nouns in FairyLang
From: Dustfinger Batailleur
1b. Re: Tense Marking Nouns in FairyLang
From: John Erickson
1c. Re: Tense Marking Nouns in FairyLang
From: Daniel Bowman
1d. Re: Tense Marking Nouns in FairyLang
From: John Erickson
2a. Re: Brief Sound Change Question
From: David McCann
3.1. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
From: Matthew DeBlock
3.2. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
From: Patrick Dunn
3.3. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
From: Matthew DeBlock
3.4. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
From: Patrick Dunn
3.5. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
From: Garth Wallace
3.6. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
From: Matthew DeBlock
3.7. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
From: Patrick Dunn
3.8. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
From: Matthew DeBlock
3.9. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
From: Patrick Dunn
3.10. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
From: Matthew DeBlock
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Tense Marking Nouns in FairyLang
Posted by: "Dustfinger Batailleur" dustfinge...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:23 am ((PDT))
I've heard of this in either a conlang or natlang before, don't exactly
remember. It is a pretty cool concept though.
On 20 July 2012 00:32, John Erickson <john.erickson.so...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my language FairyLang, nouns are marked for tense, instead of verbs.
> Comments, critique and suggestions are very welcome.
>
> http://fairylang.livejournal.com/42005.html
> http://fairylang.livejournal.com/42276.html
> http://fairylang.livejournal.com/42616.html
>
> Basically it goes like this: Tense marking on a subject is relative to the
> speaker and indicates the overall tense of the sentence, marking on a
> direct object is relative to the subject and indicates aspect (perfect,
> imperfect, predictive/intentional). And I've just added a third tier, that
> some indirect objects can also be marked for tense, which is relative to
> the thing being modified.
>
> For example possessives like:
>
> dakhu yb myn
> house of me(pres)
> my house
>
> ... can be marked to make:
>
> dakhu yb miyn
> house of me(past)
> house that used to be mine
>
> dakhu yb mayn
> house of me(fut)
> house that will be mine
>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Tense Marking Nouns in FairyLang
Posted by: "John Erickson" john.erickson.so...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:48 am ((PDT))
I posted about it here before, back when it was still just an idea. In fact,
the discussion that followed really helped me refine & improve the idea, so big
thanks to the folks here.
Apparently there's a few natlangs that tense mark nouns too. It's just rare.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Tense Marking Nouns in FairyLang
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" danny.c.bow...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:50 am ((PDT))
Do the natlangs follow the same form (tense on subject, aspect on object,
etc)?
2012/7/20 John Erickson <john.erickson.so...@gmail.com>
> I posted about it here before, back when it was still just an idea. In
> fact, the discussion that followed really helped me refine & improve the
> idea, so big thanks to the folks here.
>
> Apparently there's a few natlangs that tense mark nouns too. It's just
> rare.
>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Tense Marking Nouns in FairyLang
Posted by: "John Erickson" john.erickson.so...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:23 am ((PDT))
I don't think so. This particular pattern is my own invention (as far as I
know).
I think the natlangs that tense mark nouns mark all the nouns in a sentence the
same (all past for past tense, etc.), although I haven't reasearched it.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Brief Sound Change Question
Posted by: "David McCann" da...@polymathy.plus.com
Date: Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:41 am ((PDT))
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:25:16 +0100
Sam Stutter <samjj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The town's name is "X bar la natti" (X beside the river). The X will
> be an English word which I haven't quite worked out yet. Perhaps an
> English surname or something like "Meadow".
>
> If English speakers were to corrupt /baɹ la 'na.tɪ/, what would they
> most likely corrupt it to: specifically which dictionary-English
> words would they become (like "super mare")? Bonus points if the name
> sounds like it could very easily come from Middle England. Assume an
> R.P. or Cheshire dialect and a real British history.
If it's at the mouth of the river and there's a headland nearby,
"Barley ness" > "Barliness" would be an obvious folk etymology.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
Posted by: "Matthew DeBlock" vas...@dscript.ca
Date: Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:42 am ((PDT))
> George Corley, On 20/07/2012 13:49:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Roman Rausch<ara...@mail.ru> wrote:
>>> Is there any denying that most people on the planet wouldn't
>>> agree that, say, Aztec or Ancient Egyptian art is beautiful, even
>>> though
>>> they weren't raised in those cultures?
>>
>> Those are both cultures held in high esteem for historical reasons,
>> though.
>> Certainly there are things to criticize in both as well. Not everyone
>> will like the bizarre body contortions seen in Ancient Egyptian art, if
>> they really took the time to judge it on its own merits. And of course,
>> I
>> don't really find some of the sexual imagery that beautiful -- I prefer
>> something more subtle than a god that is always depicted with an
>> exposed,
>> erect penis.
>
> Like a god always depicted with a suggestive bulge in his loincloth?
>
> --And.
>
As someone who has lived in china the last 8 years, I have out of necesity
invented a new word... "religistory"( treating historal texts as if
religious doctrine, and assuming evolution somehow works in reverse with
our ancestors being smarter and wiser than us), I've been folowing this
with interest.
In my mind, any attempt to define a standard for absolute beauty will
inevitably turn into religistory a the very best.
I also noticed someone implied that in teaching art some kind of standard
is necesarry.
Ignoring 2 simple pieces of common knowledge about art
1.A large portion of the artists most widly considered "amoung the
greatest" were never accepted during their lifetime(the classic image of a
starving artist). If there were absolute beauty, why would it require time
to be recognized?
2.Those who can't... teach. Very few art teachers are sucessfull artists,
so what bearing does common teaching methods have on any arguments about
art? thats like saying "most politicians say XXX" in a political debate,
what bearing does Ethos have in a LOGOS conversation.
The best art teachers, and most widely accepted "good advice" for artists,
ALL point to "there is no standard, go your own way, create something
new.... BREAK ALL THE RULES!"
As far as I am concerned, anyone rallying to define an absolute standard
of beauty has a hidden agenda which will only reveal itself when you take
their proposed defintion for beauty, and reverse it. this is their
definition of "ugly", and they want to erradicate it.
Messages in this topic (134)
________________________________________________________________________
3.2. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" pwd...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:52 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Matthew DeBlock <vas...@dscript.ca> wrote:
>
>
> 1.A large portion of the artists most widly considered "amoung the
> greatest" were never accepted during their lifetime(the classic image of a
> starving artist). If there were absolute beauty, why would it require time
> to be recognized?
>
Well, why wouldn't it? Just because it exists doesn't mean it's readily
apparent.
>
> 2.Those who can't... teach. Very few art teachers are sucessfull artists,
> so what bearing does common teaching methods have on any arguments about
> art? thats like saying "most politicians say XXX" in a political debate,
> what bearing does Ethos have in a LOGOS conversation.
>
People who say "those who can't . . . teach" automatically lose all
credibility in my book. They clearly know nothing about what is involved
in good teaching.
>
> The best art teachers, and most widely accepted "good advice" for artists,
> ALL point to "there is no standard, go your own way, create something
> new.... BREAK ALL THE RULES!"
>
Really? Have you tried composing music?
>
> As far as I am concerned, anyone rallying to define an absolute standard
> of beauty has a hidden agenda which will only reveal itself when you take
> their proposed defintion for beauty, and reverse it. this is their
> definition of "ugly", and they want to erradicate it.
>
Anyone? That's hardly a fair characterization of those who might have this
philosophical stance because of genuine belief in its truth, or through a
valid line of reasoning. You can disagree with someone without
villainizing them, you know.
--
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (134)
________________________________________________________________________
3.3. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
Posted by: "Matthew DeBlock" vas...@dscript.ca
Date: Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:17 am ((PDT))
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Matthew DeBlock <vas...@dscript.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 1.A large portion of the artists most widly considered "amoung the
>> greatest" were never accepted during their lifetime(the classic image of
>> a
>> starving artist). If there were absolute beauty, why would it require
>> time
>> to be recognized?
>>
>
> Well, why wouldn't it? Just because it exists doesn't mean it's readily
> apparent.
Yes.. and same for that invisible palm tree in my living room.
you have to have some kind of standard for what is worthy of
investigation, and at the very least you should at least belive the task
possible on some level.
>
>
>>
>> 2.Those who can't... teach. Very few art teachers are sucessfull
>> artists,
>> so what bearing does common teaching methods have on any arguments about
>> art? thats like saying "most politicians say XXX" in a political debate,
>> what bearing does Ethos have in a LOGOS conversation.
>>
>
> People who say "those who can't . . . teach" automatically lose all
> credibility in my book. They clearly know nothing about what is involved
> in good teaching.
really?
would you be willing to place a wager?
We pool a large random sample of art students(we can spread across
artistic fields)
ask them when they are in uni what their goal career is.
First figure to record... how many say to teach the subject of their study?
Then wait 10 years and follow up
what percentage actually said teacher and became teachers
(just the figure for ones saying it is low enough to prove my point I will
bet)
What percentage said "famous artist" but are now teachers?
(I will bet this is the largest group.. barring maybe the complete
failures working in the drive-through)
>
>
>>
>> The best art teachers, and most widely accepted "good advice" for
>> artists,
>> ALL point to "there is no standard, go your own way, create something
>> new.... BREAK ALL THE RULES!"
>>
>
> Really? Have you tried composing music?
yup... have you heard Jazz?
you reference is to the "universal rules" of music i assume, a phsycal
phenomena due to the particular design of our hearing system
>
>
>>
>> As far as I am concerned, anyone rallying to define an absolute standard
>> of beauty has a hidden agenda which will only reveal itself when you
>> take
>> their proposed defintion for beauty, and reverse it. this is their
>> definition of "ugly", and they want to erradicate it.
>>
>
> Anyone? That's hardly a fair characterization of those who might have
> this
> philosophical stance because of genuine belief in its truth, or through a
> valid line of reasoning. You can disagree with someone without
> villainizing them, you know.
Fine.. maybe not anyone..
but it is a very sound assumption.
You suggest there could be genuine and sound philosophical reasonings..
lets hear one?
What is the person trying to define "absolute beauty" trying to accomplish.
Lets analyze first the mind of the individual wishing to define this term
before moving on to argument itself
Shouldnt you have some kind of standard for what inteligeble discussion
and what is just noise?
>
> --
> Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
> order from Finishing Line
> Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
> and
> Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
>
Messages in this topic (134)
________________________________________________________________________
3.4. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" pwd...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:49 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Matthew DeBlock <vas...@dscript.ca> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Matthew DeBlock <vas...@dscript.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 1.A large portion of the artists most widly considered "amoung the
> >> greatest" were never accepted during their lifetime(the classic image of
> >> a
> >> starving artist). If there were absolute beauty, why would it require
> >> time
> >> to be recognized?
> >>
> >
> > Well, why wouldn't it? Just because it exists doesn't mean it's readily
> > apparent.
>
>
> Yes.. and same for that invisible palm tree in my living room.
>
> you have to have some kind of standard for what is worthy of
> investigation, and at the very least you should at least belive the task
> possible on some level.
>
Is that standard of investigation absolute? If it is, then why couldn't
there be absolute beauty as well?
The difference between the palm tree and beauty is that we have both had
experiences of beauty.
>
> Fine.. maybe not anyone..
>
> but it is a very sound assumption.
>
It's a rude and disrespectful assumption to those who disagree with you.
>
> You suggest there could be genuine and sound philosophical reasonings..
> lets hear one?
>
There's an entire school of philosophy that I can't summarize via email.
You may be interested in reading Realistic Rationalism, by Katz, which
argues for absolute ideas (mostly mathematical). Of course, the arguments
for Beauty as an idea are laid out in Plato, and the criticisms are laid
out in his Parmenides.
Ultimately, the argument is complex, but in a very simple form: Objects
appear to have qualities. In fact, two separate objects may share
qualities. We may say a man is beautiful, and a piece of music. We have
this experience of beauty, which we attribute to both objects. That seems
to imply that beauty exists separate from the objects itself.
Of course, you may find something beautiful that I don't. That doesn't
indict beauty, but our perceptions, just as if we both looked out the
window and you saw a cardinal and I saw a squirrel. Both might exist, but
we're looking at different places.
That's a very, very short summary of an argument that has gone on for two
and a half thousand years in the west, so it is necessarily brief and
simple.
>
> What is the person trying to define "absolute beauty" trying to accomplish.
> Lets analyze first the mind of the individual wishing to define this term
> before moving on to argument itself
>
No. That's not what you do. That's called an ad hominem argument.
Motives are irrelevant.
>
> Shouldnt you have some kind of standard for what inteligeble discussion
> and what is just noise?
>
Yes. Of course. Do you?
As for the rest, well. Jazz is highly structured. I know quite a bit
about what makes a good teacher, thank you very much. And so on. Those
arguments don't stand up to my own personal standard of what is
"inteligeble [sic] discussion."
--
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (134)
________________________________________________________________________
3.5. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" gwa...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:01 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 6:59 AM, And Rosta <and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Corley, On 20/07/2012 13:49:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Roman Rausch<ara...@mail.ru> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there any denying that most people on the planet wouldn't
>>>
>>> agree that, say, Aztec or Ancient Egyptian art is beautiful, even though
>>> they weren't raised in those cultures?
>>
>>
>> Those are both cultures held in high esteem for historical reasons,
>> though.
>> Certainly there are things to criticize in both as well. Not everyone
>> will like the bizarre body contortions seen in Ancient Egyptian art, if
>> they really took the time to judge it on its own merits. And of course, I
>> don't really find some of the sexual imagery that beautiful -- I prefer
>> something more subtle than a god that is always depicted with an exposed,
>> erect penis.
>
>
> Like a god always depicted with a suggestive bulge in his loincloth?
Bas-reliefs of trains going into tunnels.
Messages in this topic (134)
________________________________________________________________________
3.6. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
Posted by: "Matthew DeBlock" vas...@dscript.ca
Date: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:34 am ((PDT))
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Matthew DeBlock <vas...@dscript.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Matthew DeBlock <vas...@dscript.ca>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 1.A large portion of the artists most widly considered "amoung the
>> >> greatest" were never accepted during their lifetime(the classic image
>> of
>> >> a
>> >> starving artist). If there were absolute beauty, why would it require
>> >> time
>> >> to be recognized?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, why wouldn't it? Just because it exists doesn't mean it's
>> readily
>> > apparent.
>>
>>
>> Yes.. and same for that invisible palm tree in my living room.
>>
>> you have to have some kind of standard for what is worthy of
>> investigation, and at the very least you should at least belive the task
>> possible on some level.
>>
>
> Is that standard of investigation absolute? If it is, then why couldn't
> there be absolute beauty as well?
>
> The difference between the palm tree and beauty is that we have both had
> experiences of beauty.
>
yes.. relative beauty
they key word here is "absolute"
>
>>
>> Fine.. maybe not anyone..
>>
>> but it is a very sound assumption.
>>
>
> It's a rude and disrespectful assumption to those who disagree with you.
>
So is the concept of "asolute beauty" to everyone/everything that doesnt
fall within whatever boundry said person attempts to lay out.
That would just happen to be those who disagree with me on this matter
I "villanize" this because, as I say here, I see no difference between
this and someone trying to discuss "which race is superior"
Sure, they arent making any direct racist statements themself, so its ok
right?
>
>>
>> You suggest there could be genuine and sound philosophical reasonings..
>> lets hear one?
>>
>
> There's an entire school of philosophy that I can't summarize via email.
> You may be interested in reading Realistic Rationalism, by Katz, which
> argues for absolute ideas (mostly mathematical). Of course, the arguments
> for Beauty as an idea are laid out in Plato, and the criticisms are laid
> out in his Parmenides.
>
> Ultimately, the argument is complex, but in a very simple form: Objects
> appear to have qualities. In fact, two separate objects may share
> qualities. We may say a man is beautiful, and a piece of music. We have
> this experience of beauty, which we attribute to both objects. That seems
> to imply that beauty exists separate from the objects itself.
>
> Of course, you may find something beautiful that I don't. That doesn't
> indict beauty, but our perceptions, just as if we both looked out the
> window and you saw a cardinal and I saw a squirrel. Both might exist, but
> we're looking at different places.
>
> That's a very, very short summary of an argument that has gone on for two
> and a half thousand years in the west, so it is necessarily brief and
> simple.
>
seems like a failed attempt to define a relativestic contruct in absolute
terms
no wonder the only successfull portion of the debate is the mathmatical
origins
The whole argument seems to start with the assumption that every feeling
and experience of the human experience must stem from something
"meaningfull".
>
>>
>> What is the person trying to define "absolute beauty" trying to
>> accomplish.
>> Lets analyze first the mind of the individual wishing to define this
>> term
>> before moving on to argument itself
>>
>
> No. That's not what you do. That's called an ad hominem argument.
> Motives are irrelevant.
they are when there is no logical debate and the only tangible element is
the person themself
>
>
>>
>> Shouldnt you have some kind of standard for what inteligeble discussion
>> and what is just noise?
>>
>
> Yes. Of course. Do you?
yes, it was implied by the question i think..
or did that go over your head?(If you are gonna be snide so will I)
are your seriouslly wiling to discuss the "worthyness" of trying to define
"absolute beauty".. I would love to!
But everyone trying to deifne it, will usually dodge this.
>
> As for the rest, well. Jazz is highly structured. I know quite a bit
> about what makes a good teacher, thank you very much. And so on. Those
> arguments don't stand up to my own personal standard of what is
> "inteligeble [sic] discussion."
Everything is structed, structure does not imply anything relevant here?
I'm sure you are a great teacher.. i suck at teaching
I would like to clarify, seeing as you have obviously taken offence
"those who cant ... teach" != "those who teach.. cant"
those who "Can & Teach are probably at the top of their fields, while
Those who "Cant & teach" probably fall to the bottom rungs of the ladder
I have many great teachers, and admire many good teachers...
but one can not deny the data
those who discover they lack the ability, but have already invested in the
education process, tend to end up teaching the subject.
>
>
>
> --
> Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
> order from Finishing Line
> Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
> and
> Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
>
Messages in this topic (134)
________________________________________________________________________
3.7. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" pwd...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:47 am ((PDT))
There's no point in continuing this conversation. It's off topic, and
you're too rude to talk to in a rational manner. Once I get compared to a
racist for holding a particular ontological perspective, the conversation
is over and my email filter gets a little bit longer.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Matthew DeBlock <vas...@dscript.ca> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Matthew DeBlock <vas...@dscript.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Matthew DeBlock <vas...@dscript.ca>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 1.A large portion of the artists most widly considered "amoung the
> >> >> greatest" were never accepted during their lifetime(the classic image
> >> of
> >> >> a
> >> >> starving artist). If there were absolute beauty, why would it require
> >> >> time
> >> >> to be recognized?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Well, why wouldn't it? Just because it exists doesn't mean it's
> >> readily
> >> > apparent.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes.. and same for that invisible palm tree in my living room.
> >>
> >> you have to have some kind of standard for what is worthy of
> >> investigation, and at the very least you should at least belive the task
> >> possible on some level.
> >>
> >
> > Is that standard of investigation absolute? If it is, then why couldn't
> > there be absolute beauty as well?
> >
> > The difference between the palm tree and beauty is that we have both had
> > experiences of beauty.
> >
>
> yes.. relative beauty
>
> they key word here is "absolute"
>
> >
> >>
> >> Fine.. maybe not anyone..
> >>
> >> but it is a very sound assumption.
> >>
> >
> > It's a rude and disrespectful assumption to those who disagree with you.
> >
>
> So is the concept of "asolute beauty" to everyone/everything that doesnt
> fall within whatever boundry said person attempts to lay out.
>
> That would just happen to be those who disagree with me on this matter
>
> I "villanize" this because, as I say here, I see no difference between
> this and someone trying to discuss "which race is superior"
>
> Sure, they arent making any direct racist statements themself, so its ok
> right?
>
> >
> >>
> >> You suggest there could be genuine and sound philosophical reasonings..
> >> lets hear one?
> >>
> >
> > There's an entire school of philosophy that I can't summarize via email.
> > You may be interested in reading Realistic Rationalism, by Katz, which
> > argues for absolute ideas (mostly mathematical). Of course, the
> arguments
> > for Beauty as an idea are laid out in Plato, and the criticisms are laid
> > out in his Parmenides.
> >
> > Ultimately, the argument is complex, but in a very simple form: Objects
> > appear to have qualities. In fact, two separate objects may share
> > qualities. We may say a man is beautiful, and a piece of music. We have
> > this experience of beauty, which we attribute to both objects. That
> seems
> > to imply that beauty exists separate from the objects itself.
> >
> > Of course, you may find something beautiful that I don't. That doesn't
> > indict beauty, but our perceptions, just as if we both looked out the
> > window and you saw a cardinal and I saw a squirrel. Both might exist,
> but
> > we're looking at different places.
> >
> > That's a very, very short summary of an argument that has gone on for two
> > and a half thousand years in the west, so it is necessarily brief and
> > simple.
> >
>
> seems like a failed attempt to define a relativestic contruct in absolute
> terms
>
> no wonder the only successfull portion of the debate is the mathmatical
> origins
>
> The whole argument seems to start with the assumption that every feeling
> and experience of the human experience must stem from something
> "meaningfull".
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> What is the person trying to define "absolute beauty" trying to
> >> accomplish.
> >> Lets analyze first the mind of the individual wishing to define this
> >> term
> >> before moving on to argument itself
> >>
> >
> > No. That's not what you do. That's called an ad hominem argument.
> > Motives are irrelevant.
>
> they are when there is no logical debate and the only tangible element is
> the person themself
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Shouldnt you have some kind of standard for what inteligeble discussion
> >> and what is just noise?
> >>
> >
> > Yes. Of course. Do you?
>
> yes, it was implied by the question i think..
>
> or did that go over your head?(If you are gonna be snide so will I)
>
>
> are your seriouslly wiling to discuss the "worthyness" of trying to define
> "absolute beauty".. I would love to!
>
> But everyone trying to deifne it, will usually dodge this.
>
> >
> > As for the rest, well. Jazz is highly structured. I know quite a bit
> > about what makes a good teacher, thank you very much. And so on. Those
> > arguments don't stand up to my own personal standard of what is
> > "inteligeble [sic] discussion."
>
>
> Everything is structed, structure does not imply anything relevant here?
>
> I'm sure you are a great teacher.. i suck at teaching
>
> I would like to clarify, seeing as you have obviously taken offence
> "those who cant ... teach" != "those who teach.. cant"
>
> those who "Can & Teach are probably at the top of their fields, while
> Those who "Cant & teach" probably fall to the bottom rungs of the ladder
>
> I have many great teachers, and admire many good teachers...
>
> but one can not deny the data
>
> those who discover they lack the ability, but have already invested in the
> education process, tend to end up teaching the subject.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
> > order from Finishing Line
> > Press<
> http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
> > and
> > Amazon<
> http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2
> >.
> >
>
--
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (134)
________________________________________________________________________
3.8. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
Posted by: "Matthew DeBlock" vas...@dscript.ca
Date: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:53 am ((PDT))
>> are your seriouslly wiling to discuss the "worthyness" of trying to
>> define
>> "absolute beauty".. I would love to!
.....always leads to the following
never fails :D ......
> There's no point in continuing this conversation. It's off topic, and
> you're too rude to talk to in a rational manner. Once I get compared to a
> racist for holding a particular ontological perspective, the conversation
> is over and my email filter gets a little bit longer.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Matthew DeBlock <vas...@dscript.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Matthew DeBlock <vas...@dscript.ca>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Matthew DeBlock
>> <vas...@dscript.ca>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1.A large portion of the artists most widly considered "amoung the
>> >> >> greatest" were never accepted during their lifetime(the classic
>> image
>> >> of
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> starving artist). If there were absolute beauty, why would it
>> require
>> >> >> time
>> >> >> to be recognized?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, why wouldn't it? Just because it exists doesn't mean it's
>> >> readily
>> >> > apparent.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes.. and same for that invisible palm tree in my living room.
>> >>
>> >> you have to have some kind of standard for what is worthy of
>> >> investigation, and at the very least you should at least belive the
>> task
>> >> possible on some level.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Is that standard of investigation absolute? If it is, then why
>> couldn't
>> > there be absolute beauty as well?
>> >
>> > The difference between the palm tree and beauty is that we have both
>> had
>> > experiences of beauty.
>> >
>>
>> yes.. relative beauty
>>
>> they key word here is "absolute"
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Fine.. maybe not anyone..
>> >>
>> >> but it is a very sound assumption.
>> >>
>> >
>> > It's a rude and disrespectful assumption to those who disagree with
>> you.
>> >
>>
>> So is the concept of "asolute beauty" to everyone/everything that doesnt
>> fall within whatever boundry said person attempts to lay out.
>>
>> That would just happen to be those who disagree with me on this matter
>>
>> I "villanize" this because, as I say here, I see no difference between
>> this and someone trying to discuss "which race is superior"
>>
>> Sure, they arent making any direct racist statements themself, so its ok
>> right?
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You suggest there could be genuine and sound philosophical
>> reasonings..
>> >> lets hear one?
>> >>
>> >
>> > There's an entire school of philosophy that I can't summarize via
>> email.
>> > You may be interested in reading Realistic Rationalism, by Katz,
>> which
>> > argues for absolute ideas (mostly mathematical). Of course, the
>> arguments
>> > for Beauty as an idea are laid out in Plato, and the criticisms are
>> laid
>> > out in his Parmenides.
>> >
>> > Ultimately, the argument is complex, but in a very simple form:
>> Objects
>> > appear to have qualities. In fact, two separate objects may share
>> > qualities. We may say a man is beautiful, and a piece of music. We
>> have
>> > this experience of beauty, which we attribute to both objects. That
>> seems
>> > to imply that beauty exists separate from the objects itself.
>> >
>> > Of course, you may find something beautiful that I don't. That
>> doesn't
>> > indict beauty, but our perceptions, just as if we both looked out the
>> > window and you saw a cardinal and I saw a squirrel. Both might exist,
>> but
>> > we're looking at different places.
>> >
>> > That's a very, very short summary of an argument that has gone on for
>> two
>> > and a half thousand years in the west, so it is necessarily brief and
>> > simple.
>> >
>>
>> seems like a failed attempt to define a relativestic contruct in
>> absolute
>> terms
>>
>> no wonder the only successfull portion of the debate is the mathmatical
>> origins
>>
>> The whole argument seems to start with the assumption that every feeling
>> and experience of the human experience must stem from something
>> "meaningfull".
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> What is the person trying to define "absolute beauty" trying to
>> >> accomplish.
>> >> Lets analyze first the mind of the individual wishing to define this
>> >> term
>> >> before moving on to argument itself
>> >>
>> >
>> > No. That's not what you do. That's called an ad hominem argument.
>> > Motives are irrelevant.
>>
>> they are when there is no logical debate and the only tangible element
>> is
>> the person themself
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Shouldnt you have some kind of standard for what inteligeble
>> discussion
>> >> and what is just noise?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes. Of course. Do you?
>>
>> yes, it was implied by the question i think..
>>
>> or did that go over your head?(If you are gonna be snide so will I)
>>
>>
>> are your seriouslly wiling to discuss the "worthyness" of trying to
>> define
>> "absolute beauty".. I would love to!
>>
>> But everyone trying to deifne it, will usually dodge this.
>>
>> >
>> > As for the rest, well. Jazz is highly structured. I know quite a bit
>> > about what makes a good teacher, thank you very much. And so on.
>> Those
>> > arguments don't stand up to my own personal standard of what is
>> > "inteligeble [sic] discussion."
>>
>>
>> Everything is structed, structure does not imply anything relevant here?
>>
>> I'm sure you are a great teacher.. i suck at teaching
>>
>> I would like to clarify, seeing as you have obviously taken offence
>> "those who cant ... teach" != "those who teach.. cant"
>>
>> those who "Can & Teach are probably at the top of their fields, while
>> Those who "Cant & teach" probably fall to the bottom rungs of the ladder
>>
>> I have many great teachers, and admire many good teachers...
>>
>> but one can not deny the data
>>
>> those who discover they lack the ability, but have already invested in
>> the
>> education process, tend to end up teaching the subject.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available
>> for
>> > order from Finishing Line
>> > Press<
>> http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
>> > and
>> > Amazon<
>> http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2
>> >.
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
> order from Finishing Line
> Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
> and
> Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
>
Messages in this topic (134)
________________________________________________________________________
3.9. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" pwd...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:57 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Matthew DeBlock <vas...@dscript.ca> wrote:
> >> are your seriouslly wiling to discuss the "worthyness" of trying to
> >> define
> >> "absolute beauty".. I would love to!
>
>
> .....always leads to the following
> never fails :D ......
>
>
Then you may want to reconsider your approach. Insulting people isn't
usually a good way to get a philosophical discussion started. They're
inclined to walk away.
As I am doing now.
--
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (134)
________________________________________________________________________
3.10. Re: "Absolute beauty" (was: Calligraphy)
Posted by: "Matthew DeBlock" vas...@dscript.ca
Date: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:03 pm ((PDT))
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Matthew DeBlock <vas...@dscript.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> >> are your seriouslly wiling to discuss the "worthyness" of trying to
>> >> define
>> >> "absolute beauty".. I would love to!
>>
>>
>> .....always leads to the following
>> never fails :D ......
>>
>>
> Then you may want to reconsider your approach. Insulting people isn't
> usually a good way to get a philosophical discussion started. They're
> inclined to walk away.
>
> As I am doing now.
>
Considering my WHOLE POINT was that the attempt have this discussion
should be cosidered suspect, and evaluated for alterior motives.
I my questioning their motives makes them run away and stay as far away
from me as possible.. (usally slandering me as they go)
I get EXACTLY what I wanted to begin with!!
:D
btw. you havent blocked me yet obviously..
what are you waiting for?
>
>
>
> --
> Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
> order from Finishing Line
> Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
> and
> Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
>
Messages in this topic (134)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
