I think my epistemology would have to centered around what is useful to the asthetic sense becoming more discerning in its perception and ascertainment of the beautiful truth (I think the point of perceiving beauty is so we can adopt it in some way)... such a relative formula... well its dynamic! but its also a tautology extrapolated from the axiom i keep on relying on, but what do you expect the ultimate truth to accord to, other than itself, the only proof i have to validate my ideas and theory is to appeal to your greatest judgement faculty, which I believe is your aesthetic sensibility. So be honest, are you a rational robot, or does the core of your judgement proceed from your motive to achieve freedom and beauty, and is my theory of the incomplete process ever unfolding an ugly one, perhaps then it is something to transcend and displace, I think it is the ultimate perspective, well at the moment...
Assertion::
My greatest judgment faculty is reason.
response::
its the greatest element that helps make up your judgment faculty, but its not the over arching meta-sense that you use. Reason is good in cut and dry situations, ie obvious situations, but before you use reason, you must first judge what is good in the situation, reason doesn't tell you whats good, only asthetics can. Everything you do is not just a question of how do I do something, its first of question of "what should i do?". I hope you can perceive the answer to this question ("What should i do?") contains more than just reason, although we also call it reasoning... I sense a bit of a language barrier here actually, it might be helping to confuse the distinction im trying to make.
So why do you really do things, what animates you, what informs your drive, what are the constituents of your motive? Well that was the question, but they also serve as the answers (ie. your motive is your motive, your drive is your drive, it is axiomatic!), basically my point is, reason is important, but its definitely not the source of one's actions. If you think it is, I think you are deluding yourself. Your not a robot programed by reason, your a robot programmed by beauty, and beauty gives you life! Thats a more accurate reduction, I think.
Question::
ReplyDeletei think that aesthetic concern in relationship to making judgements is only used in order to perfect one's knowledge or make it more understandable to the outside observer. in other words, i think that the artist mentality is the fuel that keeps the logician mentality running.
also, if aesthetics come before logic (even unconsciously), what propels the former? did the divide between artistic passion and mechanical logic happen instantaneously and can they even be separated at all?
idk, maybe i'm just not understanding you and i'm rambling...
Response::
My hypothesis just describes what is imbued in all of life. Why does a tree grow its roots down, because its a good thing to do, therefore I say it is animated by the asthetic principle. We have just become more conscious, maybe consciousness is like a shroud that encapsulates this asthetic principle, I would hope that its in actual fact part of the asthetic (that would give it more value)... This stuff gets so metaphysical, i dont find it that useful, or beautiful to explore, maybe thats why I cant give you a very good response. Maybe thats the point of our form of life though, to defy beauty and explore your current concern (maybe that is perhaps the path to greater beauty), I would not persist with your thinking though, but thats just my asthetic talking, try channel yours and see how far you get! I would argue your concern detracts from our beauty and thats why the thinking in this area is not viable, it just cant bear fruit; because it wreaks of the spirit of science, which is dead itself.
I think the basic question that your asking is this one: I dont understand beauty, so please break it up into constituent parts so I can see how those parts inter-relate and then I will understand it. I guess the reason I cant give you a clear answer, is because I believe the process that makes up beauty is just not quantifiable, because its purely a qualitative term, you see, it truely has an infinite nature. Because its a dynamic (dynamic because it is a conflux of both qualitative and quantitative concern). Sorry, I dont like being vague, but thats as close as I can discern it for you at the moment.
Can these things be seperated? Well, you can seperate them in the understanding, but you can't do so in reality, when you do so, the qualitative lies dormant, and the quantitative (is really just a tool, so it just) remains un-utilized. Im giving you a functional answer, because things only have true meaning in how they functionally relate to the process of 'beauty becoming more beautiful'. I guess in terms of rationalism they do need each other (that is the qualitative and the quantitative, logic is not the only quantitative gauge i would argue, theres a whole spectrum which is created because its not a 2 sided coin we are looking at, its a piece of art), but just because something is rational doesn't make it part of reality, as ive argued before, reality is changing as the truth changes (or grows is a better term), as our perception grows, and the definition of perception is the greater apprehension of beauty.
Im sorry, i wish I could tell you an answer that you can all universally accept, but thats impossible you see, because the truth (as I see it anyway) can only be pointed at, it cant be taught, only understood, it cannot be fed to you, it can only be recieved when it becomes appealing (asthetically appealing) to the percipient. Not everyone is capable of this higher consciousness Im afraid, but I would still argue what im offering is... a truer answer than what science ever could offer.
PS: I also think my ideas are in conformity with quantum phsyics!