Aesthetics

phoneutria wrote:

Satyr wrote:

That the Will emerges to make this possible from the process of ordering, is not negated by this conscious detachment; that our tastes evolve to serve us in survival, is not negated by their subsequent degree of detachment from the immediate appreciation of objects/objectives.
So, pleasure is not a negation of the experience of existence as need....it is a momentary detachment, brought about by the distraction such a relief offers the mind.
This contemplative detachment is also experience in meditation...but with meditation the mind does not exit the processes that make it possible as part of the body, it simply quiets them, soothes them to the point where the body does not disturb its focus.  

Is this now where you say I did not say what I said? That I did not mean the meaning of a word as what the word means? Like a worm?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


"Eyeless in Gaza, earless in Britain,
lower than a rattlesnake’s belly-button,
deaf as a judge and dumb as an audit:
nobody gave the worm much credit
till Darwin looked a little closer
at this spaghetti-torsoed loser.
Look, he said, a worm can feel
and taste and touch and learn and smell;
and ounce for ounce, they’re tough as wrestlers,
and love can turn them into hustlers,
and as to work, their labors are mythic,
small devotees of the Protestant Ethic:
they’ll go anywhere, to mountains or grassland,
south to the rain forests, north to Iceland,
fifty thousand to every acre
guzzling earth like a drunk on liquor,
churning the soil and making it fertile,
earning the thanks of every mortal:
proud Homo sapiens, with legs and arms—
his whole existence depends on worms.
So, History, no longer let
the worm’s be an ignoble lot
unwept, unhonored, and unsung.
Moral: even a worm can turn." [Phillip Appleman, Darwin's bestiary]

phoneutria wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Either she is incapable of applying a brain, or she chooses to pick only those parts of metaphysics that comfort and justify her hedonism.

Am I the one picking the whole of an idea and highlighting bits of text here and there that I agree with, and denying the rest?

Is he the one picking bits of your lover-boy schopenhauer to COMFORT AND JUSTIFY his metaphysics, or is he standing on his own ground?

Asking a man to tell you how another man's ideas relate to his may not interest him.
He relates to other perspectives with minimal interest and only to validate or to challenge his own.

If I'm asked, "Are you a Nietzschean?" I would have to respond with "I do not know, and i do not really care."
How my positions agree or disagree with those of another is only a comparison that is interesting if both positions are then compared to the world which is indifferent to both positions.

Others teach me, they inspire me, they test me, in relation to the world and how they describe it.
I validate their perspective on my own, not by looking into a book, or reading yet another mind's positions, but by observing the world directly.

So, the question as to what I think of Schopenhauer's views I answer:
He inspired me, he taught me, I respect him, he opened my eyes to another way of looking, but how he meant what he said, and why he said it, does not interest me to the point where I will dedicate a lifetime to trying to decide.
His positions only have value, to me, as they relate to my own perceptions.
They accentuate them, support them or challenge them, they do not determine them.

The same holds true for every book I've ever read, and every author I have come in contact with.

Schopenhauer's insights into pleasure and suffering, amongst other things, remain unchallenged, in my mind.
His positions on will-less contemplation, and what he meant and how he meant it, and if it was a reference to an absolute condition of detachment, I do not trouble myself with.
If he is interested as a neo-Buddhist, almost Christian thinker, on a total detachment of observer from observed, then I need not accept this so as to enjoy the rest of his thinking.
His observation may allude to some god-like, theo-ria, which I do not consider possible nor even desirable, as if pushed to tis extreme, using its own logic, then it leads in a complete detachment from the world, which is the grounding that keeps the mind from floating in the imagination's need to escape the experience of need/suffering, which is the Flux.

Because a complete objectivity, if possible, would have no standard by which to gauge good from bad, superior from inferior, and feces would be just as tasty as sugar, and noise would be just as valuable as melody.

The appreciation of similarity begins when diversion is already achieved to a degree.
Self-consciousness begins a as possibility when consciousness has developed to a certain point.
Detachment from need begins, to whatever degree it is possible, only when its satiation has reached a certain level of ease, and with the excesses of consciousness this permits.

A plant possesses a primitive form of consciousnesses.
It can sense, become aware, of the world, and ti can differentiate, discriminate.

When a plant grows upwards, towards the sun, and downwards, towards the elements it NEEDS, or towards water, it NEEDS, it directs its growth...this is called willfulness - the WILL.

The plant can only sense otherness as it interacts with its sense organs, its physical body.
It cannot be conscious of itself being conscious.
It's tastes are founded on its organic structures, its organ hierarchies, as these interact with otherness, the world. It discriminates considering the elements it perceives good or bad, even if it has no language, no brain, to symbolize and codify and name the world.
It's aesthetic appreciation is encompassed within this sensual world of good/bad, as these relate to its NEEDS.
It does not, as far as we know, feels pleasure when satiating its needs.

Man engages the world using more sophisticate and efficient sensual methods.  
Man also can be conscious of his own consciousness; he can observe himself observing; he can be aware of himself feeling pleasure when satisfying a need...which is also founded on his organic hierarchies and his essence as a natural becoming - nature being the sum total of all the interaction in the past (nature), and in his own life cycle, his experiences (nurture) which determine his tastes, constructing his aesthetic appreciation of otherness.
Becoming aware of himself being pleased may subtract from the sensation of it, because here a part of the brain/mind, detaches from the rest of the mind/brain so as to make this possible.
This is called being self-conscious.  

A different way to comprehend...
An organism develops a fight/flight reaction to particular stimuli.
Although these reactions evolve from the conscious interaction of the organism with the otherness, the world, these reactions become automatic....necessitating very little consciousness to trigger them. The organism gains efficiency by sacrificing a bit of consciousness...since automatism takes over and does not require an awareness beyond what is required to trigger the reaction.
If the organism was self-conscious the reaction time would become slower, thusly less effective.

In the martial arts repetition creates a new automatic behavior to stimuli, requiring constant training, repetition, to become second nature, innate, instinctive.
Here over-thinking, thinking too much, would decrease reaction speeds.  

Appreciating art.
A man fins what he lacks beautiful. He is ordering and so any ordering above his own, in any context, is attractive to him.
He wills himself towards an object/objective which attracts him, sensually.
His tastes are determined by his inherited organic hierarchies and his nature/nurture past.
He wills his mind to direct his senses towards the object/objective. Then he wills himself to focus on it and nothing else - he is captivated by the beauty, order, symmetry, virility, promise, he perceives, which inspires him, gives him hope, opens up possibilities...he feels rejuvenated.
It's a form of meditation.
Need never exists the scene, because it has already determined what is to be considered tasteful, beautiful, captivating; it underlies the experience even if it is not conscious of itself needing.  

He can then silence his self-consciousness to become immersed in the object/objective so as to focus upon it without distractions.

Lyssa wrote:

Yet, take note, there are two kinds of objectivity that You confuse:


1.

Schopenhauerian's "will-less will" or "disinterested contemplation"  As Self-effacement is a sense-dimunition.


2.

Scientific objectivity is the disciplined employment or application of every power of the senses to discriminate and observe an entity from the fullness and engagement of one's being. This kind of Objectivity AS Self-assertion is a sense-augmentation.

This kind of Objectvity deploys every method, every sense, every tool at its disposal to gather observation without effacing its character, without effacing self-involvement.

This is Objectvity from a Fullness of the senses.

"There is only a perspectival seeing, only a perspectival “knowing”; and the more affects we allow to speak about a matter [---] that much more complete will our “concept” of this matter, our “objectivity” be. [Nietzsche, 1998b, III, 12]

Heisman wrote:

"Radical objectivity towards subjectivity would mean attempting honesty to the point of absurdity. To focus on rooting out the deepest sources of subjectivity amounts to seeking out those truths that are most destructive to subjectivity, i.e. self-interest. It is to make a specialty of truths that kill.

If I had no biases I would be dead, rather that sitting here right now, writing about them. To approach the most biasless state of death is to pursue a course of rational selfdestruction through a rigorous elimination of biases towards life. Yet to be value neutral would be to not be biased towards objectivity over subjectivity or vice versa. While objectivity is not inherently self-justified as an end in itself, objectivity could be a means. Objectivity could be a means, for example, of rational self-destruction." [Suicide Note]

Heisman wrote:

"How far would one be willing to go in pursuit of scientific objectivity? Objectivity and survival are least compatible when objectivity becomes a means of life, subordinate to life — as opposed to life subordinated to objectivity. If the greatest objectivity implicates confronting the most subjective biases, this implicates confronting those truths that most conflict with the subjective will to live. By simply changing my values from life values to death values, and setting my trajectory for rational biological self-destruction, I am able to liberate myself from many of the biases that dominate the horizons of most people’s lives. By valuing certain scientific observations because they are destructive to my life, I am removing self-preservation factors that hinder objectivity. This is how I am in a position to hypothesize my own death.

So if objectivity is not justified as end, then objectivity can be a means of rational self-destruction through the overcoming of the bias towards life. Rational self-destruction through the overcoming of the bias towards life, in turn, can be a means of achieving objectivity. And this means: To will death as a means of willing truth and to will truth as a means of willing death." [Suicide Note]

Heisman wrote:

""Synthetic processes of life work in paradoxical relationship to analytic processes because natural selection effectually “analyzed” or “chose” certain synthetic processes over others. This implies that the most complex syntheses might incorporate an analytic blind spot related the preference of some synthetic organizations over others.

A living thing cannot incorporate all physical possibilities into itself if it is to remain alive. Life, on some level, is an organization synthesis that contradicts, overcomes, or outsynthesizes the physical probabilities of its immediate environment that would otherwise lead to death. Just as the life processes of an individual bacteria cell could not exist if its cell walls were opened to all the physical possibilities of its outside environment..." [Heisman, Suicide Note]

"There are no isolated judgments! An isolated judgment is never ‘true’, never knowledge, only in the connection [Zusammenhange] and relation [Beziehung] of many judgments is there any surety [Bürgschaft]." [Nietzsche]


"...we have senses for only a selection of perceptions – those with which we have to concern ourselves in order to preserve ourselves." [Nietzsche]

Our Will directs us towards the object/objective we are attracted to - the objet d'art, the organism, the phenomenon...that which appears.
Finding it there amongst otherness, it focuses our senses, cutting away the noise, so as to immerse consciousness in what directed its needing.
The Will is this focusing of energies, either physical or mental, and/or both.
Then it shrinks to the background, to allow pleasure in the assimilation of the object/objective - feeding being its physical manifestation, the mouth tasting the elements it is lacking, flooded by the sensations; contemplation being the mental manifestation, the brain tasting every image, every sound, every texture, flooded with sensations.

Both absorb the otherness, integrating its order within the organism's own.
The melody, the painting, the sculpture, the idea, are now part of us.  
The creator has relinquished the product of his imagination, to be used, by the other, in whatever manner he can.
If the creator imposes a motive, then his offering comes with a seductive possibility - a seed germinating into what he hopes approaches his intent.

Pardon me, dear, I have been very busy.

Quote :

Wrong. That is only a Schopenhauerian AesthetiC  that demands you do so.

I am arguing that it is so. It is my position. It is my statement that relating need to aesthetics is nonsense.

Aesthetic disinterestness is in Schopenhauer's aesthetic theory, but not only in it. I believe he borrowed from kant, and who knows where kant got it from. It is a common concept in aesthetic theory shared by many.

In any case, you know that it is not my habit to quote authors. Again, I am arguing my position, not schopenhauer's, and it was not me who brought him into the conversation. It was satyr, much to my surprise who posted a link to schopenhauer aesthetic, as he does not agree with that position.


On to the merits of it...

Quote :

I am hungry. --- (sub)Consciousness.

What am I hungry for? --- Self-consciousness.

How am I satiating my hunger? --- Aesthetics.

It is an expression of how our needs are satiated....

Aesthetics is a Science of evaluating sensory-values, sensory-power judgements.  

Aesthetics is applying objectivity to self-consciousness, which is a Continuous reflection of our need......  there is no break.  Objectivity itself is a reflection of our need for Order - pleasure.... and aesthetics expresses this objectvity.   Therefore aesthetics and need/pleasure are not separated.

To say, as you do, "rooted in need but not pursued for need's sake" - as what is aesthetics, is NON-SENSE.

Pleasure to the body is satiation of a need, and aesthetics expresses how we choose to satiate this need and this 'how' therefore requires objectivity, FOR pursuing that need ----- efficiently. ---"For need's sake".

Get it?

I get it my darling, but I disagree.

I will explain using your own example how need hinders an objective evaluation of an aesthetic experience.

It is true that the reason living organisms put things in their mouths (for the most time) is because they require nutrition. It would be absurd to contest that.

I am hungry.
My apetite and desire to eat are affected by my hunger/need for food.
The more I eat, the less I feel need, the less apetite, the less desire to eat.
It's likely that i may apply a bias to my judgment, fiding the first dish the most delicious, as it was the one presented to be when I had the greatest apetite. By the end of the meal, I may feel quite impartial to the last dish, but that does not mean it is a bad dish. it means that my judgment is not objective, it is squeued.

Instead, I am not hungry, but I will sample various dishes. I may even spit after chewing if I am really anal about my objectiveness.
I am not eating to satisfy a need. I am tasting for flavor's sake, to form an objective comparison of one flavor against the other while controling variables that may affect my judgment.

Do you see how it is preferred to not feel that specific need when experiencing aesthetically?


Do you see how it follows that I disagree with your two descriptions of objectivity?
Because need is a constantly flowing sensation, increasing and decreasing as satiation occurs and wears out, a judgment done when in the process of satiating a need cannot be objective.

Quote :

Do realize, Your hedonism has even quantified the definition of Aesthetics.

To you, as with the Xt. Schopenhauer and the Jew Heisman, Objectivity is a "how much"  can I detach myself to obtain a noise-free observation...

But Aesthetics is not a "how much", but a "how" am I detaching myself to obtain a noise-free observation.
From sense-dimunition or sense-fullness?, pain&pleasure or beyond pain&pleasure, etc.

No I don't realize that. I realize how it quantified objectivity, not the definition of Aesthetics.

As to the "how" you must have not read anything I wrote if you must assume that I limit aesthetic appreciation to pain&pleasure. I've stated several times that there is no pain involved, no need, no suffering. In the moment of aesthetic appreciation, pain must cease.

Quote :

Taste, Aesthetics ex-presses this degree of objectivity-that-reflects/preserves/real-izes our subjectivity.
The Pursuit FOR need's sake.

To realize your subjectivity is to admit that you are not objective.

Lyssa wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Either she is incapable of applying a brain, or she chooses to pick only those parts of metaphysics that comfort and justify her hedonism.

Am I the one picking the whole of an idea and highlighting bits of text here and there that I agree with, and denying the rest?

Is he the one picking bits of your lover-boy schopenhauer to COMFORT AND JUSTIFY his metaphysics, or is he standing on his own ground?

Once again. I did not post the link to schopenhauer's aesthetic, and then when faced with the actual text, highlighted the pieces here and there that I agree and discard the rest.

I don't mind satyr doing that. I just find it hilarious that he would accuse ME of that, after what he did here.

phoneutria wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Wrong. That is only a Schopenhauerian AesthetiC  that demands you do so.

I am arguing that it is so. It is my position. It is my statement that relating need to aesthetics is nonsense.

I said the presented position is a schopenhauerIAN aesthetiC, and not Schopenhauer's and neither a definition of aestheticS.

Quote :

Again, I am arguing my position, not schopenhauer's,

I am arguing against the Schopenhauerian position, not Schopenhauer's; all the more since You claimed accord:

"My issue is how you can say that Schopenhauer is unchallenged while at the same time you have disagreed with me on everything in this thread."

Quote :

and it was not me who brought him into the conversation. It was satyr, much to my surprise who posted a link to schopenhauer aesthetic, as he does not agree with that position.

There's nothing to be surprised as he brought Schopenhauer in since you were initially making the case:

"Beauty is not rooted in need/suffering. In order for it to originate, it requires for need/suffering to cease.
Two realms. One comes into existence when the other ceases to exist, and vice-versa."

Which later you did a convolutioning that is your habit, to say,

"Need, lust, concupiscence all exist, and all are at the root of why we like what we like, but they are not aesthetic."

later,

"We engage in aesthetic pursuits freely and spontaneously."


If you are going to pretend now you do not understand the reason why Satyr brought in Schop. in the first place, I'm done with you.

Quote :

I will explain using your own example how need hinders an objective evaluation of an aesthetic experience.

It is true that the reason living organisms put things in their mouths (for the most time) is because they require nutrition. It would be absurd to contest that.

I am hungry.
My apetite and desire to eat are affected by my hunger/need for food.
The more I eat, the less I feel need, the less apetite, the less desire to eat.
It's likely that i may apply a bias to my judgment, fiding the first dish the most delicious, as it was the one presented to be when I had the greatest apetite. By the end of the meal, I may feel quite impartial to the last dish, but that does not mean it is a bad dish. it means that my judgment is not objective, it is squeued.

Instead, I am not hungry, but I will sample various dishes. I may even spit after chewing if I am really anal about my objectiveness.
I am not eating to satisfy a need. I am tasting for flavor's sake, to form an objective comparison of one flavor against the other while controling variables that may affect my judgment.

Do you see how it is preferred to not feel that specific need when experiencing aesthetically?


Do you see how it follows that I disagree with your two descriptions of objectivity?
Because need is a constantly flowing sensation, increasing and decreasing as satiation occurs and wears out, a judgment done when in the process of satiating a need cannot be objective.

Your condescending tone is a bore, esp. after I SAID, I SAID,

"You wish to define aesthetics as that objective disposition which reduces noise-factors in judgement [divorcing of needs from consciousness]"

Now YOU are pretending to explain back to me, like I didn't grasp it?!
Whatever. Your thrill.



And Satyr has already countered your remark saying,

"A man finds what he lacks beautiful. He is ordering and so any ordering above his own, in any context, is attractive to him.
He wills himself towards an object/objective which attracts him, sensually.
His tastes are determined by his inherited organic hierarchies and his nature/nurture past.
He wills his mind to direct his senses towards the object/objective. Then he wills himself to focus on it and nothing else - he is captivated by the beauty, order, symmetry, virility, promise, he perceives, which inspires him, gives him hope, opens up possibilities...he feels rejuvenated.
It's a form of meditation.
Need never exists the scene, because it has already determined what is to be considered tasteful, beautiful, captivating; it underlies the experience even if it is not conscious of itself needing.  
He can then silence his self-consciousness to become immersed in the object/objective so as to focus upon it without distractions."


And I have already countered your remark quoting, when making an aesthetic judgement, maximum objectivity is one gained by max. affects, by max. consciousness of needs having factored in and pursued "for its sake" against which you argue, since otherwise, like Heisman and Satyr say, there might as well be no anchor to guage shite from stone;

"There is only  a perspectival seeing, only a perspectival “knowing”; and the more affects we allow to speak about a matter [---] that much more complete will our “concept” of this matter, our “objectivity” be. [Nietzsche, 1998b, III, 12]

To say as you said, "rooted in need but not pursued for need's sake" - as what is aesthetics, is NON-SENSE.

Pleasure to the body is satiation of a need, and aesthetics expresses how we choose to satiate this need and this 'how' therefore requires objectivity, FOR pursuing that need ----- efficiently. ---"For need's sake"."

- even if that need doesn't enter consciousness directly.

The dialysis of need from consciousness you present as a definition of aesthetics is erroneous.

The very need for you to want to sample many different things ITSELF is a Hunger, a Need.

And one is able to arrive at objectivity from two diff. standpoints,,,

1. Either by removing oneself from the pic. which is what you do when you say, "I am tasting for flavour's sake",  - art for art's sake, pleasure for pleasure's sake, beauty for beauty's sake - this dis-interested idealization is not only bullshite, not only a defamation of a reality, but absurd to the point of death, which is why Heisman said and I quote again:

Heismann wrote:

"Radical objectivity towards subjectivity would mean attempting honesty to the point of absurdity. To focus on rooting out the deepest sources of subjectivity amounts to seeking out those truths that are most destructive to subjectivity, i.e. self-interest. It is to make a specialty of truths that kill.
If I had no biases I would be dead, rather that sitting here right now, writing about them." [Suicide note]

The reason for this "just because", for this "its own sake"   is weariness and exhaustion from the inability to accept life as flux, as a becoming, and so it wants to gather the most "unchanging" picture possible - and calls this "accuracy"  Objectivity.
It believes the most unchanging objective truth of facts about this world can only be deduced by removing itself from the picture - a self-effacement.
Its need for this accuracy is in reality the hatred for life as a changing.
It disguises its hunger for the most unchanging state as objectivity.
It disguises its weariness and its Nihilism for "Objectivity".


2. Since pleasure/pain do not enter value judgements as the physiological type is not weary about affirming life as a becoming,,,, this kind of objectivity "is a reflection of our need for Order - pleasure.... and aesthetics expresses this objectvity.   Therefore aesthetics and need/pleasure are not separated."

phoneutria wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Do realize, Your hedonism has even quantified the definition of Aesthetics.

To you, as with the Xt. Schopenhauer and the Jew Heisman, Objectivity is a "how much"  can I detach myself to obtain a noise-free observation...

But Aesthetics is not a "how much", but a "how" am I detaching myself to obtain a noise-free observation.
From sense-dimunition or sense-fullness?, pain&pleasure or beyond pain&pleasure, etc.

No I don't realize that. I realize how it quantified objectivity, not the definition of Aesthetics.

Don't bullshite; given how aesthetics is an application of objectivity.

Quote :

As to the "how" you must have not read anything I wrote if you must assume that I limit aesthetic appreciation to pain&pleasure. I've stated several times that there is no pain involved, no need, no suffering. In the moment of aesthetic appreciation, pain must cease.

I have read it all, and you would know that I have grasped you and stated your position as clearly as you have yourself. And in this VERY LINE, YOU by saying, "there is no pain involved, no need, no suffering. In the moment of aesthetic appreciation, pain must cease."----- imply "how much" your "objectivity" revolves around questions of pain and pleasure.

Quote :

Quote :

Taste, Aesthetics ex-presses this degree of objectivity-that-reflects/preserves/real-izes our subjectivity.
The Pursuit FOR need's sake.

To realize your subjectivity is to admit that you are not objective.

Re-read; there is no separation:

"That things possess a constitution in themselves quite apart from interpretation and subjectivity, is a quite idle hypothesis: it presupposes that interpretation and subjectivity are not essential, that a thing freed from all relationships would still be a thing. Conversely, the apparent objective character of things: could it not be merely a difference of degree within the subjective?-that perhaps that which changes slowly presents itself to us as "objectively" enduring, being, "in-itself"-that the objective is only a false concept of a genus and an antithesis within the subjective?" [N., WTP, 560]

If you had no subjective biases which your objectivity did not reflect in your aesthetic ex-press-ion, you'd be DEAD.

Quote :

Once again. I did not post the link to schopenhauer's aesthetic, and then when faced with the actual text, highlighted the pieces here and there that I agree and discard the rest.

I've already presented the context above as to why Schopenhauer was brought in due to the claims YOU made.

Quote :

I don't mind satyr doing that. I just find it hilarious that he would accuse ME of that, after what he did here.

Not "hilarious" at all for those have memory of the events that day;

He said, "So now it becomes about Schopenhauer?"

Because you made a Jump from the Surrender and Sexual Predation thread to suddenly talking of Schopenhauer in the Aesthetics thread.


What's "hilarious" is after all the name-callings you did, and the challenge You issued, you choose not to respond to his replies, while still pretending your point stands uncontested. You are welcome to your own basic indignity.

A male animal smells pheromones or sees a female.
It has no understanding of genetics, no intention to bearing young, no understanding of its own reactions...and yet it reacts anyhow, guided by an aesthetic appreciation of otherness.

Why do I love the taste of salt, and/or sugar?
Just because?
It's spontaneous?

that's a start, not an explanation.
Could it be that my taste for these elements was formed by the fact that I NEED them to survive, and they are rare, in natural environments?

And if "just because"...then why not answer this:
Why did he rape?
Just because.

Why did she kill that child?
It was spontaneous.

No need to go into that psychobabble, full of condescending explanations...it was just because.
Everything is spontaneous.

Why demand to understand what this spontaneous is?
Why?
Because "why?" makes the head of a coward and a retard swoon with eternal regress, and it wants a finality, a solution, an END!!!

Yes...an END, as in Nil.

I am having a spontaneous craving for some French vanilla ice-cream, just because.

Nicholls, Angus wrote:

At 199c–201c of the Symposium, prior to Diotima’s speech, Socrates discusses the nature of love with Agathon. In order to refute Agathon’s assumption that love is to be equated with the beautiful, Socrates points out that love must be love of something, and that this something is the beautiful. Socrates then goes on to argue that because love is the desire for the beautiful, and given that one who desires always desires that which he lacks, then love itself is not beautiful. Love and desire are thus defined by Socrates in terms of a lack, and more specifically, as a lack of beauty and goodness. It is at this point that Socrates introduces Diotima’s speech. In response to Socrates’ statement that love is a great god, Diotima argues that love cannot be a god because love desires, and therefore lacks, that which the gods possess: beauty and goodness. Love (eros) says Diotima at 202d–203a, is:

"A very powerful daimon . . . and daimons, you know, are half-way between god and man. . . . They are the envoys and interpreters that ply between heaven and earth, flying upward with our worship and our prayers, and descending with the heavenly answers and commandments . . . the man who is versed in such matters is said to have
daemonic powers [sophos daimonios], as opposed to the mechanical powers of the man who is an expert in the more mundane arts.
There are many daimons, and many kinds of daimon, too, and Love is one of them. (PCD, 555)"

Diotima’s contention is that the daemon corresponds with a state of lack or non-consummation. The daemon — embodied in this case in the concept of eros — is that which strives to be god-like, but due to the fact that it must always lack that for which it strives, the daemon is forever the less-than-god or almost-god. This sense of lack resonates with the fact that according to Diotima love’s mother is Penia: the goddess of poverty.
--- Goethe's Concepts of the Daemonic

Replace "love" with "pleasure"...
Beauty is never attained. When we come across it  we admire it because we lack it, in the absolute sense...as in symmetry, perfection, Order.

For the bovine Mooo, who besides being a Nietzsche scholar, dominating in that field, is also a Plato and Socrates fan.
Sucking on multiple dead dicks simultaneously is giving him the lip-cramps, to the point where he needs some cunt to moisturize his dryness.
Perhaps Plato should have had Socrates say "We love just because it is spontaneous" and we wouldn't have to go through all this thinking about "lack", and Penia....  
But then Plato was no genius like the bovine Mooooo is amongst the cows.

Also, in response to Sauwelios and his new-found Jewish secular humanism and his "reasoning," I add this, from the same book:

Footnotes wrote:

This view is also outlined, albeit in a decidedly more religious context than my own, by Josef Pieper in his book “Divine Madness”: Plato’s Case against Secular Humanism, trans. Lothar Krauth (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1995). Pieper argues that academic literature has neglected to read section 244b–d of the Phaedrus as an important passage in Plato’s works. He goes on to outline the importance of this passage in its insistence that “it is precisely in this loss of rational sovereignty that man gains a wealth, above all, of intuition, light, truth and insight into reality, all of which would otherwise remain beyond his reach.
Here we are explicitly looking not at the results of human genius but at the effects of a different, a loftier, a divine power”.

The interesting part here is that Sauwelios has been mind-raped by Nietzsche for over ten years, and his boyfriend/abuser spoke about Dionysian versus Apollonian...and here he is, now, the Nietzsche-bitch, on the Apollo side of the divide...towards Parmenides...where all the good girls go when they want to get a good shagging with a nice stiff, stringent, cock, not the Dionysian and Heraclitus.
"For shame", as the late Hitchen's would say.

Lyssa wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Wrong. That is only a Schopenhauerian AesthetiC  that demands you do so.

I am arguing that it is so. It is my position. It is my statement that relating need to aesthetics is nonsense.

I said the presented position is a schopenhauerIAN aesthetiC, and not Schopenhauer's and neither a definition of aestheticS.

Quote :

Again, I am arguing my position, not schopenhauer's,

I am arguing against the Schopenhauerian position, not Schopenhauer's; all the more since You claimed accord:

"My issue is how you can say that Schopenhauer is unchallenged while at the same time you have disagreed with me on everything in this thread."

Quote :

and it was not me who brought him into the conversation. It was satyr, much to my surprise who posted a link to schopenhauer aesthetic, as he does not agree with that position.

There's nothing to be surprised as he brought Schopenhauer in since you were initially making the case:

"Beauty is not rooted in need/suffering. In order for it to originate, it requires for need/suffering to cease.
Two realms. One comes into existence when the other ceases to exist, and vice-versa."

Which later you did a convolutioning that is your habit, to say,

"Need, lust, concupiscence all exist, and all are at the root of why we like what we like, but they are not aesthetic."

later,

"We engage in aesthetic pursuits freely and spontaneously."


If you are going to pretend now you do not understand the reason why Satyr brought in Schop. in the first place, I'm done with you.

I understand why he did it. To make a case for need in aesthetics. Too made schop makes an exception to need in the very subject of aesthetics. Satyr must not have read that part very carefully. It's just a little embarrassing, no big deal.

----------------------

satyr wrote:

"A man finds what he lacks beautiful. He is ordering and so any ordering above his own, in any context, is attractive to him.
He wills himself towards an object/objective which attracts him, sensually.
His tastes are determined by his inherited organic hierarchies and his nature/nurture past.
He wills his mind to direct his senses towards the object/objective. Then he wills himself to focus on it and nothing else - he is captivated by the beauty, order, symmetry, virility, promise, he perceives, which inspires him, gives him hope, opens up possibilities...he feels rejuvenated.
It's a form of meditation.
Need never exists the scene, because it has already determined what is to be considered tasteful, beautiful, captivating; it underlies the experience even if it is not conscious of itself needing.  
He can then silence his self-consciousness to become immersed in the object/objective so as to focus upon it without distractions."

Need does not determine what is to be considered tasteful, beautiful, captivating. That which is considered tasteful, beautiful and captivating determines how one decides to soothe one's need.

If need was all there was to it, there would be no consideration of aesthetics. All living organisms have needs and therefore developed a sense of what to find attractive/appealing, whether it is feathers or a particular song. But other animals all use this sense of beauty to an end which is to reproduce, the direct purpose of satisfying a need.
Humans alone create in order to experience the creation as a primary purpose. Artists don't paint in order to get laid. They paint to experience wonder, awe, anguish, exultation... beauty. We seek to expose ourselves to these works because we want to experience beauty.

A true aesthetic experience is one which completely transcends the physical body and touches us spiritually. It goes into the core of that which sets us aside from all other animals.

Originates from a need... as in the very sensory organs were developed to enable bodily needs to be satiated safely.
Not pursued for need's sake.
Eating is not aesthetic. Tasting is.

----------------------

Quote :

And I have already countered your remark quoting, when making an aesthetic judgement, maximum objectivity is one gained by max. affects, by max. consciousness of needs having factored in and pursued "for its sake" against which you argue, since otherwise, like Heisman and Satyr say, there might as well be no anchor to guage shite from stone;

"There is only  a perspectival seeing, only a perspectival “knowing”; and the more affects we allow to speak about a matter [---] that much more complete will our “concept” of this matter, our “objectivity” be. [Nietzsche, 1998b, III, 12]

First off, I disagree that objectivity plays a role in the aesthetic experience itself. I would never be able to tell you what the Brandeburgh concertos feel like from inside my body, no matter how eloquent I might be. Each individual according to his own taste likes what he likes and is able to reach an aesthetic "transcendence" as I called it earlier by use of whatever media at whatever level of quality he cares to pursue. The experience itself, the "affection" is subjective.

I don't create a separation between need and aesthetics with the purpose of making it objective. I understand aesthetics interests as separated from need because they are  products of an intrinsic motivation... a "how', not a "why".

So when you say "aesthetic judgment" do you mean an aesthetic experience, or the criticism of an aesthetic work? I have a suspicion that Nietzsche in the quote above referred to experience (my perspective is my own objectivity), not to the study from a critical point of view. Either that or I must  disagree with mr. n.

I find that objectivity as I describe it is pertinent only to the latter. It pertains to taste, to the actual determination of which among many subjective perspectives is the most accurate against an object, richest,  presents superior technique. Once again, to say that there is no absolute objectivity is not the same as to say that all views are equal. That judgment of many subjective views against an object can be obtained though the application of scientific objectivity.

Quote :

To say as you said, "rooted in need but not pursued for need's sake" - as what is aesthetics, is NON-SENSE.

I've already explained this above. If you have better criticism than to say nonsense, I'll hear.

Quote :

Pleasure to the body is satiation of a need, and aesthetics expresses how we choose to satiate this need...

Agreed so far...

Quote :

... and this 'how' therefore requires objectivity, FOR pursuing that need ----- efficiently. ---"For need's sake"."

Non sequitur.

Quote :

- even if that need doesn't enter consciousness directly.

The dialysis of need from consciousness you present as a definition of aesthetics is erroneous.

The very need for you to want to sample many different things ITSELF is a Hunger, a Need.

I've already said this I think a few times in the thread, but I guess I can give it another shot.
The need is a "why". The aesthetics is a "how".
There is no "need" to do something during a moment of leisure. This "need" is self generated in a person who is intrinsically motivated. An intrinsically motivated activity is its own reward, it does not rely on any external factors.
Motivation itself is influenced by taste, but it is ultimately spontaneous (as in sua sponte, domina ).

Quote :

And one is able to arrive at objectivity from two diff. standpoints,,,

1. Either by removing oneself from the pic. which is what you do when you say, "I am tasting for flavour's sake",  - art for art's sake, pleasure for pleasure's sake, beauty for beauty's sake - this dis-interested idealization is not only bullshite, not only a defamation of a reality, but absurd to the point of death, which is why Heisman said and I quote again:

Heismann wrote:

"Radical objectivity towards subjectivity would mean attempting honesty to the point of absurdity. To focus on rooting out the deepest sources of subjectivity amounts to seeking out those truths that are most destructive to subjectivity, i.e. self-interest. It is to make a specialty of truths that kill.
If I had no biases I would be dead, rather that sitting here right now, writing about them." [Suicide note]

The reason for this "just because", for this "its own sake"   is weariness and exhaustion from the inability to accept life as flux, as a becoming, and so it wants to gather the most "unchanging" picture possible - and calls this "accuracy"  Objectivity.
It believes the most unchanging objective truth of facts about this world can only be deduced by removing itself from the picture - a self-effacement.
Its need for this accuracy is in reality the hatred for life as a changing.
It disguises its hunger for the most unchanging state as objectivity.
It disguises its weariness and its Nihilism for "Objectivity".

2. Since pleasure/pain do not enter value judgements as the physiological type is not weary about affirming life as a becoming,,,, this kind of objectivity "is a reflection of our need for Order - pleasure.... and aesthetics expresses this objectvity.   Therefore aesthetics and need/pleasure are not separated."

Once again, this is a confusion about will-less/need-less experience, which is not detached from affections, and critical appreciation which is.

Quote :

phoneutria wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Do realize, Your hedonism has even quantified the definition of Aesthetics.

To you, as with the Xt. Schopenhauer and the Jew Heisman, Objectivity is a "how much"  can I detach myself to obtain a noise-free observation...

But Aesthetics is not a "how much", but a "how" am I detaching myself to obtain a noise-free observation.
From sense-dimunition or sense-fullness?, pain&pleasure or beyond pain&pleasure, etc.

No I don't realize that. I realize how it quantified objectivity, not the definition of Aesthetics.

Don't bullshite; given how aesthetics is an application of objectivity.

Given?

Quote :

Quote :

As to the "how" you must have not read anything I wrote if you must assume that I limit aesthetic appreciation to pain&pleasure. I've stated several times that there is no pain involved, no need, no suffering. In the moment of aesthetic appreciation, pain must cease.

I have read it all, and you would know that I have grasped you and stated your position as clearly as you have yourself. And in this VERY LINE, YOU by saying, "there is no pain involved, no need, no suffering. In the moment of aesthetic appreciation, pain must cease."----- imply "how much" your "objectivity" revolves around questions of pain and pleasure.

You confuse it for objectivity again. What I said in this thread over and over, is that aesthetics are pursued as activities of leisure. Leisure takes place when one momentarily feels as though all needs have been met.

Quote :

Taste, Aesthetics ex-presses this degree of objectivity-that-reflects/preserves/real-izes our subjectivity.

Ok.

Quote :

...The Pursuit FOR need's sake.

Non sequitur.

Quote :

Re-read; there is no separation:

"That things possess a constitution in themselves quite apart from interpretation and subjectivity, is a quite idle hypothesis: it presupposes that interpretation and subjectivity are not essential, that a thing freed from all relationships would still be a thing. Conversely, the apparent objective character of things: could it not be merely a difference of degree within the subjective?-that perhaps that which changes slowly presents itself to us as "objectively" enduring, being, "in-itself"-that the objective is only a false concept of a genus and an antithesis within the subjective?" [N., WTP, 560]

If you had no subjective biases which your objectivity did not reflect in your aesthetic ex-press-ion, you'd be DEAD.

I'm not disputing that.

Though I disagree with mr.n. here in his statement that studying a thing's constitution apart from subjectivity is an idle hypothesis. He follows that by wondering if the apparent objectivity is anything but differences of degree within the subjective, to which I would say the subjective is differences of degree in comprehension of the objective...
... But that's a different subject.

--------------------------------

Quote :

Quote :

Once again. I did not post the link to schopenhauer's aesthetic, and then when faced with the actual text, highlighted the pieces here and there that I agree and discard the rest.

I've already presented the context above as to why Schopenhauer was brought in due to the claims YOU made.

Quote :

I don't mind satyr doing that. I just find it hilarious that he would accuse ME of that, after what he did here.

Not "hilarious" at all for those have memory of the events that day;

He said, "So now it becomes about Schopenhauer?"

Because you made a Jump from the Surrender and Sexual Predation thread to suddenly talking of Schopenhauer in the Aesthetics thread.

*bicker bicker bicker*
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

What's "hilarious" is after all the name-callings you did, and the challenge You issued, you choose not to respond to his replies, while still pretending your point stands uncontested. You are welcome to your own basic indignity.

One of you took the thread out of the public space, then sneakingly put it back in. It's not as though I search every day to find where your whims will lead us today. Thank you for eventually pointing out that the thread was public again, though.

Satyr wrote:

A male animal smells pheromones or sees a female.
It has no understanding of genetics, no intention to bearing young, no understanding of its own reactions...and yet it reacts anyhow, guided by an aesthetic appreciation of otherness.

Why do I love the taste of salt, and/or sugar?
Just because?
It's spontaneous?  

that's a start, not an explanation.
Could it be that my taste for these elements was formed by the fact that I NEED them to survive, and they are rare, in natural environments?

And if "just because"...then why not answer this:
Why did he rape?
Just because.

Why did she kill that child?
It was spontaneous.

No need to go into that psychobabble, full of condescending explanations...it was just because.
Everything is spontaneous.

Why demand to understand what this spontaneous is?
Why?
Because "why?" makes the head of a coward and a retard swoon with eternal regress, and it wants a finality, a solution, an END!!!

Yes...an END, as in Nil.

I am having a  spontaneous craving for some French vanilla ice-cream, just because.    

I guess you weren't done embarrassing yourself with not knowing what spontaneous means.
It does not mean "out of nowhere". You're wrong.

Remember this? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Spontaneous > sua sponta > of one's own accord... coming from within, not requiring external causes, intrinsic, instinctive.

Satyr wrote:

Can someone explain the relationship of spontaneity and freedom as it relates to aesthetics?

The common usage of the term "spontaneous" usually means an emergence which those experiencing it cannot explain, and so they imply that it emerges for no reason, just because.
Freedom supports this position, if taken as an absolute.
i connected this common usage with my experience with it when describing such paranormal phenomena as 'spontaneous combustion,' that always implied a negative source, an inexplicable occurrence...a mystery best understood by surrendering to its impact, and never doubting it.
A religious stance.

Let us take the dictionary definitions separately:

Definition 1 wrote:

1.Coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause.

The only phenomena I know of that come about with no effort are those we call "negative": cold, dark, death, weakness, chaos, ignorance.
Effort need not be immediate. If I train myself in the Martial Arts to react instinctively to a threat, the effort is mostly invested in my past...in my training.
A plant grows fruits with effort, and most of it is inherited as naturally selected dispositions.
The trial and error of evolution is effort.
This is not free. It is determination.

A bird does not put any perceivable effort into growing wings.
The effort is automatic...and inherited.
It is spontaneous but not free. There is a need being served.
It does not do so "just because".
The effort has been made beforehand, and it inherits the consequences.

Appreciation of beauty is the result of the organism's essence as ordering.
Ordering is effort.
All ordering requires effort, what I call the positive phenomena: heat, light, life, order, life, thinking.
All these are spontaneous but not free....and not void of effort.

Life, and not only humankind, appreciates, needs, is inspired, is moved, by whatever reminds it of itself, or promises itself more order.
Order touches it in its deepest part of itself.
To reach that level took effort.
The appreciation is not free.
It is an appreciation of something it covets, it considers superior, attractive.
Not "just because" but "because of...."
Philosophy, thinking is what man uses to determine what this "because..." is.

Not just is, not just happens, not just spontaneous, not just because, not just anything.
This is not only easy but anti-philosophical.
The Greeks did not look upon the world and say "shit happens"...or it happens spontaneously...without exploring what this is.

Why did you hit him?
I did so spontaneously.

This says nothing.
It pretends to be saying something but it is really saying nothing.
Might as well place "god" there.

Premeditation does not apply.
Many things are not premeditated and they emerge, they dominate the mind.
Instinctive behavior is not free, not void of selfish motives, not emerging with no effort.
Subconscious drives are not free.

Definition 2 wrote:

2.
(of a person) given to acting upon sudden impulses.

Sudden and impulses are not free.
They are pre-programmed automatic reactions...determined.

Definition 3 wrote:

3.
(of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.

Natural does not mean free.
It means sum of all that precedes, all nurturing...determination is not independence.
I like salts and fats, and sugars not because I choose to but because my nature is such where these are elements I need, and dependent upon.

Definition 4 wrote:

4.
growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous.

Growing naturally is not freedom.
Something grows in accordance with a genetic programming.
Freedom here, only relates to human intervention.

Definition 5 wrote:

5.produced by natural process.

See above.

I've offers my positions on what this appreciation is, why it comes about, and what purpose it serves.
I did not say 'just because' nor did I settle for the easy "it emerges" spontaneously.

My error with Phoneee was that I gave her too little credit.
Her agreement with her boy-toy Moo , was superficial...as she is more clever than I thought.

Her usage of the word spontaneous I mistook for the usual, common, mis-usage, which implies this inexplicable, mysterious, emergence out of nothing...this just emerges, it just is, just because.
Now I know what she's been agreeing with me all along, because the word spontaneous, as it is defined in the dictionary supports my positions that the appreciation of beauty is not free, not independent, not disinterested, not disconnected from reality, the past, but a necessity, brought about by survival of the fittest.

I've offered my theory as to why and how it emerges spontaneously...and Phonee tricked me into believing she disagreed with me, with her agreement with Moo who claimed a "just because" proposition.
I thought her usage of the term "spontaneous" was akin to Moo's "just because"... and that she implied that she did not require any added exploration as to what this spontaneous appreciation is, or how and why it comes about.
I thought she was satisfied with the term "spontaneous" as a final resolution to the problem of the aesthetic feeling.

But she knew the definition of the word and was tricking me.
Sly girls.

In fact she does know why the aesthetic appreciation emerges and why...don't you Phonee?
All we must do is sit back and let her teach us, by listening to her explanation as to what produces this spontaneous bubbling up, from whence it comes and why.
I know she knows it's contingent, so all we must do is allow her the freedom to explain her positions, which she keeps hidden....letting them spontaneously spill out of her in short bursts of magic.

If she cannot then she must be shy, or a phony.

I can't imagine that she would be satisfied with the philosophical stance that something occurs 'just because'...'because' being what explains it, with her version of it: the spontaneous.


If man did this with everything then where would science be; where would philosophy be?
What is thunder and how does it come about?
It's spontaneous, and it just happens.

Just because is no explanation...it does not even try to be a theory, and spontaneous says nothing.
It simply implies a mysterious source which need not be questioned.

I humbly apologize for misjudging Phonee.
I promise to be more attentive to her needs, from now on.

See that stuff in bold? That's your mistake. You had an idea in your head of what the word spontaneous means, and you went with it. You did not know the word's meaning in its origin. You assumed that what you took for common is what I meant.
Please remember that I'm a native speaker of a Latin based language. It's not even any special skill of culturing of mine to know what it means, although I do know a good deal of Latin. My common use of the word is accurate.

And then, when going through dictionary definitions, you still attempt to show that spontaneous, in connection with free means something detached or unanchored from anything or effortless, which is an incorrect usage, and as such was not what I meant.

Question for you. Why do you make the assumption that "free" in my sentence means effortless or devoid of motive? What is your basis for that?

When you put meanings into my words that are not common, nor etymologically based, you are building a fake idea/meaning from my words and then disputing that. That has nothing on me. I am not going to offer support for a strawman argument that you made up.

If something seems odd to you, maybe before going on a rant, you should look up the word.

phoneutria wrote:

I guess you weren't done embarrassing yourself with not knowing what spontaneous means.
It does not mean "out of nowhere". You're wrong.

Remember this? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Spontaneous > sua sponta > of one's own accord... coming from within, not requiring external causes, intrinsic, instinctive.

The intrinsic, the instinctive, ones' own accord, and so on was and is being shaped by the external. Just as we can and do shape our surroundings. It's the two-way street of interaction, of interactivity. This comes with existence.

What 'spontaneous' boils down to is "Let's not think about the 'Why' and let's keep it mysterious.".

Anfang wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

I guess you weren't done embarrassing yourself with not knowing what spontaneous means.
It does not mean "out of nowhere". You're wrong.

Remember this? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Spontaneous > sua sponta > of one's own accord... coming from within, not requiring external causes, intrinsic, instinctive.

The intrinsic, the instinctive, ones' own accord, and so on was and is being shaped by the external. Just as we can and do shape our surroundings. It's the two-way street of interaction, of interactivity. This comes with existence.

It can be influenced by external factors but it is originated within. It is organic, innate, pertaining to the very body/physical construct of the individual.
If you prefer, you can use satyr's favored term "internal hierarchies" or something.
Read my post in the taste thread: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

What 'spontaneous' boils down to is "Let's not think about the 'Why' and let's keep it mysterious.".

I think I wrote enough on the subject already to make it very not mysterious. But whatever you say.

phoneutria wrote:

It can be influenced by external factors but it is originated within. It is organic, innate, pertaining to the very body/physical construct of the individual.

Sounds mysterious, those tastes and instincts originating from within. How deep is this pond where those things spawn from?
I actually don't think that everything can be known.
But here's what I think - Your use of the word spontaneous is like waving a get-out-of-jail-for-free card and you don't want to go on a diving expedition. You don't even want others to go on an expedition. Which I understand why, ... but it still doesn't fly.

Those women who want men to stay in the harbor forever grow miserable with them after enough time has past.

Quote :

I think I wrote enough on the subject already to make it very not mysterious. But whatever you say.

Good.

Did you read my post in the taste thread?

Tell me how far you are willing to go back when thinking about the origin of your intrinsic qualities. If you inherited them as a combination from your parents, as a biological potential, then your tastes have been shaped on the grindstone of your ancestors' environment.

I am not arguing otherwise. We owe our very eyes to the presence of light.
It is not a matter of "why".

It is always a matter of why, saving that you are complacent with tautological conjecture, in which case your surmisal will be unconvincing, even unreasonable. The What and the How are incomplete without the Why

Trace back need, and its multiple manifestations and the complexity of contexts it acquires, and you find there a lack of an absolute...all the way back to the Yin/Yang of duality, which contradicts the wholeness, singularity of universe, of one.

One is what the mind constructs to make sense of the multiplicity.
trace back the sensation of satiation, the sudden or gradual satisfaction of a need, the projected object/objective felt as a coming gratification enjoyed in the present...and you find there why we feel what we do.

To his own pleasure-principle Freud offers the reality-principle, which contradicts it...the death-wish, contrasting to the life-wish...thymos and eros, participating in the human Becoming - never Being.
The baby's narcissistic self-love, self-pleasuring, broken when mother and father stop providing, is faced with a harsh, indifferent to its needs, reality.
It's pleasure is contradicted, and it feels insecure, afraid, first, angry, later.

Turning pleasure into a prime goal, an object/objective, is to focus on the return, the narcissistic self-involvement, and then trying to justify all in relation to it, as if the world revolved around human beings.
It's the same conclusion the absolutists who have taken arithmetic and geometry as they language come to.
The mechanism is the fabric...all is ordered and rotating around human sensations.
What evolved to aid the organism to survive within a tumult, a chaos, is turned into the divine - it becomes a thing-in-itself.
The tool which recognizes order, so as to preserve its own within the increasing chaos, concludes that order is all.
God...given another symbol: one/nil, as the Satanic other, that completes the binary wholeness.
Pleasure as the universal goal...the all-encompassing motive.

All existence enclosed within human sense and sensation.

Aesthetics is the expression and evaluation of what underlies all human need: order, symmetry.
Entropy, Flux, (inter)activity challenges all order, it degrades it, and the sensation this is translated into consciously, is need/suffering.

Always the same dualism, the same mind/body divide, the same schizophrenia with these Moderns.

My body's needs for certain elements has nothing to do, according to this idiot above, with my appreciation of the taste these nutrients are translated into in my brain...So, my distaste for shit can be a choice, and has nothing to do with the toxins.
And so my ordering, as in Becoming, as in organism, has zero to do with my appreciation of order, symmetry, harmony...the probabilities ordering implies.
And my appreciation of a female's beauty has nothing to do with her fitness, her genes, her reproductive potential.

It's all a big mystery.

My needs do not dictate my inclinations, but they emerge miraculously out of nothing.
The particularities of my preferences, that I prefer fish to beef for instance, or organic matter to inorganic matter, has zero to do with my constitution, my chemistry, my organ hierarchies and the degree of need these produce.

And so Value detached from reality.....consciousness outside the organism...and why not aesthetics disconnected from life.
A divine inspiration....mystical, magical, a choice, why not?

Damn retards...

Sheltering is only propagating inferior mutations.
And this is what you get.
In time we'll be crawling back into the cave, only this time it'll be computerized, an electronic subterranean world full of cave-dwellers who enjoy the glow of led-lighting, and the only thing we'll understand is that it feels good to fix machines, beneath strobes and the musical accompaniment of electronic white-noise, and that it has always been this way, and that it's not so bad, after all, to be an autistic specialists; genius at fixing machines, using an average mind, and obtuse concerning everything else.
Shall we google obtuse to remain true to the narrative?

And we'll settle for the sensation...because it's so easy to do so.
No understanding, but only intuitive, primal, knowing.

You can always smell a Modern.
He’s the most cynical of all, because his bullshit is becoming overpowering, and he can no longer pretend, to himself, that he's acquiring a taste for the stench he, and his kind, are producing.

So, he burns flowers, and cuts buds before they blossom... bitter, and desperate, and schizophrenic, he is.
His madness is not normal, and he is beginning to come to terms with the padded rooms he sleeps in.

I've read you admit many many times that you are a cynic. Have you had a change in perspective?

Nietzsche called himself a nihilist....
This was part of his inversion of the nihilistic inversions....his code, meant for his kind to understand. Just like when he attacked Antisemitism, as contributing to the Semitic paradigm.

So, I call myself a cynic in relation to people like you.
In relation to Moderns and to nihilists, and to human bullshit, I remain a cynic.
In relation to life, to what is healthy, and noble, I remain an idealist, and a realist.

I've also been called a pessimist, a nihilist, and bitter...and I wear those crowning words with honor when they are given to me by true, self-delusional, life-hating, inebriated cynics, like you and your kind.

The same can be said of any other cynic. One can only be cynic about the things he... is cynic about... obviously.

You didn't understand a thing, did you?

One last time....Nietzsche called himself a nihilist and he was the greatest life-affirming thinker in the Modern age.


You can't reverse everything into perspectivism, dear.
When terms, concepts, words, are attached to the real, when noumenon refer to a phenomenon, the bullshit you people practice, as your philosophy is no longer effective.

You keep talking about how taste precedes need, like the other turd claims value precedes judgment...and I'll watch.

Quote :

Artists don't paint in order to get laid. They paint to experience wonder, awe, anguish, exultation... beauty. We seek to expose ourselves to these works because we want to experience beauty.

That's exactly what they do.

An artist, a genuine artist, creates a life, a simulated life, that he lacks/needs. A painter paints what he needs to see, a musician composes music that simulates the feelings he needs to feel, a novelist writes about events he needs to experience, etc etc etc.

A work of art, being a simulated segment of life, does not aim at fulfilling needs, but at providing them with a room for expres​sion(albeit an artificial one), thus releasing some of the pressure they create.

The only ones who do not create out of need are the indifferent artists: the entrepreneur, the one whose only need is money; the artist-entrepreneur hybrid, who, in order to make a living, must mix business with art; and the modern so-called artist, whose only goal is fame.

Everything genuine starts with itself, giving most of its attention to its equals. Everything artificial starts with others, giving most of its attention to its unequals.

Quote :

I am hungry.
My apetite and desire to eat are affected by my hunger/need for food.
The more I eat, the less I feel need, the less apetite, the less desire to eat.
It's likely that i may apply a bias to my judgment, fiding the first dish the most delicious, as it was the one presented to be when I had the greatest apetite. By the end of the meal, I may feel quite impartial to the last dish, but that does not mean it is a bad dish. it means that my judgment is not objective, it is squeued.

Instead, I am not hungry, but I will sample various dishes. I may even spit after chewing if I am really anal about my objectiveness.

They are both needs, but they are different kinds of needs. The first is hunger for food, the second hunger for a specific kind of knowledge (what tastes good.)

In order to be objective about what is subjective you should not (and must not) reduce the subjective (by reducing the subjective you become less objective) but increase the objective, which is to say, improve your self-analysis/self-awareness/introspection skills so that the kind of mistakes that you mention above can be reduced to minimum.

Scientists and their dismissal of self-consciousness . . .

Quote :

Need, lust, concupiscence all exist, and all are at the root of why we like what we like, but they are not aesthetic.
An aesthetic observation demands that you detach from those things.

There are two ways you can detach:

1. by ignoring/being unaware/not concerning yourself with underlying mechanisms during the act in order to maximize the quality of the act (all consciousness is selective, every activity requires appropriate focus.)

2. by being in need of what you don't really need, by forcing yourself to do something you don't really want to do, by creating an artificial need, a pretense, which is the way modern art is enjoyed

Which one is yours? I am pretty sure both. In that case, however, the first also requires that one never becomes aware of the underlying mechanisms so as to avoid exposing the second, the pretense.

Satyr wrote:

You keep talking about how taste precedes need, like the other turd claims value precedes judgment...and I'll watch.

You didn't understand a thing, did you?

phoneutria wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Wrong. That is only a Schopenhauerian AesthetiC  that demands you do so.

I am arguing that it is so. It is my position. It is my statement that relating need to aesthetics is nonsense.

I said the presented position is a schopenhauerIAN aesthetiC, and not Schopenhauer's and neither a definition of aestheticS.

Quote :

Again, I am arguing my position, not schopenhauer's,

I am arguing against the Schopenhauerian position, not Schopenhauer's; all the more since You claimed accord:

"My issue is how you can say that Schopenhauer is unchallenged while at the same time you have disagreed with me on everything in this thread."

Quote :

and it was not me who brought him into the conversation. It was satyr, much to my surprise who posted a link to schopenhauer aesthetic, as he does not agree with that position.

There's nothing to be surprised as he brought Schopenhauer in since you were initially making the case:

"Beauty is not rooted in need/suffering. In order for it to originate, it requires for need/suffering to cease.
Two realms. One comes into existence when the other ceases to exist, and vice-versa."

Which later you did a convolutioning that is your habit, to say,

"Need, lust, concupiscence all exist, and all are at the root of why we like what we like, but they are not aesthetic."

later,

"We engage in aesthetic pursuits freely and spontaneously."


If you are going to pretend now you do not understand the reason why Satyr brought in Schop. in the first place, I'm done with you.

I understand why he did it. To make a case for need in aesthetics. Too made schop makes an exception to need in the very subject of aesthetics. Satyr must not have read that part very carefully. It's just a little embarrassing, no big deal.

----------------------

satyr wrote:

"A man finds what he lacks beautiful. He is ordering and so any ordering above his own, in any context, is attractive to him.
He wills himself towards an object/objective which attracts him, sensually.
His tastes are determined by his inherited organic hierarchies and his nature/nurture past.
He wills his mind to direct his senses towards the object/objective. Then he wills himself to focus on it and nothing else - he is captivated by the beauty, order, symmetry, virility, promise, he perceives, which inspires him, gives him hope, opens up possibilities...he feels rejuvenated.
It's a form of meditation.
Need never exists the scene, because it has already determined what is to be considered tasteful, beautiful, captivating; it underlies the experience even if it is not conscious of itself needing.  
He can then silence his self-consciousness to become immersed in the object/objective so as to focus upon it without distractions."

Need does not determine what is to be considered tasteful, beautiful, captivating. That which is considered tasteful, beautiful and captivating determines how one decides to soothe one's need.

If need was all there was to it, there would be no consideration of aesthetics. All living organisms have needs and therefore developed a sense of what to find attractive/appealing, whether it is feathers or a particular song. But other animals all use this sense of beauty to an end which is to reproduce, the direct purpose of satisfying a need.
Humans alone create in order to experience the creation as a primary purpose. Artists don't paint in order to get laid. They paint to experience wonder, awe, anguish, exultation... beauty. We seek to expose ourselves to these works because we want to experience beauty.

A true aesthetic experience is one which completely transcends the physical body and touches us spiritually. It goes into the core of that which sets us aside from all other animals.

Originates from a need... as in the very sensory organs were developed to enable bodily needs to be satiated safely.
Not pursued for need's sake.
Eating is not aesthetic. Tasting is.

----------------------

Quote :

And I have already countered your remark quoting, when making an aesthetic judgement, maximum objectivity is one gained by max. affects, by max. consciousness of needs having factored in and pursued "for its sake" against which you argue, since otherwise, like Heisman and Satyr say, there might as well be no anchor to guage shite from stone;

"There is only  a perspectival seeing, only a perspectival “knowing”; and the more affects we allow to speak about a matter [---] that much more complete will our “concept” of this matter, our “objectivity” be. [Nietzsche, 1998b, III, 12]

First off, I disagree that objectivity plays a role in the aesthetic experience itself. I would never be able to tell you what the Brandeburgh concertos feel like from inside my body, no matter how eloquent I might be. Each individual according to his own taste likes what he likes and is able to reach an aesthetic "transcendence" as I called it earlier by use of whatever media at whatever level of quality he cares to pursue. The experience itself, the "affection" is subjective.

I don't create a separation between need and aesthetics with the purpose of making it objective. I understand aesthetics interests as separated from need because they are  products of an intrinsic motivation... a "how', not a "why".

So when you say "aesthetic judgment" do you mean an aesthetic experience, or the criticism of an aesthetic work? I have a suspicion that Nietzsche in the quote above referred to experience (my perspective is my own objectivity), not to the study from a critical point of view. Either that or I must  disagree with mr. n.

I find that objectivity as I describe it is pertinent only to the latter. It pertains to taste, to the actual determination of which among many subjective perspectives is the most accurate against an object, richest,  presents superior technique. Once again, to say that there is no absolute objectivity is not the same as to say that all views are equal. That judgment of many subjective views against an object can be obtained though the application of scientific objectivity.

Quote :

To say as you said, "rooted in need but not pursued for need's sake" - as what is aesthetics, is NON-SENSE.

I've already explained this above. If you have better criticism than to say nonsense, I'll hear.

Quote :

Pleasure to the body is satiation of a need, and aesthetics expresses how we choose to satiate this need...

Agreed so far...

Quote :

... and this 'how' therefore requires objectivity, FOR pursuing that need ----- efficiently. ---"For need's sake"."

Non sequitur.

Quote :

- even if that need doesn't enter consciousness directly.

The dialysis of need from consciousness you present as a definition of aesthetics is erroneous.

The very need for you to want to sample many different things ITSELF is a Hunger, a Need.

I've already said this I think a few times in the thread, but I guess I can give it another shot.
The need is a "why". The aesthetics is a "how".
There is no "need" to do something during a moment of leisure. This "need" is self generated in a person who is intrinsically motivated. An intrinsically motivated activity is its own reward, it does not rely on any external factors.
Motivation itself is influenced by taste, but it is ultimately spontaneous (as in sua sponte, domina ).

Quote :

And one is able to arrive at objectivity from two diff. standpoints,,,

1. Either by removing oneself from the pic. which is what you do when you say, "I am tasting for flavour's sake",  - art for art's sake, pleasure for pleasure's sake, beauty for beauty's sake - this dis-interested idealization is not only bullshite, not only a defamation of a reality, but absurd to the point of death, which is why Heisman said and I quote again:

Heismann wrote:

"Radical objectivity towards subjectivity would mean attempting honesty to the point of absurdity. To focus on rooting out the deepest sources of subjectivity amounts to seeking out those truths that are most destructive to subjectivity, i.e. self-interest. It is to make a specialty of truths that kill.
If I had no biases I would be dead, rather that sitting here right now, writing about them." [Suicide note]

The reason for this "just because", for this "its own sake"   is weariness and exhaustion from the inability to accept life as flux, as a becoming, and so it wants to gather the most "unchanging" picture possible - and calls this "accuracy"  Objectivity.
It believes the most unchanging objective truth of facts about this world can only be deduced by removing itself from the picture - a self-effacement.
Its need for this accuracy is in reality the hatred for life as a changing.
It disguises its hunger for the most unchanging state as objectivity.
It disguises its weariness and its Nihilism for "Objectivity".

2. Since pleasure/pain do not enter value judgements as the physiological type is not weary about affirming life as a becoming,,,, this kind of objectivity "is a reflection of our need for Order - pleasure.... and aesthetics expresses this objectvity.   Therefore aesthetics and need/pleasure are not separated."

Once again, this is a confusion about will-less/need-less experience, which is not detached from affections, and critical appreciation which is.

Quote :

phoneutria wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Do realize, Your hedonism has even quantified the definition of Aesthetics.

To you, as with the Xt. Schopenhauer and the Jew Heisman, Objectivity is a "how much"  can I detach myself to obtain a noise-free observation...

But Aesthetics is not a "how much", but a "how" am I detaching myself to obtain a noise-free observation.
From sense-dimunition or sense-fullness?, pain&pleasure or beyond pain&pleasure, etc.

No I don't realize that. I realize how it quantified objectivity, not the definition of Aesthetics.

Don't bullshite; given how aesthetics is an application of objectivity.

Given?

Quote :

Quote :

As to the "how" you must have not read anything I wrote if you must assume that I limit aesthetic appreciation to pain&pleasure. I've stated several times that there is no pain involved, no need, no suffering. In the moment of aesthetic appreciation, pain must cease.

I have read it all, and you would know that I have grasped you and stated your position as clearly as you have yourself. And in this VERY LINE, YOU by saying, "there is no pain involved, no need, no suffering. In the moment of aesthetic appreciation, pain must cease."----- imply "how much" your "objectivity" revolves around questions of pain and pleasure.

You confuse it for objectivity again. What I said in this thread over and over, is that aesthetics are pursued as activities of leisure. Leisure takes place when one momentarily feels as though all needs have been met.

Quote :

Taste, Aesthetics ex-presses this degree of objectivity-that-reflects/preserves/real-izes our subjectivity.

Ok.

Quote :

...The Pursuit FOR need's sake.

Non sequitur.

Quote :

Re-read; there is no separation:

"That things possess a constitution in themselves quite apart from interpretation and subjectivity, is a quite idle hypothesis: it presupposes that interpretation and subjectivity are not essential, that a thing freed from all relationships would still be a thing. Conversely, the apparent objective character of things: could it not be merely a difference of degree within the subjective?-that perhaps that which changes slowly presents itself to us as "objectively" enduring, being, "in-itself"-that the objective is only a false concept of a genus and an antithesis within the subjective?" [N., WTP, 560]

If you had no subjective biases which your objectivity did not reflect in your aesthetic ex-press-ion, you'd be DEAD.

I'm not disputing that.

Though I disagree with mr.n. here in his statement that studying a thing's constitution apart from subjectivity is an idle hypothesis. He follows that by wondering if the apparent objectivity is anything but differences of degree within the subjective, to which I would say the subjective is differences of degree in comprehension of the objective...
... But that's a different subject.

--------------------------------

Quote :

Quote :

Once again. I did not post the link to schopenhauer's aesthetic, and then when faced with the actual text, highlighted the pieces here and there that I agree and discard the rest.

I've already presented the context above as to why Schopenhauer was brought in due to the claims YOU made.

Quote :

I don't mind satyr doing that. I just find it hilarious that he would accuse ME of that, after what he did here.

Not "hilarious" at all for those have memory of the events that day;

He said, "So now it becomes about Schopenhauer?"

Because you made a Jump from the Surrender and Sexual Predation thread to suddenly talking of Schopenhauer in the Aesthetics thread.

*bicker bicker bicker*
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

What's "hilarious" is after all the name-callings you did, and the challenge You issued, you choose not to respond to his replies, while still pretending your point stands uncontested. You are welcome to your own basic indignity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Satyr's li'l p(h)oneee wrote:

It doesn't matter what I read, it matters what others will read after seeing my post."

-

Satyr's li'l poneee wrote:

One of you took the thread out of the public space, then sneakingly put it back in. It's not as though I search every day to find where your whims will lead us today. Thank you for eventually pointing out that the thread was public again, though.

The thread was taken down on July 17th. That's a one month gap for the record.