On 8 October 2015 at 09:12, Punya Mishra <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I would argue that this perspective of putting beauty (or color) totally
> in the mind, misses the point.
>
> Bob State retired professor of educational research at UIUC once wrote:
> "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but inseparable from the flower" and
> succinctly, I think captured the transactional nature of ideas such as
> color, and beauty. That these can be both a property of the object AND in
> our heads. In other words, it can both be constructed by our brains AND
> influenced by the world out there.
>
Missing the point suggests there's only 1 point to miss. Perhaps there are
more. I think there are.
There's no question that the experience of beauty is an internal construct
- something in the mind. But there's also no question that the experience
must come from somewhere. If the experience is a result of some perception
(seeing a "beautiful" flower), makes it clear that the experience, while
located in the mind, is an emergent phenomenon of the system including the
beholder and the object beheld. For cases where a thought that one has
(that is, an object beheld that is itself already a mental construct) is
considered beautiful, I think it's basically the same thing: the thought is
the result of mental phenomena that ultimately rest of memories of
experiences.
IMHO, of course.
\V/_ /fas
*Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.*
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|