 |
 |
Dear friends, First let me apologize since I’m not writing in my native language. It takes me at least twice longer than you to make a post. Well, I ‘m not interested in brain functioning, so I will drop this out. You can read the work of a compatriot of mine, António Damásio and be delighted. Let’s see if I make myself clear: 1. Terry introduced an anecdote in which an “artist” has an argument with a scientist about a flower. The “artist” is produced by the scientist to make a point, since it is the scientist that tells the story. Putting a little bit of discourse analysis into this parable, what he is really saying is: Hierarchically Science comes first because, not only provide truthful explanations about what things are, but these explanations are not dull and - alike in art - are capable of inducing aesthetical thoughts, feelings, pre or post stuff in us. Feynmann adds an epilogue evoking insects and very low forms of life that may be compared with the idiot-of-the-village-artist expression of flower appreciation. 2. That’s the reason why I find important to distinguish between aesthesis as a process and Aesthetics, a field of inquiry that evolved to be a philosophical area studying Art. I must stress that I’m only saying this because the parable starts with an Artist commenting on something. Consequently, I’m not interested in exploring what aesthesis is in this case. I’m interested in dismembering the parable by saying clearly that an aesthetically appreciation of a flower by an artist is as dull, profound and revealing as a scientist’s and is not comparable with the joy of discovering microscopic beauties and insect's endearment. 3. No real Artist, at least in the 20th century, would say "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing”. Unless he/she wanted to be saddled and ridden for several hours… Best wishes, Eduardo > No dia 21/10/2015, às 06:51, Keith Russell <[log in to unmask]> escreveu: > > Dear Charles, > > I believe all but word for word with what you say. Following Sartre, I > don¹t use the term ³subconscious² but hey, I agree with use here. > > Let¹s all articulate! > > keith > > On 21/10/2015 12:33 pm, "PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD > studies and related research in Design on behalf of Charles Burnette" > <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I believe that preconscious ³feelings² are subconsciously mediated >> perceptions. Once motivated, Conscious thought may further mediate >> feelings in a way that enables, say, the appreciation of art, to become >> articulate. For me, feelings result from subconscious reflection on >> emotional responses and are less primitive instruments of the >> subconscious than emotions.They are more nuanced regarding what an >> emotional response means in a particular situation or context. They >> elevate subconscious thought into the realm of conscious apprehension, >> expression, and communication. We can¹t really articulate an aesthetic >> feeling or theory until consciousness arises and articulate thought >> exists - for the subconscious to further mediate through reflective >> thought. > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------