What if art actually was some sort of abstract
science- sort of a way of sending back input from the
"world-mind" or whathaveyou... being like an
intelligence, the system keeps changing all the time
based on the state of the world... So Raffaello and
Michealangelo were just different parts of the same
thing, but since they were at different times and
different places, they only gave "their edge" of the
*shrugs* Well, it's one way of looking at things.
It's sort of forming a picture of just how arbitrary
much of our groupings are- probably some function of
our hardwiring that makes us automatically see the
anthive as one thing but not the city, or in some
cases see the fungus and not the fungus-colony... or
perhaps the fungus but not the individual strands that
make it up. A lot of things seem to be geared to fit
into one perceptual framework, whereas there are many
possible settings for such things... one reason why
some people may have troubles of various types- like
Eleizer with symbol formation, or Aaron Fenander (an
autistic friend from school) with working in anything
but algebraic transformations- may be that they don't
automatically assume many of the things we do- they're
not as strongly hardwired in certain directions,
allowing them to form arbitrary setups outside of the
standard conditions and therefor bring about new
concepts- such as memetics. I remember reading an
article by Martin Gardner recently where he proposed
other sorts of similar permutations that would
function in a like manner but might be denounced as
absurd. The "unglue-ed-ness" of some people's mental
functioning might be just what is necessary for
accomplishing certain higher order operations on our
way towards sigularity:)
--- "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Art, science: what is the (main) difference?
> My opinion is simple.
> Sciences have some "attractor-like" pattern.
> Researchers "discover" exactly the same thing (law,
> theorem, ...).
> Even in very different times, countries, "languages"
> '(i.e. quantum
> That's definitely not true, in art.
> Michelangelo is far from Raffaello, etc..
> In art there's not a common language, world,
> meaning, aim,
> object, etc.
> Am I wrong?
> Rome, Italy
The following film may be unsuitable for older audiences, and has been rated G for content.
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:33 MDT