Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] Re: Atheism: The very idea?

Expand Messages
  • Robert Karl Stonjek
    ... From: VQuest95 To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Atheism: The very idea?
    Message 1 of 25 , Dec 31, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: VQuest95
      Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 5:33 PM
      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Atheism: The very idea?

      When I used to participate in bull sessions in college, one of the things we almost always did was try to come to a mutual understanding of the words we were using, so that we could communicate with some degree of accuracy.  I'm not claiming that words don't have any meaning, or that there are not "commonly accepted" meanings for many words.  Most of the time these, suffice for normal communication.  However, when participants start discussing whether something is, or is not, in a category indicated by a  particular word, the discussion often hinges more on the how the definition that each holds, and those definitions may vary, sometimes only slightly but enough to keep the discussion from moving forward rather than getting bogged down in semantics.     
       
      There is also the problem that languages has "holes" in them; that is, the words in common usage may not adequately describe a concept, generally one that lies between two similar concepts with a generally accepted name (word) but not clearly in one or the other. One such example is on the border between "atheist" and "agnostic"  Some may say that an angnostic is one that doesn't know whether there is a god or not, or one may say that an agnostic is one that doesn't care whether there is a god or not.  I suppose that there are several shade of atheism, but I don't know or care; I just know that I am.   
       
      A while ago on this forum, there was a discussion of the what constitutes "art".   I'm inclined to think that for any one definition, there are things that some people would call art, but don't meet the criteria of that the definition.  
       
      Cheers
      Dave Alexander, Jack of all trades, master of none :)
       
      RKS:
      There was no complaint of my definition of art:-
       

      Art involves the process1a, product1b and appreciation1c of the manipulation2 of something3 in order to focus attention4 on its symbolic representation.5
      Not all symbolic content is considered to be art by all people in all places and at all times through history6.
       
      1) Aspects of art include the process of its construction, the thing constructed, and the consumption of the thing produced:
      a) 'Art' may be used to describe the activity that is intended to produce art whether any art is actually produced or not;
      b) 'Art' may be used to describe any thing deemed to be art whether it was produced with the intention of being called art or not;
      c) An object can not be art unless it is observed by someone as art, even if that someone is confined to the artist alone. 
       
      2) 'manipulation' includes the following:
      a) the agent of manipulation may include humans, other species such as chimpanzees or elephants, or computers or other devices;
      b) the method of manipulation may include construction from some precursory thing/s2, juxtaposition of things2, recognition and/or revelation of the art content of a thing2 that was not previously considered art, a particular collection of things, and so on.
       
      3) 'something' is one of or some combination of the following things:
      a) material object of any kind;
      b) a medium such as sound, light, surface (touch), taste (food preparation), performance, paint, crayon, water;
      c) a concept such as found in written authorship, depictions as in a movie or a play's plot.
       
      4) The attention of individuals, groups and/or cultures may be focused or intended to be focused on a thing as art.
      a) That which is considered art by an individual may or may not be considered art by other individuals, by groups eg an art school, an art museum, an art critic and so on;
      b) Even if most of the individuals in a group or tribe accept an object as art, that object may not be considered art by other groups or by a culture;
      c) Even if most of the groups making up a culture agree that some thing is art then this may not necessarily be seen as art by other cultures.
       
      5) Beyond its physicality, a thing may induce an individual's imagination to project onto the thing thoughts, feelings, recollections, and any of those cognitive states requiring the modelling of or response to perceptual events inspired by a thing but not perceived sensorially.  Art attempts to manipulate, induce or emphasise that aspect of a thing which is not materially present.
       
      The use of the phrase 'symbolic representation' is given in place of 'symbolism' in an attempt to differentiate between atomic symbols such as the letters of the alphabet and representations of entire concepts, feelings, imagery and so on.
       
      6) Those things which pass the first part of this definition are filtered by the people who consume art such that what is and isn't art may vary between individuals, groups, societies, and nations now and in the past.  Thus a piece that is considered art now may or may not have been considered art at the time of its construction or at various periods between its construction and the present.  Things that are not currently considered to be art may be considered so in the future.
       

    • VQuest95
      Agreed that it is a very complete definition thereof. I saw it before, and was somewhat impressed. However, I am sure that i can find an exception, but it
      Message 2 of 25 , Jan 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Agreed that it is a very complete definition thereof.  I saw it before, and was somewhat impressed.  However, I am sure that i can find an exception, but it may take me a while.  I'll let you know when (and if) I do. 
         
        One example comes readily to mind; much of my "art" does not include any attempt at "symbolic representation" of anything.  Most instrumental music falls into the same category, being a string of pleasing sounds.  I call my art, "music for the eyes".  Below is one example
         
         
        Cheers  
        Dave Alexander
         
         
         
        In a message dated 01/01/09 02:59:53 Eastern Standard Time, stonjek@... writes:
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: VQuest95
        Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 5:33 PM
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Atheism: The very idea?

        When I used to participate in bull sessions in college, one of the things we almost always did was try to come to a mutual understanding of the words we were using, so that we could communicate with some degree of accuracy.  I'm not claiming that words don't have any meaning, or that there are not "commonly accepted" meanings for many words.  Most of the time these, suffice for normal communication.  However, when participants start discussing whether something is, or is not, in a category indicated by a  particular word, the discussion often hinges more on the how the definition that each holds, and those definitions may vary, sometimes only slightly but enough to keep the discussion from moving forward rather than getting bogged down in semantics.     
         
        There is also the problem that languages has "holes" in them; that is, the words in common usage may not adequately describe a concept, generally one that lies between two similar concepts with a generally accepted name (word) but not clearly in one or the other. One such example is on the border between "atheist" and "agnostic"  Some may say that an angnostic is one that doesn't know whether there is a god or not, or one may say that an agnostic is one that doesn't care whether there is a god or not.  I suppose that there are several shade of atheism, but I don't know or care; I just know that I am.   
         
        A while ago on this forum, there was a discussion of the what constitutes "art".   I'm inclined to think that for any one definition, there are things that some people would call art, but don't meet the criteria of that the definition.  
         
         
         
        Cheers
        Dave Alexander, Jack of all trades, master of none :)
         
        RKS:
        There was no complaint of my definition of art:-
         

        Art involves the process1a, product1b and appreciation1c of the manipulation2 of something3 in order to focus attention4 on its symbolic representation.5
        Not all symbolic content is considered to be art by all people in all places and at all times through history6.
         
        1) Aspects of art include the process of its construction, the thing constructed, and the consumption of the thing produced:
        a) 'Art' may be used to describe the activity that is intended to produce art whether any art is actually produced or not;
        b) 'Art' may be used to describe any thing deemed to be art whether it was produced with the intention of being called art or not;
        c) An object can not be art unless it is observed by someone as art, even if that someone is confined to the artist alone. 
         
        2) 'manipulation' includes the following:
        a) the agent of manipulation may include humans, other species such as chimpanzees or elephants, or computers or other devices;
        b) the method of manipulation may include construction from some precursory thing/s2, juxtaposition of things2, recognition and/or revelation of the art content of a thing2 that was not previously considered art, a particular collection of things, and so on.
         
        3) 'something' is one of or some combination of the following things:
        a) material object of any kind;
        b) a medium such as sound, light, surface (touch), taste (food preparation), performance, paint, crayon, water;
        c) a concept such as found in written authorship, depictions as in a movie or a play's plot.
         
        4) The attention of individuals, groups and/or cultures may be focused or intended to be focused on a thing as art.
        a) That which is considered art by an individual may or may not be considered art by other individuals, by groups eg an art school, an art museum, an art critic and so on;
        b) Even if most of the individuals in a group or tribe accept an object as art, that object may not be considered art by other groups or by a culture;
        c) Even if most of the groups making up a culture agree that some thing is art then this may not necessarily be seen as art by other cultures.
         
        5) Beyond its physicality, a thing may induce an individual's imagination to project onto the thing thoughts, feelings, recollections, and any of those cognitive states requiring the modelling of or response to perceptual events inspired by a thing but not perceived sensorially.  Art attempts to manipulate, induce or emphasise that aspect of a thing which is not materially present.
         
        The use of the phrase 'symbolic representation' is given in place of 'symbolism' in an attempt to differentiate between atomic symbols such as the letters of the alphabet and representations of entire concepts, feelings, imagery and so on.
         
        6) Those things which pass the first part of this definition are filtered by the people who consume art such that what is and isn't art may vary between individuals, groups, societies, and nations now and in the past.  Thus a piece that is considered art now may or may not have been considered art at the time of its construction or at various periods between its construction and the present.  Things that are not currently considered to be art may be considered so in the future.
         

         
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.