> > any discourse about aesthetic effects is
> > cultural and independent of the scheme of Nature.
> But you already know that I believe human "hardware"
> has relevance. How anybody can base his world view
> on the assumption that we have no physical reality
> is simply beyond me.
> Nothing is independent of Nature.
That's not what I said, Hrant. I said, the *scheme* of Nature, the fact
that the sky is blue and grass green and animal hides are brown and blood
red. The fact that the three principal directions are expressed most
fundamentally by the horizon of the land, the downward vector of gravity,
and the forward step of humans. And by many other facts that are in the
scheme of nature.
Harmony isn't one of them; it is a creation of human beings living in
society. Our cultural conventions, from language to fashion to writing
script, are not rooted in Nature, except that they arise from the actions
of humans, who are natural creatures.
I didn't say or imply anything that assumes 'we have no physical reality"!
I think it is worth inquiry why different cultures, made up of human beings
living in the same physical world, come up with different agreements and
conventions on beauty, harmony, and related aesthetic qualities. (I didn't
say pleasure, which is far more flesh-bound than beauty.) What is elegant
and delightful in one culture is considered distasteful or coarse in
another; what is considered refined and dignified in one place is
considered trivial or common in another; what is considered the canonical
expression of beauty in one place is regarded as crude and unschooled
These widespread and universal differences in human preferences should
indicate to us that aesthetic norms are changeable, impermanent, and
arbitrary. Whereas the 'norms' of Natural life are far more consistent,
unrelenting, and unconnected to aesthteic judgments.
[log in to unmask] http://www.unc.edu/~jbrady/index.html