Re: A Question for Wade

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Tue Nov 27 2001 - 13:50:01 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: A Question for Wade"

    Received: by id NAA15351 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:55:37 GMT
    Subject: Re: A Question for Wade
    Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 08:50:01 -0500
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
    To: "memetics list" <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Message-ID: <[]>
    Precedence: bulk

    On 11/26/01 22:46, Joe Dees said this-

    >To paraphrase, beauty is internal to the mind of the beholder. utility,
    >however, is an empirical, external thing.

    Is there no utility to beauty?

    I stand in disagreement with everything you've said above.

    There are some pretty solid evidential claims that beauty is
    quantifiable, and therefore an aspect, not just a thing of mind. And
    there is no utility unless someone decides to use something.

    But, while I think there are memetic connections to all of this, the
    discussion of beauty is what aesthetics is all about.

    E=mc^2 is both utilitarian and beautiful, scientific and artistic, in
    form and function.

    The golden rectangle looks 'balanced' to anyone who sees it.

    The spiral appears in almost all cultures as an image of interest.

    If I were a more avid student of aesthetics, I'm sure I could rattle off
    countless examples to show the utility of beauty, and the commoness of
    its appreciation.

    - Wade

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 27 2001 - 14:02:08 GMT