Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA15351 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:55:37 GMT Subject: Re: A Question for Wade Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 08:50:01 -0500 x-sender: firstname.lastname@example.org x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: "memetics list" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20011127135036.AAA25943@email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
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
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