You're flannelling Bubbster. Of course the line isn't there, in the same way that the equator isn't actually marked by a big white line that floats on the sea. But if you are claiming that the body is symmetrical about that line, you must be able to define where that line is.
The line doesnt exist except as a focal point for the collective pattern integrity of human being. It's not where that line is, the line is going into center of the earth and out from center of the earth, it's a line that is radiantly project out and in from earth's center. It's where the line falls along the body. The bodies strength falls along that line, and if the body is out of proportion, for what ever reason, you can see exactly where the problem is.
Again, look at these rolfing pictures. Note the distinctions.
http://www.rolfing.org.au/images/About_1.gif
http://www.dr-walser.ch/images/rolfing_maedchen_foto.gif
http://www.rolfing-munich.de/Littelboy.jpg
Beautiful bodies and faces fall PERFECTLY along that line with an elegance that is proportional.
Look at this picture. Regardless of the 'wig' which would be considered out of proportion, look at the center line STRAIGHT down the body. The bodies curves 'spiral' around the center line.
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1981866/2/istockphoto_1981866_pink.jpg
If you cannot, then you cannot measure or define symmetry around it. Again, if you say that it is something that is just perceived by some people (artists apparently) and not others that makes it subjective, which in turn makes percieved symmetry around it subjective, which in turn makes beauty (which you have defined as symmetry) subjective.
pattern integrities are defined in the human frame. To deny a pattern integrity is to deny the square, triangle, and circle. Those lines can be measured. That's what Rolfers do professionally, they measure the body around the geometical symmetries of the bodies metaphysical structure.
C'mon Bubb, how are you arguing that beauty is an objective quantity? How is it inherent to the thing that is perceived as "beautiful"?
i am arguing that beauty is both objective and subjective, and relatable to symmetry, which is relatable to balance, harmony. If the objective component of beauty is symmetry, then that means in the internal metaphysical existence must have a symmetry too. And it does, it's a natural coupling we all can confirm exists, thinking and feeling. When there is beautiful experience, then there is harmony of thinking and feeling.
Bubb wrote on this page:
cher created drawings of objects that simply cannot exist, yet the mind can handle thier existence and percieve something that simply is NOT really there.
yes, I wrote that
Bubb wrote on last page:
We cannot find anything [referring to beauty] that is not there.
yes, I wrote that.
Care to clarify that contradiction Bubb? If we can perceive an impossible object that is not really there, how is it that our perception of beauty must be created by something that is "really there" i.e., inherent to the object.
This is not a contradiction. The pattern integrity is not in nature as a physical thing, it is expressed in nature through a physical medium. Escher played with our perception of patterns, so he created illusions of objects that cannot exist as physical structures, yet they DO exist as metaphysical structures. We all have the same illusion, the same trick, of pattern when we view an Escher sketch. Escher's drawings are physical contradictions representing the metaphysical and mutually experienced, yet the objects as represented in his sketches can ONLY be metaphysical structures, they are utterly impossible as physical structures.
So nothing exists in reality that is "distinguishable" from our perception of it.
huh? everything in reality is distinguishable from our perception of it, that is the whole import of using three values! Sheesh, you are so far behind here philosophically, you might as well be in ancient greece
Here's your previous definition of distinction:If there is a distinction, then they are not the same thing
That is not a definition of distinction, and yes, if there is a distinction, then they are not the same distinction. Problem is?
So the mug on my desk is indistinguishable from my perception of it, they are one and the same thing?
NO! Flat out bizarre interpretation! THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE MUG AND THE MUG, IT'S CALLED THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN the ONE value and the TWO value!
And how is this not idealism?
Because Idealism says there is only the distinction of the mug.
Everything in our perception is distinguishable.
From all possible other distinctions
Could you explain how objective reality is dependent (as indicated by "interdependent") on perception or consciousness, if you're not talking about idealism of some kind?
I am not talking about idealism of ANY kind! The only argument here would be that OS 012 is dualism, idealism, and materialism all expressed in distinct truth values. There is absolutly no equivalency in OS 012 and Idealism.
Zaay's arguments are idealism, by the way, and sometimes dualism, but he is a bag of philosophical confusion. Your arguments are materialism and idealism. You have idealism when you define beauty. You have materialism when you define awareness. You are also philosophically confused!
Again, how do we create reality is you're not talking about idealism?
The inner process of human being in relationship to the external is what produces our ideas. Ideas themselves are metaphysical. Ideas may be created by our brain state, but it's our brain state integrating objective reality. There is interdependence. We create a map of reality we call reality, and we use that map to manipulate reality according to our map's limitations.
If you are saying that objective reality creates a percept for us via our sensory systems then you need to explain how the status of objective reality is in any way affected by our perception.
Objective reality, it could be said, creates our precepts because our brains and nervous systems are indeed objects in reality. Yet we have an experience of metaphyics in that process. It doesnt appear to us as brain circuitry, it appears to us as thinking, feeling, percieving, experiencing. That experience is our 'map' of objective reality. It then influences how we interact and integrate reality, which then rearranges objective reality to fit our models.
Of course objective reality is affected by our perception. Ever hear of Global Warming? Ever hear of archeticture? Where you aware that a few scientists have created micro big bangs and black holes?
Can you imagine what our future will look like when we survive through this whole mess? we are hardly 300 years into the scientific revolution, which is hardly a beat in history. It is reasonable to assume that our trajectory, if it continues even 300 more years, could produce any phenomenon of objective universe.
Who knows, in a thousand years or more, perhaps it will be us saying "Let there be light!"
Think about it. What are the affects of self replicating self aware evolving intelligence in universe or continuous environment over time?
Is it not reasonable to suggest that even universe as an objective environment itself is manipulatable by intelligent points of view?
If you can't then you are a metaphysical objectivist.
hmmm, that's an interesting suggestion, I never looked at it that way, perhaps I am a metaphysical objectivist in a certain sort of way if i take that at face value. I consider myself a futurist humanist with a keen objective philosophy that allows for deep subjective appreciation.
If you do think that our perception creates objective reality or that objective reality only exists in our perception then you are a (Berkeleyan) idealist.
I would say your closer to the money with the metaphysical objectivist, but I have never heard that term before, and chances are we are using seperate understandings of metaphysics and objectivism in our definitions anyway.
BF
