[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Platt's Individual level)

[MarshaV]

At 07:09 AM 6/1/2006, you wrote:
>Quoting MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>:
>
> > At 06:05 PM 5/31/2006, you wrote:
> >
> > >Thanks for the quote. My problem with it is their definition of beauty
> > >being an appeal to our preference for simplicity and/or symmetry is too
> > >limited. For me, beauty means in the presence of something good. That
> > >would include a theory that lacks simplicity and symmetry, but is
> > >"successful." And for me something good is either points to or is the
> > >result of DQ, or both, simultaneously.
> > >
> > >Platt
> >
> > Hi Platt,
> >
> > It seems that your definition of what is "beauty", "good"  and
> > "successful" are based on individual determination.  Is this
> > true?    That "pointing to" or "results of" DQ can be quite different
> > for different individuals.
> >
> > Marsha
> >
> >
> >
> > Been thinking...
>
>Yes. But museums hold art works considered beautiful (offering the presence of
>something good) determined to be so by many individuals from 
>different cultures over
>time. So while beauty, good and successful are individually 
>determined, there is
>universality of the experience. Does this make sense?
>
>Platt

A museum holds a social level collection of what has been found in 
the past to contain beauty ('in the "pointing to" or "results of" DQ' 
sense), but it is the experience of the individual that determines 
beauty.  So what you say makes sense.

My own puzzlement lays in the realm of DQ where there is no 
division.  The word 'beauty' has the connotation of being that which 
is aesthetically pleasing.  Maybe there lies my 
confusion.  Experiencing DQ, when brought back to the human realm, 
can appear to be quite the opposite of good, beauty or successful, 
but inspire awe.  Is your definition of beauty more like awe?

Marsha