[MD] Progress in art?

[Krimel]

> > [Platt]
> > Equally true of philosophers, scientists and political commentators. All
> > marshal their arguments to support their premises, as indeed you did in 
> > your MOQ thesis. 
> > 
> > [Krimel]
> > Wow, talk about extreme postmodernism. All truth is relative and there 
> > are no criteria for judging. Curiously in your case this sounds like 
> > progress. After all you need to get there to get beyond it.


> [Platt] 
> Postmodernism or Pirsig? "One can then examine intellectual realities the
> same way he examines paintings in an art gallery, not to find which one is
> the "real" painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value.
> There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can 
> perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in
> part, the result of our history and current patterns of values."
> 
> Your got a problem with that?
> 
> [Krimel]
> Are you saying that even in aesthetics there are no criteria for
> establishing relative value? Aren't you the one touting the superiority of
> cave paintings and Mozart?  

[Platt]
What do you say is the criteria for establishing relative value in
aesthetics?
My criteria is what I see and hear.

[Krimel]
Which is exactly why I am not interested in aesthetics and do not think that
philosophy, science or politics should be judged by purely aesthetic
criteria. Rather they are to be judged on a pragmatic basis, according to
what works.