[MD] Progress in art?

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com>:

> [Krimel]
> I am certainly willing to reconsider. Especially when I find anti-Randian
> liberialisms like this coming from Einstein:
> 
> "A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are
> based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert
> myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still
> receiving..."

. . . which does not detract one iota from the magnificence of his individual
achievements.

> I believe what both men are talking about is exactly what you previously
> claimed not to understand about how physicists see things.

When and what did I claim not to understand about how physicists see things?

> Beauty in this
> sense refers to elegance of thought, harmony of concepts and simplicity. It
> has to so with seeing the connections between apparently disparate things. 

I don't think beauty in "this sense" is experienced any differently than the 
than the beauty felt listening to a Rachmaninoff concerto. 

> It is why it in not scientists who are missing an aesthetic sense so much as
> romantics who find ugliness in what they are unwilling or unable to
> understand. Come to think of it perhaps it is the whole idea of
> understanding that is beautiful and failure to understand that is ugly.

Depends on what you consider to be "understanding." From what I gather from your
exchange of views with DMB what you consider to be in the realm of understanding
is somewhat limited.

> But as I said this is not my thing so I could well be missing it.

Perhaps, but I suspect you have "blown away" by something beautiful more than
once.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/