A new definition and the demystification of art.

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Aesthetics
  3. » A new definition and the demystification of art.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 06:44 am
Visions of concepts,emerge from the non-conscious,that encompasses the maximum cohesiveness,conceived only supersensory,and concepts- created by philosophers- raise collective,universal consciousness,because concepts are bearers of meaning,and so,independent of language.
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 07:27 am
@diamantis,
diamantis,Smile

Yes concepts have always been independent of language, but not independent of one's biology, visualization is the first language, it is the language of the body/spirit as consciousness is a whole body experience. Einstein was very adept at visualization, and after solving a conceptual problem in his minds eye, considered it a great difficulty to describe said realization to his peers in language.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 07:40 am
@boagie,
Diamantis,

What? Please explain in some language other than Philospeak.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 10:04 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
Please explain in some language other than Philospeak.


Ooo! Ooo! Lemme try, I think I can translate this: [INDENT]Beyond language, there are images and concepts that are communicated to the subconscious mind. We receive these 'impressions' only superficially. What's more, they are interpretations; or more accurately, transpositions of the meaning within ourselves.
[/INDENT]How'd I do Diamantis?
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 10:25 am
@Khethil,
[INDENT]Khethil,Smile

Are we talking the collective subconsious for there is an apparent distinction between the images contained in the subconscious collectively/inherited and in the personal subconscious, archetypes I believe they call them. Anything new on the neurology front which might throw some light on this? Otherswise I am afraid we are in a very foggy place.
[/INDENT]
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 12:15 pm
@boagie,
Collective? if its collective we all know about it...you dont have to explain it...I have not been here long but it appears many want to impress rather than communicate...A thought provoking concept needs to be portrayed as simply as possible or misunderstandings creep in and ART has that simplicity..was that the point being made??
 
Khethil
 
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 12:40 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Are we talking the collective subconsious for there is an apparent distinction between the images contained in the subconscious collectively/inherited and in the personal subconscious, archetypes I believe they call them. Anything new on the neurology front which might throw some light on this? Otherswise I am afraid we are in a very foggy place.


Heh, I've absolutely NO idea. I just thought I'd try my hand at translating philospeak.
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2013 01:14 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:

boagie wrote:
Are we talking the collective subconsious for there is an apparent distinction between the images contained in the subconscious collectively/inherited and in the personal subconscious, archetypes I believe they call them. Anything new on the neurology front which might throw some light on this? Otherswise I am afraid we are in a very foggy place.


Heh, I've absolutely NO idea. I just thought I'd try my hand at translating philospeak.


"Khethil,

And an excellent job you did of it, that is about as close to what I read of Einstein's method of visualization and thought experiments as one might hope for. Creative process it can get at times quite foggy in ideas and concepts, but generally pays off if your persistent.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Aesthetics
  3. » A new definition and the demystification of art.
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/19/2019 at 01:30:56