Reading @KevinSimler's latest piece on beauty crystalised something for me:
-
-
the word "healthy desire" reminds me of a phrase from this really fun guru on SikhNet who says "the flower is horny for the sun!" in this cheeky mischievous way
-
@KevinSimler re: "out there or in us?"– I like to riff off of@meaningness's point about rainbowshttps://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/863915605019250688 …
-
Oh what a great passage! A coda I would add is that, once you have the full causal model of a rainbow, it becomes _much less interesting_ to ask how the labels “objective” and “subjective” apply to it.
-
Yes! And, generalizing, most arguments about whether something is subjective or objective are due to both words being poorly defined, and can be resolved by looking at the concrete specifics of the relationships involved.
-
Agree with the above! My only quibble is with the (joking?) phrase in the passage about rainbows being "guaranteed 100% metaphysics free."
-
If you mean "metaphysics" in the sense of "goofy section in the bookstore," then yes, of course. But there is also a rigorous sense of metaphysics that is all about describing exactly these issues.
-
Yes; that’s probably a helpful correction! It’s tricky because “metaphysics” is vague. Besides the holistic chakra balancing stuff, there’s a standard STEM dismissal of any uncomfortable conceptual discussion, taking metaphysics = bullshit.
-
More like conceptual discussion that they don't like = bullshit. But if it is about how everything is made of quarks, then you are good. It's not that they don't engage with metaphysics, it's that they assume a metaphysics and can't question it, so everything else is bullshit.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.