From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@erols.com)
Date: Mon Oct 28 1996 - 13:16:46 MST
At 10:56 AM 10/27/96 GMT, Dr. Rich Artym wrote:
>> IAN: That is a logical distinction. We can say that the esthetic pleasure
>> and the utility of given activities may be distributed across a fuzzy scale:
>>
>> U A/E E
>> 100-0 50/50 0-100
>> |-----------------|-----------------|
>> Utility Esthetic pleasure
> There is a continuum, as Ian indicates. However, it's incorrect to
> make utility and aesthetic pleasure the endpoints of the scale,
> because it is completely normal for aesthetic pleasure and utility to
> increase together rather than one increase while the other decreases.
>
> These two figures of merit are functionally connected only in the state
> space of the products that the engineer creates, and do not belong on
> the same dimension, so they should appear on different axes.
IAN: Good point, their relation is not inherently inverse, as
my graph dictates. How would you depict the alternative graph ?
One thing one comes to observe is that so much philosophical
debate is wasteful wheel-spinning stemming from a failure of
the parties involved to perceive that the topic under discourse
is resolved logically by a fuzzy logic analysis, not the bivalent
straight jacket they're trying to cram everything into.
"No, it's all A." "No it's all B." "No its . . .
************************************************************************
IAN GODDARD <igoddard@erols.com> Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:48 MST