From: Gregory Houston (vertigo@triberian.com)
Date: Tue Mar 18 1997 - 23:19:58 MST
Sarah Marr wrote:
> You're missing the point here. If a person lives within a culture where
> no-one has ever even suggested the world to be round, that person is every
> bit as objective as you in his/her acceptance of the flatness of the world.
[SNIP]
I agree with you on all counts. I was only attempting to illustrate the
validity of a scientificly objective use of art. I believe I have done
that. In the process we ran off on a tangent debating what objectivity
is. And I agree with you that it is relative to an era. However I do not
believe that fairy tales, and mythology are objective today, atleast not
in modern society. In the past perhaps, but today, no. Thats not to say
that fairy tales and mythology have no use to us today. I haven't really
given that much thought. It only means that they are not useful in
helping me understand how the universe was created and how it works. The
fact that fairy tales and mythology are no longer objective does not
make them subjective. It makes them ill informed. I believe you accused
me of calling fairy tales and mythology subjective, but I do not recall
making any such statement. Perhaps it would have been better to have
said they are less objective than what is objective today so that their
would be no confusion of me implying subjectivity.
I define subjective statements as value judgements, and objective
statements as unbiased observations. By these definitions of
subjectivity and objectivity did I initially make my definitions of
subjective and objective uses of art.
Cheers,
-- Gregory Houston Triberian Institute of Emotive Education vertigo@triberian.com http://www.triberian.com 816.561.1524
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:17 MST