Not yet sure I'm convinced, but I would like to try out the idea.

An aesthetic system would also define the ugly. We tend to respond to the ugly with disgust. Disgust is an emotion that aesthetics shares with ethics: the "wrongness" of a vase can be felt in the gut as much as the wrongness of a slap. But then I see no reason to read an ethical meaning into every wave of the arm or shake of the head. So maybe there are aspects of human life that are "non-aesthetic". A note of caution then? But then I am sympathetic to the idea that each person might have an "aesthetic optimum", a sweet spot of resonant stimuli characteristic of an individual. Could this be related to a person's moral psychology? I think that is a likely hypothesis.

You know,

I have met people in my life that seem to embody some sort of contradiction - a contradiction that somehow prevents the emergence of an aesthetic.

Hey that's an interesting statement. Because I suspect that there are people who find paradox and dissonance aesthetically pleasing, even if disconcerting (or because of it?). Maybe contradiction can be an element of a psychological aesthetic...

Borrowing from a related thread:-

You are quite right:-

Charlies Ives - a modernist American composer - along with his siblings, was made to sing in one key whilst his father played in another. Charles Ives went on to compose wild clashing and dissonant music.

It is difficult to accommodate this kind of idiosyncratic genius within some simple theory of aesthetics. However, we can see in the case of Charles Ives that there are unpredictable components in people's individual experiences that make the particular problem for which the art functions as catharsis unique.

Its a sticky area and I don't pretend to be able to steer a clear and unambiguous course. Nevertheless, I believe that there is still evidence that there is a fundamental principle at work in our sense of the beautiful.

Thinking about what you said about 'ugly':-

Why does the lion pick the lame wildebeest to attack?

Because evolution has devised some means by which the lion can work out that the animal is not moving in an efficient way by the nature of its motion?

Or, because it moves in an ugly way?

The Persian Flaw?

In Moby Dick, Ishmael, on finding himself, at last, snug in his Spouter-Inn bed observes, that it is only through the virtue of having one part of himself (his nose) as cold as ice, that he could truly luxuriate in the warm cozy comfort of the rest of his body.

Do you read poetry, Larry?

Larry,

I just wanted to put a slightly different spin on the subject of the flaw in art and the cockroaches that you mentioned.

There is a problem transposing the continuous upon the discrete as the pythagorean flaw demonstrates. Bach didn't solve the problem with his new tuning that was demonstrated in "The Well Tuned Clavier" - but he made the situation a lot better.

This 'error' that is spread out over the keyboard gives each chord its characteristic mood and also, I suggest, it has the effect of never quite resolving. Perhaps this 'incompleteness' is what drives music to continuously evolve - never quite 'filling the gap' - always asking another question!

I do not believe that life is programmed to evolve to greater complexity. However, the constant shifting ground of the environment is providing the pythagorean flaw - the questions that evolution must find new answers to.

I think that the major souce of instability in nature is the fantastic complexity of the relationships between species - predator/prey - symbiotic - subtle symbiotic.

Life didn't really start evolving until there was competition in the environment - difference.

Please send me some of your poetry

I would be very pleased if you took a look my best poem - Burglar. In the light of our discussion, I think you might enjoy it.

If you would prefer to hear me narrate the poem, you can find it here:-

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq0nxJKjLDdTLMn23odYMwg

Thanks for reading Burglar, Larry - I know it is long.

Yes, I love Poe - not his poetry though.

My favorite poem is Eliot's Prufrock.

I don't know Spencer or Swinburne.

I would like to think that my other stylistic influences are Melville, Shakespeare and - I highly recommend it if you haven't come across it - The Gormenghast Trilogy by Mervin Peake - a fantastical gothic masterpiece. His language is truly awe inspiring.

The character of the burglar in the poem was based upon the Character of Spearpike from Gormenghast and a spider.

I will read your poem

Larry,

Strange, disturbing and very powerful.

I like it very much.

Larry,

I think you know that I believe that the evolution of life is the evolution of catalysis and that brain development is governed by thermodynamic principles.

If we start with this assumption and we ask - 'How might we test this assumption?' - our reasoning may go as follows:

If there are universal principles in all aspects of brain function regardless of species, then we should be able to show a link between aesthetic appreciation in humans and, for example, solutions to the problem of locomotion in other species. And we do! - almost invariably - from the grace of the cheetah to the strange rippled motion of the centipede (irrational phobias notwithstanding).

PS - re poetry,

I was going to ask - three wise men or 'three bad dealers'?? Send some more.

Just to prop up my argument with another twig....

It isn't just that we find the locomotion of animals pleasing, but also, that these solutions to the problem of locomotion are the most energy efficient.

Something occurs.....

Let us suppose that we have a monitor and upon the monitor there are a number of circles moving about. If they are all moving about randomly with respect to one another then we can only truly 'see' one of them at any one time. However, if we introduce a simple pattern, such that there is a rule (or group of related rules) that connects the way individual circles are moving then we can 'see' that group as a whole.

Before the rule is introduced cognition is frustrated - it is constantly 'on the move' and cannot attain stability - the attention jumping from one circle to another. After the rule is introduced the cognitive experience is much more pleasing.

From this I would suggest that beauty is complexity that is apprehendable 'in the moment'.

It is true that the motion of an animal like a cheetah is comprised of many elements linked harmonically together. This is why the animal can be seen as a whole - and appreciated as a thing of beauty.

Larry,

In y opinion, evolution is often used as a sort of get out clause. It is a panacea for oall ills. If evolution is the evolution of a fundamental there may be a more straightforward and less frustrating answer to some of our questions other than 'evolution'.

Here's a shorter one of mine:-

Thanks Larry,

I was very tempted to change 'Juxtapose' with the phrase 'just suppose', but I didn't think people would get it.

Aussie pubs? Are you an Aussie?

My favorite Aussie films:-

Bliss (my all time favorite film - based on the book by Peter Carey)

The Club

The Last Wave (Peter Wier) he also did 'The Truman Show'

The Dish

Malcolm

Heatwave

Harlequin

Whale Rider (NZ Really)

Once Were Warriors (NZ)

The Piano (Jane Campion)

Two Hands

Priscilla, Queen of the Desert

Strictly Ballroom

Larry,

I am not sure if I understand where you are coming from. I will ponder.

Larry, interesting question and also not quite sure where you are going since I also am a man of varied perspectives and expressions, but besides my own repertoire of knowledge and experiences, one of the few meaningful things that really distinguishes me from anyone else, is the people I don't like.

Larry,

Wow, Larry, you can be dark sometimes.

Sunset Blues is composed entirely of tears. Very good poem, though.

A friend recommended a film that, judging by this poem, you might appreciate. Have you seen melancholia?

Cloud Burst - very erotic and sensual. Larry, it is almost paradoxical that the same person could have written both poems.

Thank you so much

Chris

Larry,

I am not sure I understand Lazarus Jewel Box'?

It is beautifully structured though. Has the form got a name?

I had never heard of this family of bivalves.

Is it referring to a classical event - my Latin and Greek is very poor.

Chris

Larry,

Truly wonderful words. I have never heard of Zora Hurston.

Are you an American Indian?

I worked in Pittsburgh for a couple of years. I made friends with a great guy - Dwight Kravitz. He was an American Indian - a great and gentle soul. He brought in his Medicine Stick (I think that was what he called it). It was a staff that had items of psychological and cultural significance attached to it.

I have always loved and been inspired by the concept of 'animism'. I wanted to write a novel about a world where each part of the landscape 'remembered' the great and the sad events that had occured there: a place where, if you happened to be walking through the site of a once great battle, the birds might cry 'The King is dead!'. - A place where the murmers of long dead lovers might still be heard in the swaying of the corn.

I never found an story to carry the idea.

Chris

You have an interesting perspective that "aesthetics may well be a self-perpetuating and normalizing process," and that "aesthetics are a cognitive manifestation of some principle at the heart of ALL living processes." During my late 20's I worked with a nomadic tribe of people called the Turkana (for 4 years) who lived just south of Sudan and Somali boarders. They did not wear clothes (as we know it) nor did they know what money was and no written language. They were simply people with a "blank slate" from which to study behavior.

You used an expression of artifacts that depicted cultural differences. Not intended as a challenge, but as a deepening of the thought on how aesthetics serves the cognition process, I found it interesting when returning to the US that we define destitute children as those who do not have food or clothes. Perhaps formed by the idea that lack of food or nice clothes is the worst thing for us? However, I have since changed my perspective of what a destitute child is after returning home and finding so many unhappy children who freely complain about everything they don't like. I find it interesting that developed countries equate destitute qualities of children with lack of nutritious food and nice clothes while failing to notice the continued decline in appreciation. As one who lived and worked with those who had nothing, (in my opinion) it is those who fail to appreciate, who have lost everything.

You are saying then that this is a cognitive manifestation brought about by exposing my personality to the world around me,...could be, but wouldn't that in fact mean that we could be easily manipulated?

Yes. Aesthetics = corporate identities - logos - style - fashion.

Manipulation using aesthetics is as old as rhetoric.

David,

The point that you made about - poverty and a lack of appreciation. It reminds me of a scene from the film Groundhog Day. Bill Murry is sitting in a cafe and some great piece of classical music comes on that captivates him. He looks around for someone to share the moment with - and there is no-one! At that moment we bleed for him! He is so alone!

I have followed this thread and loved the poetry and the ideas, but when I refer back to the originating question,I find the linking of personality creation and aesthetics confusing and perhaps wrong headed. The terms need to be defined before we go running about with assertions and assumptions.

As a rule the term "aesthetics" refers to art and beauty and the appreciation of same. Art is created by an artist intentionally through a process of selection and elimination. While there is definitely a subconscious element in this selection process, artists endeavor to make the unconscious, conscious. Art creation and appreciation is one of the hallmarks of being human. I do not believe that response to beauty is primarily intellectual, it involves a response to color, shape, rhythm, and other such elements which elicit not only conscious, but unconscious responses. Animals have not created any art so far as I can determine, even though humans may find their activities, nest making and so forth, aesthetically pleasing. The cognitive appreciation of art/aesthetics begins first in the senses and then proceeds to true cognation involving evaluation and reason.

Personality, while certainly a construct built upon given genetic materials, is not created intentionally at least in its formative years. The definition of personality as identity, is a way of simplifying others. I am not my personality nor have I created it with an eye towards aesthetics.

Personality is variable depending upon external forces. A supposedly "sweet-tempered person" is easily capable of becoming a "sour puss" given the right circumstances. I subscribe to Ernest Becker's view that personality is formed as a defense against the fear of formlessness and death.

Christopher's formula. "Aesthetics = corporate identities - logos - style - fashion" reducing art to corporate manipulation is a difficult proposition to swallow. Corporations and their use of advertising may be unhealthy for our society, but aesthetics are not corporately owned.

Actually, your personality comes through loud and clear Jane as much as you might like to think that you are not your personality. Personality is so much more than being a "sweet-tempered person" or becoming a "sour puss." To be able to predict what level of triggers would cause someone to become a "sour puss", one's ability to read between the lines, or being more interested in abstract thought than facts, (is more representative of the personality we are discussing) and perhaps why you have difficulty with Christoper's formula.

David, I hear you loud and clear! And who is to say that my "in print" personality is my personality? I am as capable of role playing as the next person. And if that is so, my personality, so to speak, is far more governed by the way I wish to be perceived, than in some unalterable presentation of myself (to reference Erving Goffman). And, I still don't understand the relationship of the corporation>aesthetic statement to the argument at hand. But perhaps, the question had evolved and I missed it evolution.

Jane,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

You said that animals do not produce art.

I don't suppose that you would brook the idea that animals ARE art?

When you watch young animals exploring the limits of their bodies are they not creating art?

Is there anything more aesthetically pleasing than an animal?

You said that you could role play. When we watch people who can impersonate other people. Is it not true that they choose people that have strong and identifiable personalities. What could they be homing in on if it is not the aesthetic of the personality?

Jane, you said that you are not your personality - well ok, but consider, you must have an accent - given that you have an accent - why can't you hear it? Could it be that you do not hear your accent because you ARE your accent?

Christopher,

I love such debates!

The fact that something is aesthetically pleasing doesn't meet my personal definition of art. For me art to be called art must be intentionally created by humans for their own expressiveness and generally for others to see or hear. I am not a religious person, but an animal might be God's artwork, but it is does not fit my definition. I find the desire to create art to be one of the hallmarks of human existence. It is a glory, a gift to the world. The ocean, animals, the stars, trees, and all such naturally occurring beauties are not manmade.

The artist's outpouring is a result of the need to move beyond the mundane and to express their experience of the world through an idiosyncratic creation. For me, art at its best creates something called "aesthetic arrest" by James Joyce in the viewer. This experience is one in which the "audience" is somehow affected emotionally or spiritually and linked in a way to the artist.

I believe that personality creation is at times intentional, but generally it is a result of the need to protect oneself in a given environment, not to express one's deepest feelings.

Just because I can imitate someone doesn't mean that there are aesthetics involved. Insofar as my accent is concerned, as a young actor, I was trained to hear my accent and change it from the regional dialect that i had to something less identifiable on stage.

The very foundations of humankind, accoding to Leroi-Gouhan , are aesthetics...

Jorge

So too with life generally, I think.

Well, it's also the argument of Gilles Deleuze, as commented by contemporary spanish professor Jose Luis Pardo ( Las formas de la exterioridad)

Further to the discussion about accents - here is a thought experiment:-

Let us imagine an ideal (if unlikely) linguistic and geographical landscape. In this landscape the physical distance between two points is directly proportional to the differences in pronunciation that constitute an accent. We must also imagine that in this ideal landscape nobody ever leaves the place of their birth.

Given that this situation is a possibility (if not an actuality) , then it follows that, given two points - A and B  -, a person from 'A' listening to a person from 'B' will experience an accent the level of 'acuteness' being directly related to the physical distance between points 'A' and 'B'. 

Now. imagine that we could plot the accents that we experience in a subjective aesthetic phase space. In this phase space the origin (x = 0 and y = 0) represents no perceivable accent at all (in other words it is the local geographical accent of the subject). The further a point from the origin then the the more acute the accent that is experienced by the subject. We can see that in this ''ideal' situation there is a direct mapping between the subjective aesthetic phase space and a physical map of the landscape.

Now, if we sample the accents of people at regular points - say 50 miles apart on a direct line from point 'B' to point 'A' then it follows that if we plotted the experiences of a person at 'A' listening to those accents in the subjective aesthetic phase space, the points would follow a trajectory that tended to the origin. However, if we consider the subjective experiences of a person from point 'C' then, the trajectory traced by the points would be a function of of the subject's relative position to points 'A' and 'B' and would certainly not follow the same trajectory. This is because the origin of subject 'C's subjective phase space (no accent at all) now corresponds to a different geographical location 

What this demonstrates is that although two people may agree that they are listening to a Bronx accent, it certainly does not follow that they are experiencing the same thing. In fact, when we listen to accents our own accent plays a significant role in determining how an accent is experienced.

Given that  'what we are' and how we experience the world are closely related (perhaps to the point of an identity), then this analysis lends weight to the idea that the personality is an aesthetic.