[Fis] Book Presentation. Emotions and Energy

Mariusz Stanowski stanowskimariusz at wp.pl
Wed Apr 20 19:08:45 CEST 2022

Dear Joseph and Francesco,

I'm glad to see our conclusions converge, it confirms their validity.

Best regards


W dniu 2022-04-20 o 17:13, joe.brenner at bluewin.ch pisze:
> Dear Mariusz, Pedro and All,
> This new thread is of particular emotional and scientific interest to 
> me as the son of an artist, the sculptor Michael Brenner (Siauliai, 
> Lithuania, 1885 - New York, 1969). What I especially am enjoying is 
> the continuity with previous FIS topics, for example in the reference 
> by Mariusz to the non-metaphorical energy in art. This means to me 
> that art follows the same rules of evolution as do energetic processes 
> in what I have called the Logic of Energy.
> With regard to reality in art, I quote the statement of Stephane 
> Lupasco that a work of art is successful to the extent it embodies 
> both the real and the non-real in an emergent state (included middle).
> A corollary (not a criticism) is that an absolutely abstract, pure art 
> does not exist, any more than the ideal values of 0 and 1 in complex 
> processes. We can say (I think) that art is non-Kolmogorovian.
> From an informational perspective, Mariusz is right to emphasize how 
> art compresses an enormous amount of information. What is important 
> here, however, is not only the quantitative amount but its aesthetic 
> value, which is, in my scheme and others, not proportional to size, 
> like value in general.
> Best wishes,
> Joseph
>     ----Message d'origine----
>     De : stanowskimariusz at wp.pl
>     Date : 19/04/2022 - 17:47 (CEST)
>     À : fis at listas.unizar.es
>     Objet : Re: [Fis] Book Presentation. Emotions
>     Dear Pedro and FIs Colleagues,
>     You raised an interesting and important issue of emotions in art.
>     This made me think about how it is that art evokes/intensifies our
>     emotions.
>     From my research it follows that art (the essence of art) in the
>     most general/abstract sense is the compression of information
>     (contained in a work of art) thanks to which our perception saves
>     energy, becomes more economical (cost-effective), e.g. a shorter
>     text is more economical/compressed than a longer one containing
>     the same amount of information. Thanks to this saving of energy
>     (effort) we feel satisfaction, pleasure. This pleasure is related
>     to our development, because saving energy obviously contributes to
>     our development, which is our greatest value.
>     These positive emotions related to our development can be
>     considered abstract because they have no “direction”, they do not
>     concern any concrete sphere of reality but the abstract
>     development itself (increase in complexity). These absolutely
>     abstract emotions, however, always occur in conjunction with more
>     or less concrete realities, because we cannot experience both
>     absolute abstraction and absolutely abstract (pure) art. The
>     diversity of art comes from the necessity of the presence of
>     different concrete realms/objects/media of reality in works of
>     art. Each work/type of art speaks differently about what they have
>     in common - what art is in essence, which is contrast, complexity,
>     compression of information, development or value.
>     The type of emotion depends on what specific realm of reality the
>     compression of information refers to. If it is, for example, a
>     landscape painted by an artist, we should like it more than an
>     (uncompressed) natural landscape. The same is the case with all
>     other emotions - they are intensified thanks to the compression of
>     information - associated with them. The most abstract art is
>     music, which is why it is often difficult for us to associate it
>     with known/conscious emotions. However, connections with reality
>     also occur here, mainly in the structural sphere. That is why, for
>     example, different pieces of music are performed on different
>     occasions. To sum up, we can say that art can be made of anything
>     if we include information compression. However, compression alone
>     does not tell us about the value/size of art because one can
>     compress a larger (more difficult to compress/organize) area or a
>     smaller area to the same degree. The compressed larger area (of
>     information) has more complexity and aesthetic value, which can be
>     equated with value in general - as discussed in the presentation.
>     P.S. As a budding artist and art theorist I encountered a
>     knowledge of art that relied mainly on closer and further
>     metaphors. There was also a belief that only such knowledge was
>     possible. For example, it was said that a work of art "gives us
>     energy" which of course was treated as a metaphor. The attempt to
>     understand this metaphor led me to the conclusion that it is not
>     about receiving energy but about saving it and that energy is not
>     a metaphor but a physical value, which was confirmed by studies in
>     perception, information theory and physics.
>     Best regards
>     Mariusz
>     W dniu 2022-04-18 o 21:20, Pedro C. Marijuan pisze:
>>     Dear Mariusz and FIs Colleagues,
>>     May I disturb this calm vacation state and introduce some
>>     "contrast"? For the sake of the discussion, the Theory & Practice
>>     of Contrast presented may be considered as a pretty valid
>>     approach to visual arts, also extended to a diversity of other
>>     fields in science & humanities. let me warn that the
>>     overextension of a decent paradigm is a frequent cause of
>>     weakening the initial paradigm itself. The Darwinian cosmovision
>>     is a good example. One can read in a book of Peter Atkins: /“/ /A
>>     great deal of the universe does not need any explanation.
>>     Elephants, for instance. Once molecules have learnt to compete
>>     and to create other molecules in their own image, elephants, and
>>     things resembling elephants, will in due course be found roaming
>>     around the countryside/ /... / /Some of the things resembling
>>     elephants will be men.” /I am not comfortable at all with that
>>     type of bombastic paradigm overextension--but maybe it is my
>>     problem. Finally it is the explanatory capability of the attempt
>>     what counts (which in Atkins case is close to nil). In any case,
>>     the co-ligation of disciplines is a tough matter not very well
>>     solved/articulated yet.
>>     Let me change gears. My main concern with arts stems from their
>>     close relationships with emotions. I remember a strange personal
>>     experience. In a multidisciplinary gathering (scientists &
>>     artists) time ago, there was a small concert in an ancient
>>     chapel. Cello and electronic music together--great performers. In
>>     the middle of the concert, for unknown reasons, I started to feel
>>     sad, very sad. I was very absorbed in the music and could not
>>     realize having had any other bad interfering remembrance. Then I
>>     discretely looked at the person aside me, a lady. She was in
>>     tears, quite openly. I realized it was the music effect. Quite a
>>     few of the audience after the end of the concert were with red
>>     eyes... Some years later, in some biomedical research of my team
>>     on laughter (the analysis of its auditory contents as a helpful
>>     tool in the diagnosis of depression) we stumbled on Manfred
>>     Clynes "sentic forms". Some of the basic emotions can be clearly
>>     distinguished in ad hoc acoustic patterns, as well in tactile
>>     expression. (He made and sold a few gadgets about that). To make
>>     a long story short, we found the most important sentic forms in
>>     the sounds of laughter, including the "golden mean" in the
>>     expression of joyful laughs. End of the story.
>>     Trying to articulate a concrete question, in what extension could
>>     have been some of the arts a powerful means to elicit emotions
>>     which are not so easily felt in social life?  Think in the
>>     liturgy of these days... such a powerful rites....
>>     /
>>     /
>>     Best regards,
>>     --Pedro
>>     El 11/04/2022 a las 12:31, Mariusz Stanowski escribió:
>>>     We are all right you are talking about the practical possibility
>>>     of simulation and I am talking about the theoretical.
>>>     Best regards
>>>     Mariusz
>>>     W dniu 2022-04-11 o 11:30, Daniel Boyd pisze:
>>>>     Dear Joe, dear Mariusz
>>>>     Thankyou for both your responses. If I may pursue the topic of
>>>>     continuous-discontinuous contrasts further: is the solution to
>>>>     Joseph’s issue with non-computable processes perhaps to be
>>>>     found in acknowledging the distinction between the reality and
>>>>     its representation/simulation?
>>>>     Take a landscape. In reality this contains an almost infinite
>>>>     amount of continuous and discontinuous detail from the
>>>>     subatomic particle to the geological mountain. A representation
>>>>     or simulation (artistic or scientific) of this reality cannot
>>>>     and need not accurately reproduce this detail to fulfil its
>>>>     purpose: distillation, approximation, even distortion may
>>>>     justifiably be involved. An artistic rendition, unless intended
>>>>     as photo-realistic, will be intentionally inaccurate. Digital
>>>>     representations are, for the sake of efficiency, designed to
>>>>     compress information to the minimum required to provide the
>>>>     illusion of accuracy based on the sensitivity of our senses.
>>>>     This accounts for the 16,7 million colour standard for images:
>>>>     a lot of colours, but only a coarse approximation to the real
>>>>     colours of the rainbow. Our own senses apply similar necessary
>>>>     estimations: the cells of the retina determine the maximal
>>>>     pixel definition of the image recreated in the brain: the
>>>>     continuous is made discontinuous.
>>>>     Such representational approximations do not, however, imply
>>>>     discontinuity in the object observed. We see this in the
>>>>     inability of algorithmic simulations to accurately predict the
>>>>     future of non-linear systems in which arbitrarily small
>>>>     differences in initial conditions may have large effects as the
>>>>     system evolves.
>>>>     Perhaps this distinction between reality and representation
>>>>     lies, in your diagram, between the being-contrast-complexity
>>>>     column and the neighbouring elements? Or, possibly, you intend
>>>>     the being-contrast-complexity elements not to refer to the
>>>>     objects of reality themselves, but the
>>>>     perception/representation of them?
>>>>     Regards, Daniel
>>>>     *From: *joe.brenner at bluewin.ch
>>>>     *Sent: *Sunday, 10 April 2022 11:53
>>>>     *To: *Mariusz; daniel.boyd at live.nl; "fis"
>>>>     *Cc: *fis at listas.unizar.es; daniel.boyd at live.nl
>>>>     *Subject: *Re: Re: [Fis] Book Presentation. Potentiality as
>>>>     well as Actuality
>>>>     Dear Mariusz, Dear Daniel,
>>>>     Please allow me to enter the discussion at this point. I will
>>>>     go back to the beginning as necessary later. I am in general
>>>>     agreement with Mariusz' approach, but I believe it could be
>>>>     strengthened by looking at the potential as well as the actual
>>>>     aspects of the phenomena in question. Thus when Mariusz writes
>>>>     interaction, is a prior concept to the concept of being,
>>>>     because without interaction there is no being. It follows that
>>>>     the basic ingredient of being must be two
>>>>     objects/elements/components (forming a contrast) that have
>>>>     common and differentiating features."). , I would add the
>>>>     dimension of becoming, which is a more dynamic relation. We can
>>>>     more easily talk about processes and change instead of
>>>>     component objects
>>>>     A similar comment could be made about the discrete-continuous
>>>>     distinction. This is at the same time also an
>>>>     appearance-reality duality which is not static, but embodies
>>>>     the change from actual to potential and vice versa just mentioned.
>>>>     I do not, however, agree with the following statement: Besides
>>>>     it is already known that using binary structures it is possible
>>>>     to simulate any processes and objects of reality)  There are
>>>>     many non-computable process aspects of reality that cannot be
>>>>     captured and simulated by an algorithm without loss of
>>>>     information and meaning. In the "graph" of the movement of a
>>>>     process from actuality to potentiality, the limiting points of
>>>>     0 and 1 are not included - it is non-Kolmogorovian.
>>>>     I would say regarding beauty that it is a property emerging
>>>>     from the various contrast or antagonisms in the mind/body of
>>>>     the artist. The logic of such processes as I have remarked is a
>>>>     logic of energy, and this seems to fit here.
>>>>     Thank you and best wishes,
>>>>     Joseph
>>>>         ----Message d'origine----
>>>>         De : stanowskimariusz at wp.pl
>>>>         Date : 10/04/2022 - 08:35 (CEST)
>>>>         À : daniel.boyd at live.nl, fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>>         Objet : Re: [Fis] Book Presentation
>>>>         Dear Daniel,
>>>>         Thank you for your questions. Below are the highlighted
>>>>         answers (of course they are more complete in the book).
>>>>         Best regards
>>>>         Mariusz
>>>>         W dniu 2022-04-09 o 17:37, Daniel Boyd pisze:
>>>>             Dear Mariusz
>>>>             While (or perhaps because!) your work is a fair
>>>>             distance from my own field of expertise, I found your
>>>>             conceptual framework intriguing. Herewith some of the
>>>>             thoughts it elicited. While they may be unexpected
>>>>             because they come from a different angle, hopefully a
>>>>             cross-disciplinary interaction will be fruitful.
>>>>             The Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates the ultimate
>>>>             heat death of the universe (a state in which all
>>>>             'contrasts' are erased). (The heat death of the
>>>>             universe is just a popular view and not a scientific
>>>>             truth)Its current state, fortunately for us, is teeming
>>>>             with differences (between entities, properties and
>>>>             interactions) which underlie all that is of importance
>>>>             to us. To take such contrasts as a unifying principle
>>>>             would therefore seem to be undeniable, if extremely
>>>>             ambitious! After all, the sheer diversity of contrasts
>>>>             takes us from the different spins of subatomic
>>>>             particles underlying the various elements to the masses
>>>>             of the celestial bodies determining their orbits around
>>>>             the sun; from the colours in a painting to the sounds
>>>>             of a symphony. Systemically, different patterns of
>>>>             contrasts underlie the distinctions between linear and
>>>>             complex systems. Contrasts also form the basis for the
>>>>             working of our sense organs, the perceptions derived
>>>>             from them, and the inner world of conscious experience.
>>>>             In each of these contexts very different classes of
>>>>             contrasts lead to different mechanisms and laws,
>>>>             leading me to wonder just what the 'underlying
>>>>             structure' is (beyond the observation that, ultimately,
>>>>             some type of contrast is always involved and that we
>>>>             tend to deal with such diverse contrasts in a similar
>>>>             way). Maybe your book provides an answer to this
>>>>             question that I am unable to find in this brief
>>>>             abstract: could you perhaps say something about this?
>>>>             (The answer to this question is contained in the
>>>>             contrast-being relation: "Contrast-Being Contrast, or
>>>>             interaction, is a prior concept to the concept of
>>>>             being, because without interaction there is no being.
>>>>             It follows that the basic ingredient of being must be
>>>>             two objects/elements/components (forming a contrast)
>>>>             that have common and differentiating features.").
>>>>             Moving on to more specific topics, I see that you
>>>>             equate the complexity of a system to a relationship
>>>>             between binary values (C = N²/n). While such as
>>>>             approach may work for discontinuous contrasts (e.g.
>>>>             presence/absence, information in digital systems) many
>>>>             naturally occurring differences are continuous (e.g.
>>>>             the electromagnetic frequencies underlying the colours
>>>>             of the rainbow). In neuroscience, while the firing of a
>>>>             neuron may be a binary event, the charge underlying
>>>>             this event is a dynamic continuous variable. My
>>>>             question: how does the concept of abstract complexity
>>>>             deal with continuous variables ("contrasts")?(What
>>>>             seems to us to be continuous in reality may be
>>>>             discrete, e.g. a picture or a sound on a computer is
>>>>             continuous and in reality it is a binary structure of
>>>>             electric impulses; a continuous color is a vibration of
>>>>             an electromagnetic wave. Besides it is already known
>>>>             that using binary structures it is possible to simulate
>>>>             any processes and objects of reality).
>>>>             I was also intrigued by your statement that "Beautiful
>>>>             are objects with high information compression" based on
>>>>             the reasoning "perceiving beauty, we save energy, the
>>>>             perception becomes more economical and pleasant".
>>>>             Intuitively, it seems odd to me to equate beauty to the
>>>>             lack of perceptive effort required.(This is not about
>>>>             "no effort" but about "saving effort". If we have a
>>>>             beautiful and an ugly object with the same information
>>>>             content, the perception of the beautiful object will
>>>>             require less energy. The measure of beauty is not the
>>>>             amount of effort/energy, but the amount of energy
>>>>             saved, which in the case of the Sagrada Familia will be
>>>>             greater). This would mean that the Pentagon (high
>>>>             regularity/compressibility) is more beautiful than the
>>>>             Sagrada Familia (low regularity/compressibility); and a
>>>>             single-instrument midi rendition of Bach is more
>>>>             beautiful than a symphonic performance. It seems to me
>>>>             that beauty often stimulates (gives energy) rather than
>>>>             just costing minimal energy. Much research has been
>>>>             done on the universal and culture-dependent perception
>>>>             of beauty: does this support your statement? see e.g.
>>>>             https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01229.x
>>>>             <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01229.x> which
>>>>             describes factors other than simplicity as necessary
>>>>             characteristics. (This article is based on faulty
>>>>             assumptions e.g. misunderstanding Kolmogorov's
>>>>             definition of complexity, which is not applicable here).
>>>>             <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01229.x>
>>>>             Musings About Beauty - Kintsch - 2012 - Cognitive
>>>>             Science - Wiley Online Library
>>>>             <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01229.x>
>>>>             Aesthetics has been a human concern throughout history.
>>>>             Cognitive science is a relatively new development and
>>>>             its implications for a theory of aesthetics have been
>>>>             largely unexplored.
>>>>             onlinelibrary.wiley.com
>>>>             By defining contrast as a distinction between entities
>>>>             or properties, it seems to come close as a definition
>>>>             to the type of information underlying physical entropy.
>>>>             That being the case, your approach would seem to
>>>>             resemble those who would give such information a
>>>>             comparable fundamental significance (e.g. Wheeler's "it
>>>>             from bit"). Could you say something about how you see
>>>>             the relationship between 'contrast' and 'information?
>>>>             Are they effectively synonyms?Contrast and information
>>>>             are different concepts. Information is a feature or
>>>>             form of energy. Contrast is the tension/force/energy
>>>>             created by the interaction of common features
>>>>             (attraction) and different features (repulsion) of
>>>>             contrasting objects).
>>>>             Thankyou, in any case, for your contribution which
>>>>             certainly demonstrates the relationship between Value
>>>>             and Development 😉
>>>>             Regards, Daniel Boyd
>>>>             *Van: *Mariusz Stanowski
>>>>             *Verzonden: *zaterdag 2 april 2022 19:23
>>>>             *Aan: *fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>>             *Onderwerp: *[Fis] Book Presentation
>>>>             *Book Presentation*
>>>>             *“Theory and Practice of Contrast: Integrating Science,
>>>>             Art and Philosophy.”*
>>>>             *Mariusz Stanowski*
>>>>             *Published June 10, 2021 by CRC Press (hardcover and
>>>>             eBook).*
>>>>             Dear FIS list members,
>>>>             Many thanks for the opportunity to present my recent
>>>>             book in this list.
>>>>             Our dispersed knowledge needs an underlying structure
>>>>             that allows it to be organised into a coherent and
>>>>             complex system.
>>>>             I believe “Theory and Practice of Contrast” provides
>>>>             such a structure by bringing the considerations to the
>>>>             most basic, general and abstract level. At this level
>>>>             it is possible to define *contrast as a tension between
>>>>             common and differentiating features of objects. It
>>>>             grows in intensity as the number/strength of
>>>>             differentiating and common features of contrasting
>>>>             structures/objects increases*. Contrast understood in
>>>>             this way applies to any objects of reality (mental and
>>>>             physical) and is also an impact (causal force) in the
>>>>             most general sense. Contrast as a common principle
>>>>             organises (binds) our knowledge into a coherent system.
>>>>             This is illustrated by a diagram of the connections
>>>>             between the key concepts:
>>>>             Below are brief descriptions of these connections.
>>>>             *Contrast—Development *When observing a contrast, we
>>>>             also observe the connection between contrasting
>>>>             objects/structures (resulting from their common
>>>>             features) and the emergence of a new, more complex
>>>>             structure possessing the common and differentiating
>>>>             features of connected structures. In the general sense,
>>>>             the emergence of a new structure is tantamount to
>>>>             development. Therefore, it may be stated that contrast
>>>>             is a perception of structures/objects connections, or
>>>>             experience of development. The association of contrast
>>>>             with development brings a new quality to the
>>>>             understanding of many other fundamental concepts, such
>>>>             as beauty, value, creativity, emergence. (Similarly,
>>>>             /contrast as development /is understood in Whitehead’s
>>>>             philosophy).
>>>>             *Contrast—Complexity *In accordance with the proposed
>>>>             definition, when we consider the contrast between two
>>>>             or more objects/structures, it grows in intensity as
>>>>             the number/strength of differentiating and common
>>>>             features of contrasting structures/objects increases.
>>>>             Such an understanding of contrast remain an intuitive
>>>>             criterion of complexity that can be formulated as
>>>>             follows: *a system becomes more complex the greater is
>>>>             the number of distinguishable elements and the greater
>>>>             the number of connections among them*/. /If in
>>>>             definition of contrast we substitute “differentiating
>>>>             features” for “distinguishable elements” and “common
>>>>             features” for “connections”, we will be able to
>>>>             conclude that *contrast is the perception and measure
>>>>             of complexity.*
>>>>             Note: Two types of contrasts can be distinguished: the
>>>>             sensual (physical) contrast, which is determined only
>>>>             by the force of features of contrasting objects and the
>>>>             mental (abstract) contrast which depends primarily on
>>>>             the number of these features. (This contrast can be
>>>>             equated with complexity). (The equation of contrast
>>>>             with complexity is an important finding for the
>>>>             investigations in: cognitive sciences, psychology,
>>>>             ontology, epistemology, aesthetics, axiology, biology,
>>>>             information theory, complexity theory and indirectly in
>>>>             physics).
>>>>             *Complexity—Information Compression *Intuition says
>>>>             that the more complex object with the same number of
>>>>             components (e.g. words) has more features/information
>>>>             (i.e. more common and differentiating features), which
>>>>             proves its better organization (assuming that all
>>>>             components have the same or similar complexity). We can
>>>>             also say that such an object has a higher degree of
>>>>             complexity. The degree of complexity is in other words
>>>>             the brevity of the form or the compression of
>>>>             information. Complexity understood intuitively (as
>>>>             above) depends, however, not only on the complexity
>>>>             degree (that could be defined as the ratio of the
>>>>             number of features to the number of components) but
>>>>             also on the (total) number of features, because it is
>>>>             more difficult to organize a larger number of
>>>>             elements/features. In addition, the more features (with
>>>>             the same degree of complexity), the greater the
>>>>             contrast. Therefore, in the proposed /Abstract
>>>>             Definition of Complexity /(2011), we multiply the
>>>>             degree of complexity by the number of features. This
>>>>             definition defines the complexity (C) of the binary
>>>>             structure (general model of all structures/objects) as
>>>>             the quotient of the square of features
>>>>             (regularities/substructures) number (N) to the number
>>>>             of components or the number of zeros and ones (n). It
>>>>             is expressed in a simple formula: C = N²/n and should
>>>>             be considered the most general definition of
>>>>             complexity, among the existing ones, which also fulfils
>>>>             the intuitive criterion. (This relation explains what
>>>>             compression of information in general is and what role
>>>>             it plays as a complexity factor. This allows to
>>>>             generalize the notion of information compression and
>>>>             use it not only in computer science, but also in other
>>>>             fields of knowledge, such as aesthetics, axiology,
>>>>             cognitive science, biology, chemistry, physics).
>>>>             **
>>>>             *Information compression—Development *Our mind
>>>>             perceiving objects (receiving information) more
>>>>             compressed, saves energy. Compression/organization of
>>>>             information reduce energy of perception while
>>>>             maintaining the same amount of information (in case of
>>>>             lossless compression). Thanks to this, perception
>>>>             becomes easier (more economical) and more enjoyable;
>>>>             for example, it can be compared to faster and easier
>>>>             learning, acquiring knowledge (information), which also
>>>>             contributes to our development. Compression of
>>>>             information as a degree of complexity also affects its
>>>>             size. Complexity, in turn, is a measure of contrast
>>>>             (and vice versa). Contrast, however, is identified with
>>>>             development. Hence, complexity is also development.
>>>>             This sequence of associations is the second way
>>>>             connecting the compression of information with
>>>>             development. Similarly, one can trace all other
>>>>             possibilities of connections in the diagram. (The
>>>>             association of information compression with development
>>>>             brings a new, explanatory knowledge to many fields
>>>>             including cognitive science, aesthetics, axiology,
>>>>             information theory).
>>>>             **
>>>>             *Development—Value *Development is the essence of
>>>>             value, because all values (ethical, material,
>>>>             intellectual, etc.) contribute to our development which
>>>>             is their common feature. It follows that value is also
>>>>             a contrast, complexity and compression of information
>>>>             because they are synonymous with development. (The
>>>>             relation explains and defines the notion of value
>>>>             fundamental to axiology).
>>>>             *Value—Abstract Value *About all kinds of values (with
>>>>             the exception of aesthetic values) we can say, what
>>>>             they are useful for. Only aesthetic values can be said
>>>>             to serve the development or be the essence of values,
>>>>             values in general or abstract values. This is a
>>>>             property of abstract concepts to express the general
>>>>             idea of something (e.g. the concept of a chair includes
>>>>             all kinds of chairs and not a specific one). It follows
>>>>             that *what is specific to aesthetic value is that it is
>>>>             an abstract value* (although it is difficult to
>>>>             imagine). (This is a new understanding of aesthetic
>>>>             value, crucial for aesthetics and axiology).
>>>>             **
>>>>             *Contrast—Being *Contrast or interaction is a concept
>>>>             prior to the concept of being because without
>>>>             interaction there is no existence. It follows that the
>>>>             basic component of being must be two
>>>>             objects/elements/components (creating a contrast)
>>>>             having common and differentiating features.
>>>>             (Understanding of being as a contrast is fundamental to
>>>>             ontology and metaphysics and worth considering in physics).
>>>>             **
>>>>             *Contrast—Cognition *The object of cognition and the
>>>>             subject (mind) participate in the cognitive process.
>>>>             The object and the subject have common and
>>>>             differentiating features, thus they create a contrast.
>>>>             Cognition consists in attaching (through common
>>>>             features) differentiating features of the object by the
>>>>             subject. In this way, through the contrast, the subject
>>>>             develops. It can therefore be said that cognition is a
>>>>             contrast of the object with the subject. (This is a new
>>>>             definition of cognition important for epistemology and
>>>>             cognitive science).
>>>>             **
>>>>             *Cognition—Subjectivity *The above understanding of
>>>>             cognition agrees all disputable issues (present, among
>>>>             others, in psychology, cognitive science and
>>>>             aesthetics) regarding the objectivity and subjectivity
>>>>             of assessments (e.g. whether the source of beauty is
>>>>             the observer's mind, whether it is a specific quality
>>>>             from the observer independent), because it shows that
>>>>             they depend on both the subject and the object, i.e.
>>>>             depend on their relationship—contrast.
>>>>             **
>>>>             *Compression of information—Beauty *Beautiful are
>>>>             objects with high information compression (a large
>>>>             degree of complexity/organization). Thanks to the
>>>>             compression of information, perceiving beauty, we save
>>>>             energy, the perception becomes more economical and
>>>>             pleasant which favours our development and is therefore
>>>>             a value for us. The example is golden division.
>>>>             Counting features (information) in all possible types
>>>>             of divisions (asymmetrical, symmetrical and golden)
>>>>             showed that the golden division contains the most
>>>>             features/information (an additional feature is well
>>>>             known golden proportion) and therefore creates the
>>>>             greatest contrast, complexity and aesthetic value. 
>>>>             (This explains the previously unknown reasons for
>>>>             aesthetic preferences, key to aesthetics, art theory,
>>>>             psychology, cognitive science and neuroaesthetics).
>>>>             **
>>>>             *Development—Beauty *Beauty contributes to development
>>>>             thanks to the economy of perception. Perception of
>>>>             beauty is accompanied by a sense of development or ease
>>>>             and pleasure of perception. (This explains the causes
>>>>             of aesthetic preferences).
>>>>             **
>>>>             *Abstract Value—Beauty, Art *Only beauty and art have
>>>>             no specific value but they express/have value in
>>>>             general (an abstract value). The objects that make up a
>>>>             work of art are not important, but their
>>>>             contrast-interaction, which results from the complexity
>>>>             of the artwork. (If we see a single object in the
>>>>             gallery, then the art is its contrast with the context
>>>>             - as in the case of Duchamp's "Urinal" or Malevich's
>>>>             "Black Square"). One can say that beauty and art are
>>>>             distinguished (defined) by two elements: abstract value
>>>>             and a large contrast.(This is a new and only definition
>>>>             of beauty/art that indicates the distinctive common
>>>>             features of all aesthetic/artistic objects, it is
>>>>             crucial for the theory of art, aesthetics, axiology and
>>>>             epistemology).
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Fis mailing list
>>>     Fis at listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>     ----------
>>>     Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>     Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace:https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>>     Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>     http://listas.unizar.es
>>>     ----------
>>     -- 
>>     -----------------------------------------------------------
>>     Pedro C. Marijuán
>>     Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>>     pedroc.marijuan at gmail.compcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>>     Editor special issue: Evolutionary dynamics of social systems
>>     https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/biosystems/special-issue/107DGX9V85V
>>     -----------------------------------------------------------
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>>     El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo
>>     electrónico en busca de virus.
>>     www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Fis mailing list
>>     Fis at listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>     ----------
>>     Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>     Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace:https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>     Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>>     http://listas.unizar.es
>>     ----------
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace:https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220420/f92b2e55/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Fis mailing list