<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: We have scientists on the arts, but where are the artists on science?
    
      by John Stoehr</title>
      <link>http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/Unscripted/archives/2008/07/29/we-have-scientists-on-the-arts-but-where-are-the-artists-on-science</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/Rss.xml?oid=1140196&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: We have scientists on the arts, but where are the artists on science?
    
      by John Stoehr</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Charleston City Paper. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Charleston City Paper readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Charleston City Paper.</copyright>
      <webMaster>jcurry@charlestoncitypaper.com (Charleston City Paper Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:30:00 -0500</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We have scientists on the arts, but where are the artists on science?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/Unscripted/archives/2008/07/29/we-have-scientists-on-the-arts-but-where-are-the-artists-on-science/#1138313]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/Unscripted/archives/2008/07/29/we-have-scientists-on-the-arts-but-where-are-the-artists-on-science/#1138313]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Ecuiram LeVar]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[But that word "mind" is part of the challenge that anyone wanting to write - or even think - about these matters faces.  That is to say, there is no widely-agreed-upon definition of "mind."  You might want to take a look at Daniel Dennett's book "On Consciousness," as well as both of Antonio Damasio's great books, "Descartes' Error" and "The Feeling of What Happens."
    
    There's a whole raft of books out there by people who come at thinking about this from an artist's perspective -- see the work of Michael Spitzer on Beethoven and Adorno, see Leonard Meyer's 1956 classic (still used as a basic text all over the world) "Emotion and Meaning in Music."
    
    But the problem of consciousness has not been solved, and until it is, there really can be no defintion of mind that holds together across disciplines.
    
    And be careful about stating so surely that artists possess insight into "mind."  Insight they may possess -- into human behavior, and (with far too large a focus) on human emotions.  But - as Damasio points out in "The Feeling of What Happens," feelings are not the same as emotions...we may have each without the other, we may be conscious without having mind....the somatosensory realities underlying everyday life are a little like quantum physics -- the rules seem to change according to the situation..or as the Admirable Crichton said, "circumstances alter cases."
    
    In order for the current situation (the one-way street) to change, our educational system must change, so that the natural curiosity of children about everything is not stunted so early on.  And this means that learning something new for the pleasure of using/exercising/expanding our mind has to have value...and in a bottom-line-oriented society.....well, that's very unlikely ever to return again.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Ecuiram LeVar]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:38:41 -0400</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com">Charleston City Paper</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: We have scientists on the arts, but where are the artists on science?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/Unscripted/archives/2008/07/29/we-have-scientists-on-the-arts-but-where-are-the-artists-on-science/#1159619]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/Unscripted/archives/2008/07/29/we-have-scientists-on-the-arts-but-where-are-the-artists-on-science/#1159619]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Ecuiram LeVar]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[But that word "mind" is part of the challenge that anyone wanting to write - or even think - about these matters faces.  That is to say, there is no widely-agreed-upon definition of "mind."  You might want to take a look at Daniel Dennett's book "On Consciousness," as well as both of Antonio Damasio's great books, "Descartes' Error" and "The Feeling of What Happens."
    
    There's a whole raft of books out there by people who come at thinking about this from an artist's perspective -- see the work of Michael Spitzer on Beethoven and Adorno, see Leonard Meyer's 1956 classic (still used as a basic text all over the world) "Emotion and Meaning in Music."
    
    But the problem of consciousness has not been solved, and until it is, there really can be no defintion of mind that holds together across disciplines.
    
    And be careful about stating so surely that artists possess insight into "mind."  Insight they may possess -- into human behavior, and (with far too large a focus) on human emotions.  But - as Damasio points out in "The Feeling of What Happens," feelings are not the same as emotions...we may have each without the other, we may be conscious without having mind....the somatosensory realities underlying everyday life are a little like quantum physics -- the rules seem to change according to the situation..or as the Admirable Crichton said, "circumstances alter cases."
    
    In order for the current situation (the one-way street) to change, our educational system must change, so that the natural curiosity of children about everything is not stunted so early on.  And this means that learning something new for the pleasure of using/exercising/expanding our mind has to have value...and in a bottom-line-oriented society.....well, that's very unlikely ever to return again.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Ecuiram LeVar]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:38:41 -0400</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com">Charleston City Paper</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




