In any case, the position Irene adopts is the reductio ad absurdum ot the hyperindividualism to which certain North Americans, market fundamentalists, and disillusioned positivists are prone. They see all opinions as equally valuable, which is plainly not the case in a world where some become the ideas informing the construction of, for example, Chartres Cathedral, while others produce pink wallpaper with sea shells.
I agree that study can add a layer or a multitude of layers of complexity to any object of study, even to pink wallpaper with sea shells. And I agree that complexity makes things more interesting. I agree with Irene that we're taught what's beautiful. Beauty, like everything else in our minds, is a social construct. Well, that's my opinion. And it's my opinion that the more educated you are within any delineation of the cultural spectrum, there is where you'll find your meaning and your goals and your mores and your beauty. How does one go from there to judgments of the value of the ideas (opinions?) that inform one as to beauty. How do I judge them in relation to the ideas that might inform anyone else? Isn't any answer you give just another social constructed value? As with you and RP, I disagree strongly with Irene's contention that because beauty is a social construct, it is therefore meaningless. If that be true, then so is everything meaningless. But perhaps that's not what Irene meant to say.
Mike Geary MemphisThe final scene of Wise Guise is coming soon. Hold onto your seats.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
