I tend to think there is a close relationship between aesthetic and ethical values and that the latter are a subset of the former.

Dunno, LJ. I'm not sure I find that to be very intuitive. I'd go in for a thesis more along the lines that the aesthetic and ethical sensibilities have a mutual influence on one another, and that this is one among many reasons why they're not, strictly speaking, autonomous fields of value--but I think any attempt to subordinate one to the other in this way isn't going to be worth the legwork it takes to make the case.

Hartshorne uses the following as a map of aesthetic values:

Dude, help. I'm not at all sure how to read that diagram. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me on it's own. But that's probably just be being dense and undercaffeinated this morning...

Dunno, LJ. I'm not sure I find that to be very intuitive. I'd go in for a thesis more along the lines that the aesthetic and ethical sensibilities have a mutual influence on one another, and that this is one among many reasons why they're not, strictly speaking, autonomous fields of value--but I think any attempt to subordinate one to the other in this way isn't going to be worth the legwork it takes to make the case.

I'm holding close to Whitehead's position, and I think it makes a lot of sense. Whitehead argues in RELIGION and more forcefully in PROCESS AND REALITY that all measure of order is a measure of aesthetic consistency. And so to the degree that any valuation is a description of a certain kind of ordering, it is a measure of aesthetic consistency.

The metaphysical doctrine, here expounded, finds the foundations of the world in the aesthetic experience, rather than as with Kant in the cognitive and conceptive experience. All order is therefore aesthetic order, and the moral order is merely certain aspects of aesthetic order. The actual world is the outcome of the aesthetic order, and the aesthetic order is derived from the immanence of God. (Whithead)

Hartshorne uses the following as a map of aesthetic values:


Dude, help. I'm not at all sure how to read that diagram. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me on it's own. But that's probably just be being dense and undercaffeinated this morning...





According to Hartshorne the most inclusive values are aesthetic. As Aristotle maintained that virtue is a mean between extremes, so Hartshorne says that beauty is a mean between the double extremes of order and disorder and complexity and simplicity. Too much order results in neatness, too little order in ugliness. Too much simplicity yields prettiness, too much complexity yields sublimity. Hartshorne notes that aesthetic sensibilities possess a certain relativity”one must always ask, œToo much or too little for whom? A melody that is profound for a bird may be trivial to a human being. Nevertheless, Hartshorne maintains that every being™s sense of beauty preserves the basic contrasts. Hartshorne advocated a situation aesthetic, or what John Hospers calls œcontextualism. He summarized his aesthetic theory in Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method in a circle diagram that Max Dessoir and Kay Davis helped him develop (Figure 2).


www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/Hartshorne/Viney/13.html

...does that help?

The explanation of the diagram helps quite a bit. Thanks.

Whitehead argues in RELIGION and more forcefully in PROCESS AND REALITY that all measure of order is a measure of aesthetic consistency. And so to the degree that any valuation is a description of a certain kind of ordering, it is a measure of aesthetic consistency.


OK, but if I were going to get on board with that I'd need a clearer conception of 'aesthetic consistency'. That's a term into which a great deal could be packed.

Can you maybe spell out what you (and Whitehead) mean by 'aesthetic consistency' a little bit more? I'd like to get clear on it so I can get a better handle on what you're proposing as to the larger question in this thread.

[blockquote]Sheriff wrote:
I'm holding close to Whitehead's position, and I think it makes a lot of sense. Whitehead argues in RELIGION and more forcefully in PROCESS AND REALITY that all measure of order is a measure of aesthetic consistency. And so to the degree that any valuation is a description of a certain kind of ordering, it is a measure of aesthetic consistency.
[/blockquote]
I'm not sure this applies to all cases. The neat arrangement of flower beds around an estate may be aesthetically pleasing but the neat arrangement of barracks at Auschwitz would be considered ugly (except maybe for the architect) . I do agree with Hartshone's definition of aesthetic quality as falling between the extremes of order and disorder. However, there are many exceptions, e.g., the redundancy of a bright blue sky in a desert and the disordered patterns of an Amazon rain forest.

Some postings consider aesthetics to be a subset of ethics and vice versa. If we imagine a Venn diagram with over lapping circles of aesthetics and ethics, there is an area shared by both. An example of an element in this over lap might be a free music concert for disabled people. Even with this congruence, I'm not sure if there is a cause and effect relationship. The ethical behavior and artistic quality might happen to occur together by accident.

In general, sensory patterns are considered to be more satisfying than noise and chaos. However, when the patterns are too redundant and symmetrical, their value may go from positive to negative. While aesthetic appreciation may dictate a break in symmetry, ethical values demand a consistency and redundancy in behavior. There is no such thing as creative ethics.

[quote1237564254=talking_dog]
The explanation of the diagram helps quite a bit. Thanks.

Whitehead argues in RELIGION and more forcefully in PROCESS AND REALITY that all measure of order is a measure of aesthetic consistency. And so to the degree that any valuation is a description of a certain kind of ordering, it is a measure of aesthetic consistency.


OK, but if I were going to get on board with that I'd need a clearer conception of 'aesthetic consistency'. That's a term into which a great deal could be packed.

Can you maybe spell out what you (and Whitehead) mean by 'aesthetic consistency' a little bit more? I'd like to get clear on it so I can get a better handle on what you're proposing as to the larger question in this thread.



[/quote1237564254]

I really, really want to respond to this properly but just don't have time right now and won't for a couple of days. I will try to respond ASAP.

whenever