are we aiming for the point in the middle or to experience the bits at the extremes in disconnected nuggets? and, in any case, I'm not sure if there isn't a place/space/thing where all of these coincide at their maximum... but then i could be deluded :)
Posted by: Andre Ling at August 1, 2008 8:12 AMUm.. this is a pretty confusing division.. probably a more "postmodern" (or economic) approach to the classical unity.
Personally I'd say that the truth and beauty division is pretty doesn't really hold. I mean beauty is really just another aspect of truth - as in a general "rightness" of things, or as justice, reality.
But then again one often talks about "the ugly truth".. but I think here we can get to the bottom of it: truth is beautiful, but it uncovers (shows) the actual state of affairs (the actual form of something) - which is usually pretty gruesome.
I think what's crucial here is what objects can be placed within this space - goods would fit, art would not. You could make a 3D graph of this with cost as the z axis.. and then map possible product form/function/truth/beauty levels for different price ranges..
Posted by: =8)-DX at August 1, 2008 8:45 AM'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,-that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'
- John Keats
Reminds me of a Star Trek episode entitled "Is There In Truth No Beauty?", a title which probably came from some piece of classic literature which I can't name.
Posted by: Mark Dykeman at August 4, 2008 12:31 PM