Dear Yasminers,
I am glad to see various thoughtful and excellent replies that try to bring
back the topic to what I initially thought it was going to be about, an
objective discussion about how art addresses the supernatural (did I
misunderstand?). I find particularly instructive the postings by Ken
Friedman since they should remind us that it is very easy to succumb to the
persuasiveness of the scientific perspective. I believe that in a sense art
has abdicated its function to show us what science can and cannot do for
us; consider those wonderful paintings by Joseph Wright that often show in
a Janus-like way the way artists of the time could foresee what we now
accept as the default paradigm in the West, that skepticism is to be
applied to beliefs other than scientific ones. It is true, as has been
correctly stated, that nothing makes sense in biology except in the context
of evolution. However, this perspective begins to look questionable in many
other fields that borrow from biology, and especially in humanistic
considerations of our place in the scheme of things, for lack of a better
term.
To express opinions about a larger context such as the one I have thought
this discussion is about, based on a scientific perspective requires
careful consideration of the confirmation bias, something that afflicts us
all. The metaphysical aspects of scientific practice should give us pause
in declaring that, among other things, our contemporary intellectual views
are superior to those held by our predecessors (may we hope that posterity
will be kinder to us, than many of us seem to be about the views held by
folks during medieval times, for example).
Science is essentially a roughly 350 year old perspective on nature, what
other areas of human knowledge have displayed since the 17th century
compared to science is well summarized by Karl Popper's view. Science's
superiority in providing us with many material benefits and insights about
nature, appears to be often confused with a definitive view that betrays
its intrinsically tentative nature. What I see being expressed here by
some commentators are curious examples of ontological scientism, that's all.
As Peter Medawar so admirably expressed (and I paraphrase): There are very
few areas of knowledge in the modern world where scientific evidence is
irrelevant, but there are also very few areas where scientific evidence is
all the evidence you need.
Fernando
Dr. Fernando Espinoza
Associate Professor
Director of Graduate Education Programs
School of Education & Department of Chemistry and Physics
State University of New York-College at Old Westbury
Link to The Nature of Science: https://rowman.com/ISBN/978-1-4422-0953-4
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:21 AM, <
yasmin_discussions-request@estia.media.uoa.gr> wrote:
> Send Yasmin_discussions mailing list submissions to
> yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> yasmin_discussions-request@estia.media.uoa.gr
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> yasmin_discussions-owner@estia.media.uoa.gr
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Yasmin_discussions digest..."
>
>
> THIS IS THE YASMIN-DISCUSSIONS DIGEST
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Fwd: joining voices (Nancy Lowe)
> 2. your yasmin moderator this week (roger malina)
> 3. Re: Why does art-science matter? (Klein, Joseph)
> 4. Re: Why does art-science matter? (Stephen Nowlin)
> 5. Re: Why does art-science matter? (Ken Friedman)
> 6. Fwd: Don't miss the Robotic Church! (roger malina)
> 7. Re: [Yasmin-discussions] The Plight of the Supernatural...
> (Martha Blassnigg)
> 8. Re: The Plight of the Supernatural... (Stephen Nowlin)
> 9. Re: The Plight of the Supernatural... (Klein, Joseph)
> 10. Re: The Plight of the Supernatural... (Stephen Nowlin)
> 11. Instrumentalist Art-Science? (Ken Friedman)
> 12. Re: The Plight of the Supernatural... (Klein, Joseph)
> 13. the example of Loren Eiseley (Glenn Smith)
> 14. Re: Instrumentalist Art-Science? (Stephen Nowlin)
> 15. art-science-spirituality (Mel Alexenberg)
> 16. Re: Instrumentalist Art-Science? (Ken Friedman)
> 17. Re: Instrumentalist Art-Science? (Stephen Nowlin)
> 18. against syncretism ? (roger malina)
> 19. Re: against syncretism ? (Danny Butt)
> 20. supernatural (roger malina)
> 21. Re: supernatural (Stephen Nowlin)
> 22. Achilles and Wolverine: feasts for the dogs and birds.
> (Ken Friedman)
> 23. [Yasmin-discussions] The Plight of the Supernatural... taking
> experience seriously (Martha Blassnigg)
> 24. Fwd: supernatural (Roger Malina)
> 25. Re: Concluding Remarks -- The Plight of the Supernatural
> (Stephen Nowlin)
> 26. Closing statement -- with Thanks to Stephen Nowlin (Ken
> Friedman)
> 27. Re: Closing statement -- with Thanks to Stephen Nowlin
> (Klein, Joseph)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:34:12 -0400
> From: Nancy Lowe <sciencecandance@gmail.com>
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] Fwd: joining voices
> To: yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> Message-ID:
> <CAKzc7HeDwYn7341A35cHzfJy3_zhSDVxeC6=vE_1q6c-xca=
> Cw@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Two quick points in response to your post, Stephen: One, what I'm most
> interested in here is how art-science can pro-actively accelerate the
> "slow-growing seedlings of doubt," the "slow decline of confidence in a
> concept of the supernatural." Two, in response to your comment that
> "metaphorically, pictorial and illusionistic space is to the painted
> object, as imaginary and supernatural space is to science.... The
> collaboration between art and science is a direct descendent of those
> earlier artistic movements and scientific discoveries that faced away from
> the window of illusion and unshackled the notion that what is real is
> vastly more intricate in its emotional abundance, than what is not..."
> Works of art such as those in REALSPACE (as far as I can tell from the
> website), and others that take some real-world phenomenon of physical
> nature and play with it, transpose it, underline it, or as Dissanyake would
> describe, "make special," may be one of the most successful approaches for
> the challenge described above. A few other works that come to mind in this
> category are Natalie Miebach's work translating meteorological and
> oceanographic data into musical compositions or woven basket sculptures,
> Jeff Talman's "Nature of the Night Sky," Ned Kahn's works that translate
> wind into visual patterns using arrays of thin, hinged metal scales, and of
> course the work of the Wertheims and their many collaborators using crochet
> to describe hyperbolic forms.
>
> --
>
> *Nancy Lowe*
>
> *Director, Symbiosis Art + Science Alliance*
>
> *http://symbiosisartscience.org <http://symbiosisartscience.org>*
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:34:51 -0500
> From: roger malina <rmalina@alum.mit.edu>
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] your yasmin moderator this week
> To: yasmin_announcements <yasmin_announcements@estia.media.uoa.gr>,
> YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID:
> <CAPPudSKL015Nt06auoOMXKsZwn_GqjK=
> cj_COXOMtuTJfg4TSw@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Dear Yasminers
>
> I am your moderator this week -from Madrid
> Spain= where i am visiting YASMIN moderator
> Monica Bello= and serving on the VIDA art
> and artificial life competition jury- if you are in
> madrid and have time for coffee - email me !!
>
> Our discussion about the supernatural in art and science
> on the discussion list is going great- we encourage
> all you lurkers to post on this interesting discussion
> that is below the surface of our art-sci-tech community of
> practice !
>
> if you have any trouble with the mechanics of the yasmin
> lists ( sometimes i wonder if the internet is noxious to
> good communication !) contact me
>
> Roger Malina
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:42:02 +0000
> From: "Klein, Joseph" <Joseph.Klein@unt.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] Why does art-science matter?
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <1413916922954.51754@unt.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> Stephen's post from Sunday got me thinking about my frustration at what I
> perceive to be art's ineffectiveness at proselytizing when it comes to
> rejecting (or even questioning) the supernatural. On the contrary, I'm
> afraid that art often reinforces the bankrupt notion of Intelligent Design
> by the mere fact that it involves a creator?this is the false equivalency
> that ID advocates use as "proof" of a divine source for all natural
> phenomena. If I as an artist find beauty in a natural process or an
> elegant mathematical equation, and use this as the source of my artwork, I
> have played right into the hand of the religionist who argues that---like
> God---I have consciously guided these processes to create something
> meaningful. Stephen's most recent post linking pictorial/illusionist space
> in art to imaginary/supernatural space in science is intriguing as well;
> but I wonder how realistic it is to expect a general audience---presumably,
> one that is largely under the sway of supern!
> atural beliefs---to pick up on such esoteric and subtle concepts. For
> these reasons, I am skeptical of art-science's ability to effectively make
> this case, at least on a large scale.
>
> Joe
>
> ???????????????????????????
> Joseph Klein, DMus
> Distinguished Teaching Professor
> Chair, Division of Composition Studies
> University of North Texas College of Music
> 1155 Union Circle #311367
> Denton, TX 76203-5017
> (940)565-4926 (ph); (940)565-2002 (fax)
> Joseph.Klein@unt.edu
> http://www.music.unt.edu/comp/josephklein
>
> ________________________________________
> From: yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr <
> yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr> on behalf of Stephen
> Nowlin <stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 1:51 PM
> To: yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] Why does art-science matter?
>
> Yesterday on National Public Radio I heard talk of an atheist church
> movement called Sunday Assembly ? a gathering to share fellowship in the
> spirit of humanitarian existence, to hep the disadvantaged, to welcome all
> types. It sounded a lot like conventional church, but refreshingly
> sans-supernatural. But what of the social reality that provides such an
> enterprise its uniqueness? What of the immense body of institutions on the
> other side of the equation, that embody and perpetuate the supernatural as
> the guiding force of the cosmos?
>
> In a forum like Yasmin it makes sense to approach the subject under
> discussion from an academic and philosophical prospective, to speak of the
> supernatural in terms of the limits of science and the knowable. In those
> terms the postings have been welcomed, thoughtful and productive. But my
> struggle is that a debate over the limits of science, the theories and
> principles of indeterminacy, etc., will likely never reach the vast swaths
> of population whose existence is defined by a much more prosaic notion of
> the supernatural. For that majority, the supernatural is conceived as
> intervening surreptitiously and constantly, undetected by science and with
> an agenda, in all the minute affairs of the material and immaterial. The
> specifics of that intervention include virtually all causality throughout
> the universe and miraculous daily contradictions with known science, as
> well as the magical micro-management of the intellectual processes and
> emotional sensations of every living one of !
> a particular primate species on planet Earth ? and to that majority, this
> all makes perfect sense. This concept of the supernatural lacks only the
> belief in a geocentric solar system to distinguish it from virtually the
> same majority beliefs of a millennia ago. It is stunning.
>
> Science is not very good at proselytizing ? and can be forgiven, since
> that?s not its bailiwick. In fact science is really very bad at it, and
> perhaps shudders some at its insiders who have broken through ? the Sam
> Harris?s and Richard Dawkin?s. But proselytizing, in its laundered,
> metaphorical way, IS the bailiwick of art. And now art, in a rather
> remarkable spontaneous combustion over the last several years, has gone
> public in its partnership with science.
>
> There was a time, not too long ago really, when art had a much
> cozier-than-now relationship with religion, and it was through art that the
> supernatural was provided a convincing appearance ? a veracity in pictorial
> space that bled into real space and persuaded generation after generation
> that the cosmos was indeed administered by magic. Now art pairs with
> science, and so other than the novelty of these two seemingly disparate
> domains coming together, and the production of pretty lab pictures, I
> wonder what art-science can do that is original in order to, as it were,
> atone for its history of helping spread the meme of a universe saturated in
> the supernatural? What can art-science do to more proactively include in
> its inventory of critical meanings the awareness of a reality that is both
> sublime and non-supernatural, that will reach that massive audience in a
> way that science, by itself, cannot? In a hundred-fifty year lineage of
> moments when art has mattered paradigmatically,!
> why or how will art-science matter?
>
> /stephen
>
>
>
>
> Stephen Nowlin
> Vice President
> Director, Alyce de Roulet Williamson Gallery
> Art Center College of Design
> 1700 Lida Street
> Pasadena, CA 91103
> http://williamsongallery.net/google
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
>
> SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the
> page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and
> password in the fields found further down the page.
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter
> your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on
> the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest
> Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
> If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to
> http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:04:01 -0700
> From: Stephen Nowlin <stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] Why does art-science matter?
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID:
> <
> B5FE072E6FEA1A48B04CEBCBF71CC2934C7874B18A@LI-EXCMS01.Artcenter.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
>
> Thoughtful point, Joe. Quick, rambling response, here . . .
>
> Regarding reaching general audiences, I guess, well, it takes a village --
> i.e., Jackson Pollock needed the help he got from Harold Rosenberg and
> Clement Greenberg. And Pollock's in-your-face radicalism didn't hurt
> either. Art itself has only a fleeting hold on the meanings an artist
> intends -- those meanings don't get forged into broad cultural existence
> until taken up and expanded upon by others. And it doesn't happen
> overnight. In my experience curating a couple decades of art-science
> exhibitions, I've found it a major challenge to get critics and writers to
> take the genre (if it's that) seriously. Mostly, when they do write about
> it, they target its novelty -- the pairing of strange bedfellows, these two
> domains from stereotypically opposite ends of a spectrum. That's about as
> deep as it goes -- the reviews are happy, upbeat, sometimes informative,
> surface-scratching. I think -- embedded within the art-science enterprise
> is a pretty radical idea, still: the supernatural!
> is unnecessary to the enterprise of a meaningful existence. But if you
> want art to spread meaning, you can't rely on art to do the spreading. It's
> a problem for art-science -- despite burgeoning participation among artists
> and academics, for the public it doesn't really exist -- or if it does, it
> doesn't yet challenge or offend them, doesn't have an edge. It's still too
> pretty . . .
>
> /stephen
> ________________________________________
> From: yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr [
> yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr] On Behalf Of Klein, Joseph
> [Joseph.Klein@unt.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:42 AM
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] Why does art-science matter?
>
> Stephen's post from Sunday got me thinking about my frustration at what I
> perceive to be art's ineffectiveness at proselytizing when it comes to
> rejecting (or even questioning) the supernatural. On the contrary, I'm
> afraid that art often reinforces the bankrupt notion of Intelligent Design
> by the mere fact that it involves a creator?this is the false equivalency
> that ID advocates use as "proof" of a divine source for all natural
> phenomena. If I as an artist find beauty in a natural process or an
> elegant mathematical equation, and use this as the source of my artwork, I
> have played right into the hand of the religionist who argues that---like
> God---I have consciously guided these processes to create something
> meaningful. Stephen's most recent post linking pictorial/illusionist space
> in art to imaginary/supernatural space in science is intriguing as well;
> but I wonder how realistic it is to expect a general audience---presumably,
> one that is largely under the sway of supern!
> atural beliefs---to pick up on such esoteric and subtle concepts. For
> these reasons, I am skeptical of art-science's ability to effectively make
> this case, at least on a large scale.
>
> Joe
>
> ???????????????????????????
> Joseph Klein, DMus
> Distinguished Teaching Professor
> Chair, Division of Composition Studies
> University of North Texas College of Music
> 1155 Union Circle #311367
> Denton, TX 76203-5017
> (940)565-4926 (ph); (940)565-2002 (fax)
> Joseph.Klein@unt.edu
> http://www.music.unt.edu/comp/josephklein
>
> ________________________________________
> From: yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr <
> yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr> on behalf of Stephen
> Nowlin <stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 1:51 PM
> To: yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] Why does art-science matter?
>
> Yesterday on National Public Radio I heard talk of an atheist church
> movement called Sunday Assembly ? a gathering to share fellowship in the
> spirit of humanitarian existence, to hep the disadvantaged, to welcome all
> types. It sounded a lot like conventional church, but refreshingly
> sans-supernatural. But what of the social reality that provides such an
> enterprise its uniqueness? What of the immense body of institutions on the
> other side of the equation, that embody and perpetuate the supernatural as
> the guiding force of the cosmos?
>
> In a forum like Yasmin it makes sense to approach the subject under
> discussion from an academic and philosophical prospective, to speak of the
> supernatural in terms of the limits of science and the knowable. In those
> terms the postings have been welcomed, thoughtful and productive. But my
> struggle is that a debate over the limits of science, the theories and
> principles of indeterminacy, etc., will likely never reach the vast swaths
> of population whose existence is defined by a much more prosaic notion of
> the supernatural. For that majority, the supernatural is conceived as
> intervening surreptitiously and constantly, undetected by science and with
> an agenda, in all the minute affairs of the material and immaterial. The
> specifics of that intervention include virtually all causality throughout
> the universe and miraculous daily contradictions with known science, as
> well as the magical micro-management of the intellectual processes and
> emotional sensations of every living one of !
> a particular primate species on planet Earth ? and to that majority, this
> all makes perfect sense. This concept of the supernatural lacks only the
> belief in a geocentric solar system to distinguish it from virtually the
> same majority beliefs of a millennia ago. It is stunning.
>
> Science is not very good at proselytizing ? and can be forgiven, since
> that?s not its bailiwick. In fact science is really very bad at it, and
> perhaps shudders some at its insiders who have broken through ? the Sam
> Harris?s and Richard Dawkin?s. But proselytizing, in its laundered,
> metaphorical way, IS the bailiwick of art. And now art, in a rather
> remarkable spontaneous combustion over the last several years, has gone
> public in its partnership with science.
>
> There was a time, not too long ago really, when art had a much
> cozier-than-now relationship with religion, and it was through art that the
> supernatural was provided a convincing appearance ? a veracity in pictorial
> space that bled into real space and persuaded generation after generation
> that the cosmos was indeed administered by magic. Now art pairs with
> science, and so other than the novelty of these two seemingly disparate
> domains coming together, and the production of pretty lab pictures, I
> wonder what art-science can do that is original in order to, as it were,
> atone for its history of helping spread the meme of a universe saturated in
> the supernatural? What can art-science do to more proactively include in
> its inventory of critical meanings the awareness of a reality that is both
> sublime and non-supernatural, that will reach that massive audience in a
> way that science, by itself, cannot? In a hundred-fifty year lineage of
> moments when art has mattered paradigmatically,!
> why or how will art-science matter?
>
> /stephen
>
>
>
>
> Stephen Nowlin
> Vice President
> Director, Alyce de Roulet Williamson Gallery
> Art Center College of Design
> 1700 Lida Street
> Pasadena, CA 91103
> http://williamsongallery.net/google
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
>
> SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the
> page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and
> password in the fields found further down the page.
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter
> your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on
> the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest
> Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
> If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to
> http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
>
> SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the
> page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and
> password in the fields found further down the page.
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter
> your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on
> the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest
> Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
> If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to
> http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:50:20 +0800
> From: Ken Friedman <ken.friedman.sheji@icloud.com>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] Why does art-science matter?
> To: Yasmin Yasmin <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <9ACDBB79-04D3-4C23-B86D-809C3A45ED60@icloud.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Dear Stephen,
>
> The problem is that few critics know anything about the history of
> science, little about the deep history of art, and nothing about the
> sociology of knowledge in its historical frame. As a result, they are not
> aware that art and science have been on close terms at many times in
> history, though not at all times.
>
> Your point is well taken about Pollock, Greenberg, and Rosenberg. There is
> even more to that ? it suited the United States government to promote
> abstract expressionism as part of the cultural initiatives of the early
> post-war era. America massive budgetary resources available for any purpose
> that would project global leadership. This is the kind of thing that would
> today be called ?soft power.? If you read Greenberg?s prose of the time, he
> was essentially claiming that New York had replaced Paris as the global
> centre for advanced art. While we couldn?t directly disrespect our French
> allies, we could claim to surpass them, and this was one way to do it while
> pleasing the British at the same time.
>
> It?s an historical footnote, but Churchill?s quip about Charles de Gaulle
> said it all: ?Of all the crosses I must bear, the Cross Lorraine is the
> hardest.? France gets on with Germany in the way that only former enemies
> can, but it has been said that the descendants of Napoleon never forgave
> the Yanks or the Brits for helping them to emerge as the victors of two
> wars. In this context, Greenberg?s essays on French art and the School of
> Paris irked the French while pleasing those who wished to demonstrate that
> the United States was the new global superpower. As contrasted, of course,
> with a superpower whose name will not be mentioned here, but whose artists
> had neither a Clement Greenberg to sing their praises nor the funding for
> global exhibitions.
>
> Alas, it suits no one to sing the praises of art-science. For that matter,
> relatively few people even care about the history of science ? the point of
> science is that it builds on its own foundations by progressive
> improvements that render the past obsolete. The 18th century origins of
> computation theory or the principles of Newtonian optics interest
> relatively few. So it is with the rich history of the relations between art
> and science. But nano-technology and genetic therapy have a practical value
> that keeps them in the news, while we do relatively little with cash value
> in a world that values art that does well at auction.
>
> In an art world driven by the wealthy collectors who also serve as museum
> patrons and the art dealers who supply their goods, the possibility that
> art-science matters for the right reasons is almost a guarantee that art
> critics will not take us seriously.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | ?? She Ji. The
> Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in
> Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
>
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
> Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University
> Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne
> University of Technology
>
>
> On 2014Oct22, at 07:04, Stephen Nowlin <stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Thoughtful point, Joe. Quick, rambling response, here . . .
> >
> > Regarding reaching general audiences, I guess, well, it takes a village
> -- i.e., Jackson Pollock needed the help he got from Harold Rosenberg and
> Clement Greenberg. And Pollock's in-your-face radicalism didn't hurt
> either. Art itself has only a fleeting hold on the meanings an artist
> intends -- those meanings don't get forged into broad cultural existence
> until taken up and expanded upon by others. And it doesn't happen
> overnight. In my experience curating a couple decades of art-science
> exhibitions, I've found it a major challenge to get critics and writers to
> take the genre (if it's that) seriously. Mostly, when they do write about
> it, they target its novelty -- the pairing of strange bedfellows, these two
> domains from stereotypically opposite ends of a spectrum. That's about as
> deep as it goes -- the reviews are happy, upbeat, sometimes informative,
> surface-scratching. I think -- embedded within the art-science enterprise
> is a pretty radical idea, still: the supernatur!
> al is unnecessary to the enterprise of a meaningful existence. But if you
> want art to spread meaning, you can't rely on art to do the spreading. It's
> a problem for art-science -- despite burgeoning participation among artists
> and academics, for the public it doesn't really exist -- or if it does, it
> doesn't yet challenge or offend them, doesn't have an edge. It's still too
> pretty . . .
> >
> > /stephen
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:48:31 -0500
> From: roger malina <rmalina@alum.mit.edu>
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] Fwd: Don't miss the Robotic Church!
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAPPudSK8MO2bm7JNh4gO3UQdhzTnsf2OLUGf+knHF4sLEM7xPg@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> yasminers
> well chico's macmurthries borrows on church paraphenalia
> as well as the donation box
>
> roger
>
>
> The Robotic Church is a site-specific installation and performance
> series created by Chico MacMurtrie and Amorphic Robot Works. During
> this 45-minute performance featuring 42 pneumatic and motorized
> automata, MacMurtrie transforms the former Norwegian Seaman's Church
> into a potent allegory about the human condition, evolution and
> nature.
>
> Ranging in size from 12 inches to 15 feet, these robotic performers
> surprise audiences with their percussive sounds and gestures, evoking
> the origin of communication through rhythm.
>
> Although responding to both pre-programed and live computer sequences,
> MacMurtrie's robots are anthropopathic and organic in nature. With
> several new additions from last season, their unique expression
> promises to create a visually and acoustically immersive and
> viscerally uplifting experience.
>
>
>
>
>
> The Robotic Church
>
> a site-specific installation and performance
>
> presented by
>
>
>
> Chico MacMurtrie / Amorphic Robot Works
> in association with FuturePerfect Productions
> from October 4th to November 2nd
>
> __________________________________
>
>
>
> LAST PERFORMANCES:
>
>
>
> Saturday: Oct. 25 & Nov 1 at 3:30 PM and 6:00 PM
>
> Sunday: Oct. 26 & Nov 2 at 3:30 PM and 6:00 PM
>
>
>
> Running time approx. 45 min. Space is limited!
>
> Requested Donation: Adults $15, Students $12
>
> Click here to make a reservation
>
> __________________________________
>
>
> VENUE
>
>
>
> Amorphic Robot Works studio
>
> 111 Pioneer Street
>
> Brooklyn, NY 11231 (Red Hook)
>
> Click here for MAP
>
>
>
>
>
> Robotic Church. ? Chico MacMurtrie / ARW. Photo: courtesy of Eve Sussman
>
> "MacMurtrie's site-specific sculptures embrace technology and
> robotics, and surprise audiences with wholly unusual aesthetic
> interventions."
>
> - The Creators Project | click here to read article
>
>
>
> "A cacophony of drumming, thumping, chiming, metallic thuds and atonal
> string notes, accompanied by the hisses of the pneumatic rams that
> operate many of the robots' body parts, creating the show's complex
> sonic texture."
>
> - New York Times | click here to read article
>
>
>
> Follow this link to watch Artinfo's video feature of
> The Robotic Church
>
>
>
>
> Robotic Church. ? Chico MacMurtrie / ARW. Photo: courtesy of Ed Newman
>
> The Robotic Church is a site-specific installation and performance
> series created by Chico MacMurtrie and Amorphic Robot Works. During
> this 45-minute performance featuring 42 pneumatic and motorized
> automata, MacMurtrie transforms the former Norwegian Seaman's Church
> into a potent allegory about the human condition, evolution and
> nature.
>
> Ranging in size from 12 inches to 15 feet, these robotic performers
> surprise audiences with their percussive sounds and gestures, evoking
> the origin of communication through rhythm.
>
> Although responding to both pre-programed and live computer sequences,
> MacMurtrie's robots are anthropopathic and organic in nature. With
> several new additions from last season, their unique expression
> promises to create a visually and acoustically immersive and
> viscerally uplifting experience.
>
>
> Robotic Church. ? Chico MacMurtrie / ARW. Photo: courtesy of Robert Wright
>
>
>
>
> The Robotic Church relies only upon its own resources and your
> donations. Our requested donation of $15.00 or more per attendee
> covers less than one-third of the cost of the performances that we
> offer. Your generous support helps to make up the rest. Please support
> The Robotic Church and help us to continue presenting this unique
> performance series to New York audiences.
>
> Thank you in advance for your patronage of The Robotic Church!
>
>
>
>
> About Chico MacMurtrie / ARW
>
> Chico MacMurtrie is the Artistic Director of Amorphic Robot Works
> (ARW), a collective he founded in 1991, consisting of artists,
> technicians and engineers. ARW is dedicated to the study and creation
> of movement as it is expressed in anthropomorphic and abstract robotic
> forms.
>
> MacMurtrie's robotic sculptures have been exhibited in major museums
> and institutions worldwide, including: Museo de la Reina Sofia, Madrid
> (2008), NAMOC, Beijing (2008), MUAC, Mexico City (2009), Beall Center
> for Art and Technology, Irvine, CA (2011), 9th Shanghai Biennial
> (2012), Pioneer Works, New York (2013/2014), SESC SP, Sao Paulo,
> Brazil (2014), The New Media Triennial, NAMOC, Beijing (2014), Cit?
> des Sciences, Paris (2014-2015).
>
> www.amorphicrobotworks.org
>
>
>
>
> About FuturePerfect Productions
>
> FuturePerfect is a New York-based interdisciplinary production company
> focused on the intersection of live performance, media, visual art and
> technology. Wayne Ashley, the former Director of Arts in Multimedia at
> Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM), founded the company in 2008.
> FuturePerfect develops works through close and often long-term
> relationships with some of today's most interesting artists,
> scientists, researchers and organizations. Through ongoing
> collaborations FuturePerfect generates and supports new directions in
> performance and visual culture through commissions, touring,
> consulting, residencies, presentations, and conferences.
>
> www.futureperfectproductions.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 22:46:59 +0100
> From: Martha Blassnigg <martha.blassnigg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] [Yasmin-discussions] The Plight of
> the Supernatural...
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID:
> <CAAYJ-SWhVa+CbbOkWTqHbtM2Q8btn1uHo=
> D-qWGP01Ngjfuy5Q@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Dear list,
>
>
>
> The posts so far have been thought-provoking in various directions;
>
>
>
> Aprille and Ken have among other issues both pointed to the political
> instrumentalisation of the so-called ?supernatural? domain, in various
> sectors, science, religion and state...
>
>
>
> In reflection of the discussion around current art-science engagements;
>
> Is it again being instrumentalised, and if so what is the agenda behind it?
>
>
>
> Martha
>
>
>
> Dr. Martha Blassnigg
>
> Reader in the Anthropology of Media | Co-Convenor, Transtechnology Research
> | Editor, *Transtechnology Research Open Access Papers* | Associate
> Editor, *Leonardo Reviews* and *L|R|Q* * Plymouth University, United
> Kingdom
>
> http://www.trans-techresearch.net || http://trans-techresearch.net/papers
>
> ||http://www.leonardo.info/ldrinfo.html || http://www.cognovo.eu/
>
>
>
>
>
> I have been invited to provide a brief background:
>
>
>
> My background is in Cultural Anthropology, Philosophy and Film and Cinema
> Studies (Universities of Vienna, Cologne and Amsterdam). I completed a Ph.D
> at the University of Wales revisiting the so-called spiritual dimension of
> the early cinema experience by shifting the attention to the contemporary
> debates around time, memory and consciousness at the interface of science,
> art and technology. My research interest lies in philosophical and
> historical inquiries into the metaphysical dimensions of technology and art
> in relation to the processes of human cognition. In this I focus on the
> perceptual experiences and affordances of media in both historical and
> contemporary contexts. Recent publications include the anthology *Light
> Image Imagination* (Amsterdam University Press, 2013), the monograph *Time,
> Memory, Consciousness and the Cinema Experience: Revisiting Ideas on Matter
> and Spirit* (Rodopi, 2009). Other outcomes of research have been published
> in *Convergence*, *Leonardo*,* Medicine Studies*, *REAL Yearbook of
> Research in English and American Literature* and in the anthology *Screen
> Consciousness: Cinema, Mind and World*, edited by R. Pepperell and M. Punt
> (Rodopi, 2006). Previously I have undertaken anthropological research into
> accounts and artistic expressions of experiences of angelic presences and
> compared processes of conscious mediation between technologically enhanced
> perception and multi-sensorial engagements of mediumship. A full list of
> publications and CV can be found at http://trans-techresearch.net/.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:33:56 -0700
> From: Stephen Nowlin <stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] The Plight of the Supernatural...
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <D06ED782.99B7C%stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
>
> Hi, Martha -- Let's stipulate that broadly speaking, art-science comes in
> different forms: design-science, data visualization, product innovation,
> ecology/sustainability movement, media experimentation, makers, fine art
> -- and more.
>
> My personal perspective is the fine art art-science. And from that
> perspective, it occurs to me in thinking over your excellent question that
> perhaps after one has looked at, listened to, read, or otherwise
> experienced a form of art, there's not too much else to do with it other
> than to instrumentalize, interpret, critique, and conscript it to serve
> the interests of a particular ontology -- to bend it to one argument or
> another. In my case it may be an agenda (I don't know) -- but in the wake
> of describing the phenomenology of a fine art art-science experience, I do
> find myself wanting to confer a deeper level of meaning to it than simply
> the pairing of two stereotypically unlike domains (novelty) or just
> describing the attractiveness of a visual sensation. I want that sensation
> to also say that the world is more lovely precisely because it wasn't
> meant to be lovely at all. We are the lucky finders of beauty where it
> wasn't meant to be. Not through grand intention, but because our evolved
> biology allows us such emotions and their concomitant sensation of
> transcendence. I want it to say that every human in history who thought or
> thinks that sensation was an act of God or a work of magic superseding the
> natural world, has been wrong. I want it to say that if we could rid
> ourselves of that pernicious magic meme, we'd be much better off and the
> errant directions in which it has sent human logic careening for millennia
> might be rectified. I guess maybe that IS an agenda!
>
> I'd be ok with the notion that art-science is being instrumentalized in
> the service of an atheist agenda. It would certainly give the enterprise
> some needed controversy! Not as a phony marketing gimmick, though -- the
> fact is, that in art-science, art has paired with a domain that rejects
> the concept of the supernatural, at the same time that most of the world's
> population still embraces it. This tension is a legitimate body of content
> to be identified with art-science. The concept of a non-supernatural
> cosmos is much broader than atheism, and fertile for an expanded
> discourse. I think we, who play on the art-science playground, should
> recognize and encourage it.
>
> /stephen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/23/14 2:46 PM, "Martha Blassnigg" <martha.blassnigg@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Dear list,
> >
> >
> >
> >The posts so far have been thought-provoking in various directions;
> >
> >
> >
> >Aprille and Ken have among other issues both pointed to the political
> >instrumentalisation of the so-called ?supernatural? domain, in various
> >sectors, science, religion and state...
> >
> >
> >
> >In reflection of the discussion around current art-science engagements;
> >
> >Is it again being instrumentalised, and if so what is the agenda behind
> >it?
> >
> >
> >
> >Martha
> >
> >
> >
> >Dr. Martha Blassnigg
> >
> >Reader in the Anthropology of Media | Co-Convenor, Transtechnology
> >Research
> >| Editor, *Transtechnology Research Open Access Papers* | Associate
> >Editor, *Leonardo Reviews* and *L|R|Q* * Plymouth University, United
> >Kingdom
> >
> >http://www.trans-techresearch.net || http://trans-techresearch.net/papers
> >
> >||http://www.leonardo.info/ldrinfo.html || http://www.cognovo.eu/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >I have been invited to provide a brief background:
> >
> >
> >
> >My background is in Cultural Anthropology, Philosophy and Film and Cinema
> >Studies (Universities of Vienna, Cologne and Amsterdam). I completed a
> >Ph.D
> >at the University of Wales revisiting the so-called spiritual dimension of
> >the early cinema experience by shifting the attention to the contemporary
> >debates around time, memory and consciousness at the interface of science,
> >art and technology. My research interest lies in philosophical and
> >historical inquiries into the metaphysical dimensions of technology and
> >art
> >in relation to the processes of human cognition. In this I focus on the
> >perceptual experiences and affordances of media in both historical and
> >contemporary contexts. Recent publications include the anthology *Light
> >Image Imagination* (Amsterdam University Press, 2013), the monograph
> >*Time,
> >Memory, Consciousness and the Cinema Experience: Revisiting Ideas on
> >Matter
> >and Spirit* (Rodopi, 2009). Other outcomes of research have been published
> >in *Convergence*, *Leonardo*,* Medicine Studies*, *REAL Yearbook of
> >Research in English and American Literature* and in the anthology *Screen
> >Consciousness: Cinema, Mind and World*, edited by R. Pepperell and M. Punt
> >(Rodopi, 2006). Previously I have undertaken anthropological research into
> >accounts and artistic expressions of experiences of angelic presences and
> >compared processes of conscious mediation between technologically enhanced
> >perception and multi-sensorial engagements of mediumship. A full list of
> >publications and CV can be found at http://trans-techresearch.net/.
> >_______________________________________________
> >Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> >Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> >http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> >
> >Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
> >
> > SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the
> >page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and
> >password in the fields found further down the page.
> >HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter
> >your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on
> >the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> >TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set
> >Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
> >If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to
> >http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 22:25:13 +0000
> From: "Klein, Joseph" <Joseph.Klein@unt.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] The Plight of the Supernatural...
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <1414189510024.7686@unt.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> "I'd be ok with the notion that art-science is being instrumentalized in
> the service of an atheist agenda.... the fact is, that in art-science, art
> has paired with a domain that rejects the concept of the supernatural, at
> the same time that most of the world's population still embraces it.... The
> concept of a non-supernatural cosmos is much broader than atheism, and
> fertile for an expanded discourse. I think we, who play on the art-science
> playground, should recognize and encourage it."
>
>
> Sign me up, Stephen!
>
> This idea of an atheist aesthetic is of particular interest to me right
> now, in that my most recent musical composition, An Unaware Cosmos, is an
> homage of sorts to various writers, philosophers, scientists, and political
> figures throughout history who have questioned or rejected the
> supernatural---and as a result, often suffering dire consequences at the
> hands of the religious authorities of their respective eras. My approach
> has been largely a reaction to the pervasive influence of religion on many
> contemporary composers---e.g., Olivier Messiaen, Krzysztof Penderecki, John
> Tavener, Arvo P?rt, to name just a few of the more prominent composers of
> religious music from the past half century---and a search for sources of
> inspiration based in objective reality rather than in mythology
> masquerading as reality. Like Stephen, I find the inherent beauty of
> nature all the more awe-inspiring in that it is completely
> unintentional---how much more interesting to realize that our ver!
> y existence is the result of a series of coincidences and "happy
> accidents" over billions of years; and how banal the whole experience
> becomes when we attribute everything we know to some magical being who
> created it all just for us. That might have been a comforting thought for
> less advanced cultures from earlier in our species' history, but it seems
> quite unsatisfying---and more than a little ridiculous---in the present
> day. For this reason, I am exploring ways to address these concerns
> through my own creative work, and find the idea of a community of
> like-minded artists---inspired by the science side of the art-science
> paradigm---to be an encouraging and invigorating prospect.
>
> (But we have our work cut out for us.)
>
> Joe
>
>
> ???????????????????????????
> Joseph Klein, DMus
> Distinguished Teaching Professor
> Chair, Division of Composition Studies
> University of North Texas College of Music
> 1155 Union Circle #311367
> Denton, TX 76203-5017
> (940)565-4926 (ph); (940)565-2002 (fax)
> Joseph.Klein@unt.edu
> http://www.music.unt.edu/comp/josephklein
>
> ________________________________________
> From: yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr <
> yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr> on behalf of Stephen
> Nowlin <stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 7:33 PM
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] The Plight of the Supernatural...
>
> Hi, Martha -- Let's stipulate that broadly speaking, art-science comes in
> different forms: design-science, data visualization, product innovation,
> ecology/sustainability movement, media experimentation, makers, fine art
> -- and more.
>
> My personal perspective is the fine art art-science. And from that
> perspective, it occurs to me in thinking over your excellent question that
> perhaps after one has looked at, listened to, read, or otherwise
> experienced a form of art, there's not too much else to do with it other
> than to instrumentalize, interpret, critique, and conscript it to serve
> the interests of a particular ontology -- to bend it to one argument or
> another. In my case it may be an agenda (I don't know) -- but in the wake
> of describing the phenomenology of a fine art art-science experience, I do
> find myself wanting to confer a deeper level of meaning to it than simply
> the pairing of two stereotypically unlike domains (novelty) or just
> describing the attractiveness of a visual sensation. I want that sensation
> to also say that the world is more lovely precisely because it wasn't
> meant to be lovely at all. We are the lucky finders of beauty where it
> wasn't meant to be. Not through grand intention, but because our evolved
> biology allows us such emotions and their concomitant sensation of
> transcendence. I want it to say that every human in history who thought or
> thinks that sensation was an act of God or a work of magic superseding the
> natural world, has been wrong. I want it to say that if we could rid
> ourselves of that pernicious magic meme, we'd be much better off and the
> errant directions in which it has sent human logic careening for millennia
> might be rectified. I guess maybe that IS an agenda!
>
> I'd be ok with the notion that art-science is being instrumentalized in
> the service of an atheist agenda. It would certainly give the enterprise
> some needed controversy! Not as a phony marketing gimmick, though -- the
> fact is, that in art-science, art has paired with a domain that rejects
> the concept of the supernatural, at the same time that most of the world's
> population still embraces it. This tension is a legitimate body of content
> to be identified with art-science. The concept of a non-supernatural
> cosmos is much broader than atheism, and fertile for an expanded
> discourse. I think we, who play on the art-science playground, should
> recognize and encourage it.
>
> /stephen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/23/14 2:46 PM, "Martha Blassnigg" <martha.blassnigg@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Dear list,
> >
> >
> >
> >The posts so far have been thought-provoking in various directions;
> >
> >
> >
> >Aprille and Ken have among other issues both pointed to the political
> >instrumentalisation of the so-called ?supernatural? domain, in various
> >sectors, science, religion and state...
> >
> >
> >
> >In reflection of the discussion around current art-science engagements;
> >
> >Is it again being instrumentalised, and if so what is the agenda behind
> >it?
> >
> >
> >
> >Martha
> >
> >
> >
> >Dr. Martha Blassnigg
> >
> >Reader in the Anthropology of Media | Co-Convenor, Transtechnology
> >Research
> >| Editor, *Transtechnology Research Open Access Papers* | Associate
> >Editor, *Leonardo Reviews* and *L|R|Q* * Plymouth University, United
> >Kingdom
> >
> >http://www.trans-techresearch.net || http://trans-techresearch.net/papers
> >
> >||http://www.leonardo.info/ldrinfo.html || http://www.cognovo.eu/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >I have been invited to provide a brief background:
> >
> >
> >
> >My background is in Cultural Anthropology, Philosophy and Film and Cinema
> >Studies (Universities of Vienna, Cologne and Amsterdam). I completed a
> >Ph.D
> >at the University of Wales revisiting the so-called spiritual dimension of
> >the early cinema experience by shifting the attention to the contemporary
> >debates around time, memory and consciousness at the interface of science,
> >art and technology. My research interest lies in philosophical and
> >historical inquiries into the metaphysical dimensions of technology and
> >art
> >in relation to the processes of human cognition. In this I focus on the
> >perceptual experiences and affordances of media in both historical and
> >contemporary contexts. Recent publications include the anthology *Light
> >Image Imagination* (Amsterdam University Press, 2013), the monograph
> >*Time,
> >Memory, Consciousness and the Cinema Experience: Revisiting Ideas on
> >Matter
> >and Spirit* (Rodopi, 2009). Other outcomes of research have been published
> >in *Convergence*, *Leonardo*,* Medicine Studies*, *REAL Yearbook of
> >Research in English and American Literature* and in the anthology *Screen
> >Consciousness: Cinema, Mind and World*, edited by R. Pepperell and M. Punt
> >(Rodopi, 2006). Previously I have undertaken anthropological research into
> >accounts and artistic expressions of experiences of angelic presences and
> >compared processes of conscious mediation between technologically enhanced
> >perception and multi-sensorial engagements of mediumship. A full list of
> >publications and CV can be found at http://trans-techresearch.net/.
> >_______________________________________________
> >Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> >Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> >http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> >
> >Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
> >
> > SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the
> >page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and
> >password in the fields found further down the page.
> >HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter
> >your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on
> >the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> >TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set
> >Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
> >If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to
> >http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
>
> SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the
> page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and
> password in the fields found further down the page.
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter
> your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on
> the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest
> Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
> If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to
> http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:45:54 -0700
> From: Stephen Nowlin <stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] The Plight of the Supernatural...
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID:
> <
> B5FE072E6FEA1A48B04CEBCBF71CC2934C7874B1A4@LI-EXCMS01.Artcenter.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> "This idea of an atheist aesthetic is of particular interest to me right
> now, in that my most recent musical composition, An Unaware Cosmos, is an
> homage of sorts to various writers, philosophers, scientists, and political
> figures throughout history who have questioned or rejected the supernatural
> . . ."
>
>
> "An Unaware Cosmos" -- such a wonderful title, Joe. If you haven't
> already, put in a few bars for Jean Meslier ( http://bit.ly/1xllC8J ),
> whose "Testament" was published in English for the first time in 2009. A
> truly remarkable 17th century French priest . . .
>
> /stephen
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:03:36 +0800
> From: Ken Friedman <ken.friedman.sheji@icloud.com>
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] Instrumentalist Art-Science?
> To: Yasmin Yasmin <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <91873791-C584-4C4E-97A6-9EC6D9E371B3@icloud.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Dear Stephen and Joe,
>
> Your comment on atheism ([1], [2], copied below) contain many assumptions.
> These assumptions may be right but they may not. Even so, the assumptions
> on which the arguments rest have not been made explicit. The arguments you
> present against religion and favouring atheism are statements of personal
> belief.
>
> Natural phenomena require natural explanation. The supernatural cannot
> explain natural phenomena.
>
> This is a fundamental principle of natural science.
>
> This principle is neither an argument for religion nor against religion.
> Neither do religions make the same kinds of arguments about God, and the
> fundamental principles of science offer no argument for atheism or against
> it.
>
> As with lively dinner conversations and faculty lounge conversations, the
> conversation on art-science and the supernatural seems to have moved off in
> several directions. One of these is the call for art-science to advance the
> cause of atheism! To me, this sounds like ? well, like a crusade, or at
> least a revival meeting.
>
> Why should art-science serve as the instrument of any belief or cause?
>
> Science is not instrumental. We instrumentalise science in technology. By
> this, I mean technology in its largest sense ? ways of doing things
> (techne) with what we know. Science itself involves expanding the range,
> depth, and quality of what we know.
>
> Several fields clustered around science do not themselves contribute
> scientific findings, but help us to understand the scientific enterprise
> better, and ? possibly ? to do better science. These include philosophy of
> science, philosophy of knowledge, history of science, sociology of
> knowledge, and perhaps some areas of philosophy. Other fields clustered
> around science interpret science to the larger society or the general
> public, such as science journalism, science communication, and science
> education (but not education in the specific scientific disciplines). Still
> other fields help societies and nation to use science in some way, such as
> science policy.
>
> In developing this response, I find myself wondering what kind of field
> art-science is. It is likely that some areas of art-science such as data
> visualisation serve science and ? in some cases ? help scientists to do
> better science. Other forms of art-science comment on science or help the
> public to better understand science. I am finding it difficult to
> understand what sort of role an instrumentalist art-science would fill ?
> what would it instrumentalise? What would it do? And what, especially,
> would it do if its role were to be that of serving the cause of atheism?
>
> Would it celebrate the work of great atheists? Could we expect to see an
> art-science sonata dedicated to Richard Dawkins in the way that a
> 17th-century kappelmeister might dedicate an oratorio to the Prince
> Archbishop of Mainz? Of course, a kappelmeister had a job. The patronage of
> the church instrumentalised some music but not all music.
>
> The same is true of visual art. Much of Michelangelo?s work was
> instrumentalist, but not much of Picasso?s was. Much of Le Corbusier?s best
> work was instrumentalised for religion ? but the fact remains that most of
> the instrumentalist work of great artists, composers, and architects had to
> do with the fact that the church had power and money to spend memorialising
> its power. It had little to do with the beliefs of the creators whom the
> patrons hired. If a bishop were to contact me with a major commission, I?d
> think about it. I would not agree to be baptised.
>
> These two posts raised many questions. I?m not offering a counterargument
> or even disagreeing. Rather, I am responding with some of the
> counter-questions that occur to me after a quick reading.
>
> One genuinely major argument stands out. Whatever art-science is, it is a
> secondary or supplementary field that depends in some way on science, as
> philosophy of science does. Nearly all works of art-science draw on
> science, and these works build on scientific work. Few works of art-science
> contribute to science in a way that scientists can build on those works in
> the same way that we build on scientific work. There are some possible
> examples, but these are few indeed.
>
> Among those scientists on whose work we build, many believe in God, and
> many more are agnostics or skeptics rather than atheists. Isaac Newton was
> deeply religious, though he rejected Anglican doctrine and held privately
> to a kind of deism most comparable to the beliefs of some modern
> Unitarians. Einstein had a complex and subtle view of religion, referring
> frequently to ?the Lord? and ?Der Alte.? (For more, read the 1999 book from
> Princeton University Press by physicist Max Jammer titled: Einstein and
> Religion ? Physics and Theology.)
>
> My own views? I am one of those dyslexic, agnostic insomniacs who stays
> awake at night wondering if there is a dog.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | ?? She Ji. The
> Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in
> Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
>
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
> Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University
> Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne
> University of Technology
>
> Email ken.friedman.sheji@icloud.com | Academia
> http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
>
> ?
>
> [1]
>
> Joseph Klein wrote:
>
> ?snip?
>
> This idea of an atheist aesthetic is of particular interest to me right
> now, in that my most recent musical composition, An Unaware Cosmos, is an
> homage of sorts to various writers, philosophers, scientists, and political
> figures throughout history who have questioned or rejected the
> supernatural---and as a result, often suffering dire consequences at the
> hands of the religious authorities of their respective eras. My approach
> has been largely a reaction to the pervasive influence of religion on many
> contemporary composers---e.g., Olivier Messiaen, Krzysztof Penderecki, John
> Tavener, Arvo P?rt, to name just a few of the more prominent composers of
> religious music from the past half century---and a search for sources of
> inspiration based in objective reality rather than in mythology
> masquerading as reality. Like Stephen, I find the inherent beauty of
> nature all the more awe-inspiring in that it is completely
> unintentional---how much more interesting to realize that our ver!
> y existence is the result of a series of coincidences and "happy
> accidents" over billions of years; and how banal the whole experience
> becomes when we attribute everything we know to some magical being who
> created it all just for us. That might have been a comforting thought for
> less advanced cultures from earlier in our species' history, but it seems
> quite unsatisfying---and more than a little ridiculous---in the present
> day. For this reason, I am exploring ways to address these concerns
> through my own creative work, and find the idea of a community of
> like-minded artists? inspired by the science side of the art-science
> paradigm?to be an encouraging and invigorating prospect.
>
> ?snip?
>
> ?
>
> [2]
>
> Stephen Nowlin wrote:
>
> ?snip?
>
> I want it to say that every human in history who thought or thinks that
> sensation was an act of God or a work of magic superseding the natural
> world, has been wrong. I want it to say that if we could rid ourselves of
> that pernicious magic meme, we'd be much better off and the errant
> directions in which it has sent human logic careening for millennia might
> be rectified. I guess maybe that IS an agenda!
>
> I'd be ok with the notion that art-science is being instrumentalized in
> the service of an atheist agenda. It would certainly give the enterprise
> some needed controversy! Not as a phony marketing gimmick, though ? the
> fact is, that in art-science, art has paired with a domain that rejects the
> concept of the supernatural, at the same time that most of the world?s
> population still embraces it. This tension is a legitimate body of content
> to be identified with art-science. The concept of a non-supernatural cosmos
> is much broader than atheism, and fertile for an expanded discourse. I
> think we, who play on the art-science playground, should recognize and
> encourage it.
>
> ?snip?
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 03:09:10 +0000
> From: "Klein, Joseph" <Joseph.Klein@unt.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] The Plight of the Supernatural...
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <1414206584549.36502@unt.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> Thanks, Stephen. I wish I could take credit for the work's title, but I
> have to admit that I lifted it from the NPR headline for Christopher
> Hitchens' obituary a few years back. It just really struck me as the
> perfect title for this collection of works. Thanks for the lead on Jean
> Meslier, by the way.
>
> (Sorry for this aside, Yasminers!)
>
> Joe
>
>
> ???????????????????????????
> Joseph Klein, DMus
> Distinguished Teaching Professor
> Chair, Division of Composition Studies
> University of North Texas College of Music
> 1155 Union Circle #311367
> Denton, TX 76203-5017
> (940)565-4926 (ph); (940)565-2002 (fax)
> Joseph.Klein@unt.edu
> http://www.music.unt.edu/comp/josephklein
>
> ________________________________________
> From: yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr <
> yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr> on behalf of Stephen
> Nowlin <stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:45 PM
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] The Plight of the Supernatural...
>
> "This idea of an atheist aesthetic is of particular interest to me right
> now, in that my most recent musical composition, An Unaware Cosmos, is an
> homage of sorts to various writers, philosophers, scientists, and political
> figures throughout history who have questioned or rejected the supernatural
> . . ."
>
>
> "An Unaware Cosmos" -- such a wonderful title, Joe. If you haven't
> already, put in a few bars for Jean Meslier ( http://bit.ly/1xllC8J ),
> whose "Testament" was published in English for the first time in 2009. A
> truly remarkable 17th century French priest . . .
>
> /stephen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
>
> SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the
> page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and
> password in the fields found further down the page.
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter
> your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on
> the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest
> Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
> If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to
> http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 13:28:11 -0500
> From: Glenn Smith <gsmith@space-machines.com>
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] the example of Loren Eiseley
> To: yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> Message-ID:
> <20141025182523.XKCQ24978.eastrmfepo102.cox.net@eastrmimpo209>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Dear Yasminers,
>
> In praising the clarity of Stephen's vision of an art in
> service to science as opposed to religion (see our
> posts of October 19th), I made a point of invoking
> Loren Eiseley as a moderating influence -- and I am
> now quite glad that I did so.
>
> Along with Ken Friedman -- the author of yesterday's
> lengthy post equal in brilliance and clarity to that of
> Stephen's -- I, too, must take exception with the direction
> in which this discussion has turned. Yes, I too am an
> atheist in not believing in the existence of a god or gods
> as such; but neither can I endorse a crusading atheism
> which insists, for example, that "everything is an accident".
>
> It is the supernatural which we are trying to jettison
> -- those irrational tendencies so often placed in the
> service of discrimination, hate, and violence; but let us
> not fool ourselves into thinking that its opposite, nature
> (this the title of THE pre-eminent scientific journal!) must
> conform to a currently limited human "rationality", and
> in the name of which rationality -- as in the name of
> religion --quite a bit of mischief has been carried out.
> As per J. B. S. Haldane, "My own suspicion is that the
> Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but
> queerer than we can suppose"; and it is of course
> precisely this sense of wonder about the natural order
> which Eiseley so beautifully articulated in "The
> Immense Journey" and "Darwin's Century".
>
> And in further consonance with Ken's questions about
> the form of an alliance between art and science, we
> might say almost by definition that it is art and not
> science which will be best able to express the wonder
> of the natural order.
>
> Regards,
> G. W. (Glenn) Smith
> www.space-machines.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 13:25:29 -0700
> From: Stephen Nowlin <stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] Instrumentalist Art-Science?
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID:
> <
> B5FE072E6FEA1A48B04CEBCBF71CC2934C7874B1A9@LI-EXCMS01.Artcenter.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> "... the fundamental principles of science offer no argument for atheism
> or against it."
>
>
>
> Great stimulating response, Ken. Still, I essentially disagree with your
> assertion above.
>
> However, I should first say that my notion of "being ok" with art-science
> serving the concept of atheism, was meant as an example of how one
> particular way of interpreting art-science could stimulate a broad
> productive discussion -- to reveal an edge I think it has, but has not
> explored. Still, I wish I had rather focused my comment on the concept of
> the supernatural. Atheism is a disbelief in God, and my sense is that the
> question of whether or not one believes in God, while most often the
> question asked of an individual in order to determine his/her position on
> the existence of things, humans, and the cosmos, is the wrong question to
> be asking. The better question would be, "Is there a Supernatural?"
>
> The conduct of water molecules succumbing to gravity in a waterfall makes
> no argument for atheism or against it. But our knowledge that a waterfall
> is the name we give to an interaction between water molecules and gravity,
> and that it conforms to scientific principles derived over time by humans
> in a quest to gain reliable and scalable knowledge about things, is a
> different matter. The edict that "absence of evidence is not evidence of
> absence" is only sometimes accurate. A null result repeatedly, e.g., the
> absence of evidence for any supernatural element taking place in the
> operations of a waterfall or the cosmos, can logically be construed as
> evidence against the persistent claim that such an element nonetheless
> exists and interacts robustly with the natural world. The fundamental
> principles of science and the layers of knowledge they have created over
> time, in contrast to the creation and existence stories embodied in
> supernatural belief systems, do offer an argument for !
> atheism.
>
> Art and science employ different methodologies, and I think it is
> important for artists to engage science with an understanding of it that
> scientists will respect -- no fuzzy science, no new-age pseudoscience. On
> the other hand, it is important for scientists to know that art has a
> tenuous grasp on theory, employs sometimes rigorous but entirely subjective
> methodologies, and is by its nature an intuitive grasp and expression of
> knowledge. It is always interpretive, always a statement of personal
> belief, and is slippery prey for a logician. That's not just a difference,
> it's torque power for reaching deeply and affecting how people think. A
> difficulty for art-science and for a list discussion such as this one on
> Yasmin, is that, to paraphrase Barnett Newman, some of us are
> ornithologists and some of us are birds. With no judgement intended or
> implied as to being either of those -- the true kinship of art and science
> is the spark of insight that can result when each discipline!
> is allowed and encouraged to ignite the other . . .
>
> /stephen
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:50:42 -0700
> From: Mel Alexenberg <melalexenberg@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] art-science-spirituality
> To: "Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr"
> <Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID:
> <1414309842.85909.YahooMailNeo@web125303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> For extensive explorations at the interface of art-science-spirituality
> see my book The Future of Art in a Postdigital Age: From Hellenistic to
> Hebraic Consciousness (Intellect Books/University of Chicago Press), my
> blog Creating a Spiritual Blog of Your Life and description of the
> "LightsOROT: Spiritual Dimensions of the Electronic Age" exhibition that I
> created with Otto Piene at MIT's Center for Advanced Visual Studies Mel
> Alexenberg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Creating a Spiritual Blog of Your Life
> Vayera/And he Appeared (Genesis 18:1-22:24)
> View on bibleblogyourlife.blog... Preview by Yahoo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mel Alexenberg
> Mel Alexenberg is an artist, educator, writer and blogger working at the
> interface between art, science, technology and culture.
> View on www.melalexenberg.com Preview by Yahoo
>
>
>
>
> Professor Mel Alexenberg
> Author of The Future of Art in a Postdigital Age: From Hellenistic to
> Hebraic Consciousness and Educating Artists for the Future: Learning at the
> Intersections of Art, Science, Technology, and Culture (both published by
> Intellect Books/University of Chicago Press) and in Hebrew: Dialogic Art in
> a Digital World: Judaism and Contemporary Art.
> Former art professor, Columbia University, head of the art department,
> Pratt Institute, research fellow, MIT Center for Advanced Visual Studies,
> and professor at universities and art colleges in Israel
> melalexenberg@yahoo.com, http://www.melalexenberg.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:38:36 +0800
> From: Ken Friedman <ken.friedman.sheji@icloud.com>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] Instrumentalist Art-Science?
> To: Yasmin Yasmin <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <2B6ABE09-138C-4AEA-82AE-EC4528DE389A@icloud.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Dear Stephen,
>
> Thanks for your reply. The universe and everything within it operate on
> principles that a Newton or an Einstein could understand because the
> universe is a natural system and not supernatural at all. If there is a
> God, one explanation for the absence of the supernatural is that God
> governs the universe through natural law. The principles built into
> universe are sufficient. This is a the difference between Der Alte and Zeus
> hurling thunderbolts.
>
> Working scientists don't care whether art-science people say anything
> about the supernatural. It is as irrelevant to art-science as the religious
> views of any one scientist are to another. All that counts is the work. No
> one cares that Georges Lemaitre was a Jesuit ? what counts is his
> contribution to physics. Many Nobel Laureates are religious, a higher
> percentage than the number of American scientists who see themselves as
> atheist. This makes little difference the quality of science, and it is
> irrelevant to art-science.
>
> No serious scientist will think more of us or less of us based on our
> belief in or opposition to God. As an aside, God may not be supernatural.
> If God operates only through natural law, one can?t speak of the divine as
> supernatural from our perspective. But natural scientists have no reason to
> listen to artist-scientists acting as amateur theologians. Any scientist
> interested in theology and its implications for science would spend time
> with real theologians such as the new Archbishop of Sweden, Dr. Antje
> Jackelen, or the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams. If I
> were interested in science and religion, I?d be reading their work, rather
> than reading Yasmin or Leonardo.
>
> Neither atheism or theism makes any difference to art-science. Our views
> on God or the supernatural make no difference to how scientists think of
> us. If anything, I?d imagine scientists would wonder why we are saying
> anything at all about God. That is the province or philosophy, philosophy
> of science, and theology. Most art-science people draw on applied science
> rather than basic science, and that makes these issues irrelevant.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman
>
> On 2014Oct26, at 04:25, Stephen Nowlin <stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > A null result repeatedly, e.g., the absence of evidence for any
> supernatural element taking place in the operations of a waterfall or the
> cosmos, can logically be construed as evidence against the persistent claim
> that such an element nonetheless exists and interacts robustly with the
> natural world. The fundamental principles of science and the layers of
> knowledge they have created over time, in contrast to the creation and
> existence stories embodied in supernatural belief systems, do offer an
> argument for atheism.
> >
> > Art and science employ different methodologies, and I think it is
> important for artists to engage science with an understanding of it that
> scientists will respect -- no fuzzy science, no new-age pseudoscience. On
> the other hand, it is important for scientists to know that art has a
> tenuous grasp on theory, employs sometimes rigorous but entirely subjective
> methodologies, and is by its nature an intuitive grasp and expression of
> knowledge. It is always interpretive, always a statement of personal
> belief, and is slippery prey for a logician. That's not just a difference,
> it's torque power for reaching deeply and affecting how people think. A
> difficulty for art-science and for a list discussion such as this one on
> Yasmin, is that, to paraphrase Barnett Newman, some of us are
> ornithologists and some of us are birds. With no judgement intended or
> implied as to being either of those -- the true kinship of art and science
> is the spark of insight that can result when each discipli!
> ne is allowed and encouraged to ignite the other . . .
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 09:45:00 -0700
> From: Stephen Nowlin <stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] Instrumentalist Art-Science?
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID:
> <
> B5FE072E6FEA1A48B04CEBCBF71CC2934C7874B1AB@LI-EXCMS01.Artcenter.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
>
> Another stimulating and thoughtful post, Ken -- thanks.
>
> -- "Working scientists don't care whether art-science people say anything
> about the supernatural."
>
> My guess is that, like the rest of a general population in which some
> people are concerned with supernatural beliefs and their social/political
> consequences and others are not, some working scientists/serious
> scientists/natural scientists are interested is what art and/or art-science
> has to say about the subject.
>
> -- "Any scientist interested in theology and its implications for science
> would spend time with real theologians such as the new Archbishop of
> Sweden, Dr. Antje Jackelen, or the former Archbishop of
> Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams."
>
> Theology and a belief in the supernatural are not the same thing. There
> are professional theologians who are experts on the subject of religious
> doctrine, history, and belief. There are professional philosophers who are
> experts in logic and reasoning. None of them are experts on the subject of
> the supernatural. Nobody is an expert -- nobody knows anything about it.
> The supernatural is all fanciful speculation, yet it is key to critical
> components of certain subjects claimed to be governed by professional
> expertise. For some reason, society accepts and overlooks this
> contradiction. I understand the appeal of academic elitism, but it is more
> reliable if chased by common sense. To quote one of artist Jenny Holzer's
> Truisms, "A Lot of Professionals are Crackpots."
>
> /stephen
>
> ________________________________________
> From: yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr [
> yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman [
> ken.friedman.sheji@icloud.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:38 AM
> To: Yasmin Yasmin
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] Instrumentalist Art-Science?
>
> Dear Stephen,
>
> Thanks for your reply. The universe and everything within it operate on
> principles that a Newton or an Einstein could understand because the
> universe is a natural system and not supernatural at all. If there is a
> God, one explanation for the absence of the supernatural is that God
> governs the universe through natural law. The principles built into
> universe are sufficient. This is a the difference between Der Alte and Zeus
> hurling thunderbolts.
>
> Working scientists don't care whether art-science people say anything
> about the supernatural. It is as irrelevant to art-science as the religious
> views of any one scientist are to another. All that counts is the work. No
> one cares that Georges Lemaitre was a Jesuit ? what counts is his
> contribution to physics. Many Nobel Laureates are religious, a higher
> percentage than the number of American scientists who see themselves as
> atheist. This makes little difference the quality of science, and it is
> irrelevant to art-science.
>
> No serious scientist will think more of us or less of us based on our
> belief in or opposition to God. As an aside, God may not be supernatural.
> If God operates only through natural law, one can?t speak of the divine as
> supernatural from our perspective. But natural scientists have no reason to
> listen to artist-scientists acting as amateur theologians. Any scientist
> interested in theology and its implications for science would spend time
> with real theologians such as the new Archbishop of Sweden, Dr. Antje
> Jackelen, or the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams. If I
> were interested in science and religion, I?d be reading their work, rather
> than reading Yasmin or Leonardo.
>
> Neither atheism or theism makes any difference to art-science. Our views
> on God or the supernatural make no difference to how scientists think of
> us. If anything, I?d imagine scientists would wonder why we are saying
> anything at all about God. That is the province or philosophy, philosophy
> of science, and theology. Most art-science people draw on applied science
> rather than basic science, and that makes these issues irrelevant.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman
>
> On 2014Oct26, at 04:25, Stephen Nowlin <stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > A null result repeatedly, e.g., the absence of evidence for any
> supernatural element taking place in the operations of a waterfall or the
> cosmos, can logically be construed as evidence against the persistent claim
> that such an element nonetheless exists and interacts robustly with the
> natural world. The fundamental principles of science and the layers of
> knowledge they have created over time, in contrast to the creation and
> existence stories embodied in supernatural belief systems, do offer an
> argument for atheism.
> >
> > Art and science employ different methodologies, and I think it is
> important for artists to engage science with an understanding of it that
> scientists will respect -- no fuzzy science, no new-age pseudoscience. On
> the other hand, it is important for scientists to know that art has a
> tenuous grasp on theory, employs sometimes rigorous but entirely subjective
> methodologies, and is by its nature an intuitive grasp and expression of
> knowledge. It is always interpretive, always a statement of personal
> belief, and is slippery prey for a logician. That's not just a difference,
> it's torque power for reaching deeply and affecting how people think. A
> difficulty for art-science and for a list discussion such as this one on
> Yasmin, is that, to paraphrase Barnett Newman, some of us are
> ornithologists and some of us are birds. With no judgement intended or
> implied as to being either of those -- the true kinship of art and science
> is the spark of insight that can result when each discipli!
> ne is allowed and encouraged to ignite the other . . .
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
>
> SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the
> page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and
> password in the fields found further down the page.
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter
> your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on
> the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest
> Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
> If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to
> http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:31:46 -0500
> From: roger malina <rmalina@alum.mit.edu>
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] against syncretism ?
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID:
> <CAPPudSJhA=
> DsaUqYvEPUhGhXcgESZGSLEvNFmOeG6Timy8_v0w@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> yasminers
>
> -- Against Syncretism ?
>
> The last series of posts on our supernatural discussion has incited me
> to make some personal comments against having goals to create a
> ?syncretism? that unites the variety of practices that come under the
> general label of art-science. Elsewhere I have argued against those
> who are promoting the creation of a ?third culture?. I have also
> provocatively said that I don?t think ?inter-disciplinarily is a
> discipline?. Unlike the way that astronomy and physics came to create
> astrophysics, or biology and chemistry led to biochemistry, I don?t
> think we are developing a unified field of artscience. We are seeing
> those that founded what is called ?digital humanities? having to back
> track because after all scholars are born digital digital humanities
> will disappear and re-emerge as the humanities ( digital astronomy has
> long disappeared; fortunately no universities started departments of
> digital astronomy that had to be closed down).
>
> I think that we have to understand that there are different ways of
> knowing (the Exploratorium conference on this was a landmark). Even
> within the sciences, observational and experimental sciences come to
> their conclusions in different ways and the scientific method itself
> has evolved ( eg the use of computer models as hypotheses, or data
> driven science today). And phenomena which were held to be outside of
> scientific investigation sometimes come into scientific purview ( eg
> the recent science of consciousness area, quorum sensing in non
> humans?).
>
>
> Similarly the work of artists itself has continuously evolved. The new
> ?art as research? movement often does not result in art objects or
> experiences that are meant to be assessed using aesthetic criteria
> that were developed for static images, or time based art performances.
> Today we see a large growth in socially engaged and public art
> practices that are to be evaluated by the cultural changes they bring
> about rather than the individual aesthetic experiences. That doesn?t
> make it ?pseudo-art?. Sustainable development and controlling and
> adapting to climate change are opening up whole new areas for
> interventions by artists that would be un recognizable as art to a
> 19th century art critic; in a Leonardo ebook
> (
> http://malina.diatrope.com/2012/07/11/the-sublime-in-art-and-science-now-available-in-ebook/
> )we argued that this doesn?t mean that the ?sublime? is not part of
> the art-science lexicon.
>
>
>
> I am not arguing that ?everything goes? ; my father once accused me of
> having a mind so wide open that the wind blew right through it. As a
> scientist I do think we have to be careful and indeed I sometimes am
> troubled by areas of art-science that I think mis-understand and
> mis-use certain scientific ideas. Sometimes I do see art-science which
> seems to me pseudo-science. An no, anything is not art just because
> its called art; there are criteria for evaluating and assessing art
> and its impact on individuals and our cultures. I am sometimes
> troubled by the work of scientist engaged in art-science who seem to
> be ignorant of the last hundred years of art-making. Just because you
> make a pretty picture doesn?t make it significant art today. In my own
> art-science practice, our artscilab seeks to develop projects that can
> be assessed both on their scientific interest and their artistic
> interest without syncretism, or what I have called ?hybrid? practice.
>
> One of the areas that I think could be useful in these discussion is
> the field of Translational Studies. This field has expanded from
> linguistic translation, to cultural translation and in more recent
> years to trans-disciplinary translation. In Translation Studies it is
> established that some facts, concepts are not translatable from one
> area to another because of the importance of semantic and social
> context. We need to identify false friends ( eg the word prototype
> does not mean the same thing in technoscience as in art). Analogies
> and Metaphors are very difficult to translate and there is a whole
> literature on this area. But often I see concepts from science
> translated unscrupulously to art with misleading implications from
> fuzzy thinking and use of words and analogies; translation is a real
> expertise that needs to be deployed with sophistication.
>
> Finally I think one of the processes that art-science engages in is
> what might be called cultural digestion of science and technology.
> Some technologies are culturally sterile ( steam engine art ?) but
> until the technology is culturally appropriated it is often hard to
> understand its cultural meaning ( eg the birth of digital arts
> industries, net-art leading to social media etc). That means we have
> to be patient until artists appropriate the science and technology and
> translate it within the arts and culture. Some artists take scientific
> experiments and just restage them in a gallery- often this translation
> is absurd; sometimes it can be generative ( cf Root Bernstein?s
> restaging of the Urey origin of life experiments).
>
> In recent posts the predictable debate about science and religion has
> begun to surface. It is impossible to deny that some scientists are
> deists and some atheists. As are artists. The %s are highly variable
> depending on location ( I live in Texas !) The art science field
> reflects this cultural variety in its local grounding. It is
> interesting to see art-science begin to be practiced in deeply
> catholic cultures in south America ; and in India with its multiple
> religious influences; what direction will they take us in ? I don?t
> think that art-science is a ?universal? practice ( whereas I do think
> that scientific is knowledge is universal and not culturally
> specific). Necessarily in the process of translation from science to
> art ( and back again) some art-science will be culturally grounded and
> not universal. And as argued above I don?t think we are seeking to
> create a global third culture, or a syncretism.
>
>
>
> roger malina
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 23:39:26 +1100
> From: Danny Butt <db@dannybutt.net>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] against syncretism ?
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <83BEB946-3C8B-42BD-8ABD-B5BE15408719@dannybutt.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Thanks Roger for this suitably agnostic commentary on what has been an
> enjoyable discussion.
>
> While there are those who bemoan the return of religious dialogue, the
> cleavage between the humanities and the sciences that every popular science
> (or recently, "evolutionary" humanist) work attempts to reconcile is
> unavoidably inaugurated at the origin of the religions of the book. In
> Genesis there is a wayward nature whose ultimate purpose is hypothetically
> discernible and a flawed human who cannot keep up the task of managing it
> in the name of that divine purpose ("scientia" was knowledge of God's
> natural world before it was of the world named as nature). The question of
> belief or not in a deity is less important than the Romantic idea of
> otherness to the self that can be discerned in most lines of
> knowledge-seeking, whether scientific or artistic (Galison puts it best I
> think with his claim that "objectivity" is perhaps itself Romantic).
>
> Nevertheless, as you point to, the modes of practice, institutional
> foundations and justifying rhetorics between art and science (or I would
> also suggest, between scientific or science-like practices from a Christian
> heritage versus others) are radically heterogeneous, even more than the
> already grave distinctions between scientific disciplines, for example.
> They are all, as Haraway et al have taught us, unavoidably storied and
> discursive.
>
> I think this requires those who wish to explore such frontiers of
> knowledge paradigms to hold, first of all, an open attitude to different
> ways of knowing and understanding to those we have been raised in, whether
> those are scientific or humanist, and this means not taking topics off the
> table, no matter our thoughts on their relative worth. It also means having
> a historical and critical account of the methodologies that have birthed
> our own methods of enquiry, with a resolutely material account of their
> cultural and technological underpinnings, and there are many cases we can
> look to in the arts and the sciences for instruction on our current
> conjuncture, and so the critical conversation of sharing those between
> disciplines remains urgent and necessary (but not police-able).
>
> Danny
>
> --
> http://www.dannybutt.net
> http://www.local-time.net
> +61 428 820 766
>
> On 28/10/2014, at 1:31 AM, roger malina <rmalina@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > yasminers
> >
> > -- Against Syncretism ?
> >
> > The last series of posts on our supernatural discussion has incited me
> > to make some personal comments against having goals to create a
> > ?syncretism? that unites the variety of practices that come under the
> > general label of art-science. Elsewhere I have argued against those
> > who are promoting the creation of a ?third culture?. I have also
> > provocatively said that I don?t think ?inter-disciplinarily is a
> > discipline?. Unlike the way that astronomy and physics came to create
> > astrophysics, or biology and chemistry led to biochemistry, I don?t
> > think we are developing a unified field of artscience. We are seeing
> > those that founded what is called ?digital humanities? having to back
> > track because after all scholars are born digital digital humanities
> > will disappear and re-emerge as the humanities ( digital astronomy has
> > long disappeared; fortunately no universities started departments of
> > digital astronomy that had to be closed down).
> >
> > I think that we have to understand that there are different ways of
> > knowing (the Exploratorium conference on this was a landmark). Even
> > within the sciences, observational and experimental sciences come to
> > their conclusions in different ways and the scientific method itself
> > has evolved ( eg the use of computer models as hypotheses, or data
> > driven science today). And phenomena which were held to be outside of
> > scientific investigation sometimes come into scientific purview ( eg
> > the recent science of consciousness area, quorum sensing in non
> > humans?).
> >
> >
> > Similarly the work of artists itself has continuously evolved. The new
> > ?art as research? movement often does not result in art objects or
> > experiences that are meant to be assessed using aesthetic criteria
> > that were developed for static images, or time based art performances.
> > Today we see a large growth in socially engaged and public art
> > practices that are to be evaluated by the cultural changes they bring
> > about rather than the individual aesthetic experiences. That doesn?t
> > make it ?pseudo-art?. Sustainable development and controlling and
> > adapting to climate change are opening up whole new areas for
> > interventions by artists that would be un recognizable as art to a
> > 19th century art critic; in a Leonardo ebook
> > (
> http://malina.diatrope.com/2012/07/11/the-sublime-in-art-and-science-now-available-in-ebook/
> > )we argued that this doesn?t mean that the ?sublime? is not part of
> > the art-science lexicon.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am not arguing that ?everything goes? ; my father once accused me of
> > having a mind so wide open that the wind blew right through it. As a
> > scientist I do think we have to be careful and indeed I sometimes am
> > troubled by areas of art-science that I think mis-understand and
> > mis-use certain scientific ideas. Sometimes I do see art-science which
> > seems to me pseudo-science. An no, anything is not art just because
> > its called art; there are criteria for evaluating and assessing art
> > and its impact on individuals and our cultures. I am sometimes
> > troubled by the work of scientist engaged in art-science who seem to
> > be ignorant of the last hundred years of art-making. Just because you
> > make a pretty picture doesn?t make it significant art today. In my own
> > art-science practice, our artscilab seeks to develop projects that can
> > be assessed both on their scientific interest and their artistic
> > interest without syncretism, or what I have called ?hybrid? practice.
> >
> > One of the areas that I think could be useful in these discussion is
> > the field of Translational Studies. This field has expanded from
> > linguistic translation, to cultural translation and in more recent
> > years to trans-disciplinary translation. In Translation Studies it is
> > established that some facts, concepts are not translatable from one
> > area to another because of the importance of semantic and social
> > context. We need to identify false friends ( eg the word prototype
> > does not mean the same thing in technoscience as in art). Analogies
> > and Metaphors are very difficult to translate and there is a whole
> > literature on this area. But often I see concepts from science
> > translated unscrupulously to art with misleading implications from
> > fuzzy thinking and use of words and analogies; translation is a real
> > expertise that needs to be deployed with sophistication.
> >
> > Finally I think one of the processes that art-science engages in is
> > what might be called cultural digestion of science and technology.
> > Some technologies are culturally sterile ( steam engine art ?) but
> > until the technology is culturally appropriated it is often hard to
> > understand its cultural meaning ( eg the birth of digital arts
> > industries, net-art leading to social media etc). That means we have
> > to be patient until artists appropriate the science and technology and
> > translate it within the arts and culture. Some artists take scientific
> > experiments and just restage them in a gallery- often this translation
> > is absurd; sometimes it can be generative ( cf Root Bernstein?s
> > restaging of the Urey origin of life experiments).
> >
> > In recent posts the predictable debate about science and religion has
> > begun to surface. It is impossible to deny that some scientists are
> > deists and some atheists. As are artists. The %s are highly variable
> > depending on location ( I live in Texas !) The art science field
> > reflects this cultural variety in its local grounding. It is
> > interesting to see art-science begin to be practiced in deeply
> > catholic cultures in south America ; and in India with its multiple
> > religious influences; what direction will they take us in ? I don?t
> > think that art-science is a ?universal? practice ( whereas I do think
> > that scientific is knowledge is universal and not culturally
> > specific). Necessarily in the process of translation from science to
> > art ( and back again) some art-science will be culturally grounded and
> > not universal. And as argued above I don?t think we are seeking to
> > create a global third culture, or a syncretism.
> >
> >
> >
> > roger malina
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> > Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> > http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> >
> > Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
> >
> > SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the
> page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and
> password in the fields found further down the page.
> > HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter
> your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on
> the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> > TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set
> Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
> > If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to
> http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:29:43 -0500
> From: roger malina <rmalina@alum.mit.edu>
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] supernatural
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAPPudSJFttje1nGHs4wj0C4z_OUzGHPYsyQeO8QxeLz6qb+rRg@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> danny
>
>
> much thanks for your post
>
> you say
>
> I think this requires those who wish to explore such frontiers of
> knowledge paradigms to hold, first of all, an open attitude to
> different ways of knowing and understanding to those we have been
> raised in, whether those are scientific or humanist, and this means
> not taking topics off the table, no matter our thoughts on their
> relative worth. It also means having a historical and critical account
> of the methodologies that have birthed our own methods of enquiry,
> with a resolutely material account of their cultural and technological
> underpinnings, and there are many cases we can look to in the arts and
> the sciences for instruction on our current conjuncture, and so the
> critical conversation of sharing those between disciplines remains
> urgent and necessary (but not police-able).
> danny
>
> i have become of fan of david bohm's discourse on dialogue- and indeed
> much discussion i think doesnt
> really engage in real dialogue= as you say
> It also means having a historical and critical account of the
> methodologies that have birthed our own methods of enquiry
>
> this is really difficult because one has to suspend judgement long
> enough to create new ideas and real exchange
>
> as i said in my post - often people refer to 'science' or the
> 'scientific method' as if was as fixed a reference
> point as the 'books' of people of 'the book" and this bothers me -an
> interesting book on the complexities
> within the scientific method are the writing sof allen repko etc
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Interdisciplinary-Research-Allen-F-Repko/dp/1412988772
> the good news is that the scientific method itself has continued to
> evolve over the centuries
> to take into account new methodological, mathematical and
> philosophical discoveries
> ( and yes- i have trouble with points of view that accept a 'book'
> written at a particular moment
> in human history as a fixed un-modifiable text- that cannot be evolved
> in the way as say
> the constitution of a political system
>
> within scientific disciplines there are deep differences of approach=
> one anecdote i tell is
> when i was in the collaboration led by saul perlmutter and michael
> levi working on a new
> satellite to try and understand dark energy=there was a mixture of
> astronomers and physicists
> and we often were embroiled in vigorous discussions- the astronomers
> wanted to design
> the perfect observation ( and had deep understanding of the problem of
> systematic errors)
> and the physicists wanted to design the perfect experiment as if one
> could set up an
> a falsifiability of theories- two cultures of practice in collission
>
> a second anecdote is that in our NASA projects we had mixture of
> scientists and engineers
> and we were writing specifications for a satellite- but the engineers
> viewed a spec as a maximum
> goal that you did nothing to go beyond, while the scientists viewed
> the spec as a minimum
> level that you worked hard as hell to go beyond- another example of
> the need to 'translate'
> between cultures of practice
>
> in the whole art science arena we rarely engage in sustained bohmian
> dialogue in a way
> that creates new opportunities
>
> as i aruged in my appeal to 'translation studies' in a previous post -
> in the same way
> as we accept and foster multiculturalism within the arts= surely we
> should do this in art-science
>
> --
> Roger F Malina
>
> Calisthenics for minds? try the exercise machines on Creative
> Disturbance http://creativedisturbance.org/
>
> Roger is in Dallas
>
> url: artscilab.utdallas.edu
> blog: malina.diatrope.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:44:03 -0700
> From: Stephen Nowlin <stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] supernatural
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID:
> <
> B5FE072E6FEA1A48B04CEBCBF71CC2934C7874B1C4@LI-EXCMS01.Artcenter.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
>
> Thank you Roger and Danny for expanding the discussion field with your
> recent contributions. It is easy for conversation about subjects such as
> we've engaged here to become captive to swirling eddies of repetitive
> dialogue. I think we've escaped that fairly admirably in this discussion,
> given the medium's tendency to suck even the most thoughtful exchanges into
> its monotony vortex. I hope most of the Yasmin silent majority will agree.
>
> The subject of open-mindedness strikes me as particularly apropos to the
> perspectives of theory and philosophy when speaking of how science may have
> limits in its ability to know, and that one should not (cannot) set further
> limits on what is, after all, not known or unknowable. The carrying on of
> that discussion is perhaps best informed by well educated scholarly
> contributions and citation of credible and rigorous sources.
>
> I am not an academic scholar (although I do think, as Roger cited in his
> reference to the landmark Exploratorium conference, that 'art is a way of
> knowing' can be expanded to 'art is a form of scholarship'). So my ability
> to contribute to the strictly academic perspective on the subject is
> limited other than to say I agree: it makes sense to allow that the
> workings of the cosmos could be different than what is currently implied
> (or dogmatized) by that which we already know about it.
>
> To be honest, I'm mildly interested in what academics think about the
> limits of science and its relationship to a meaning for the term
> 'supernatural.' I am greatly interested, though, in the alarming
> possibility that academics may dismiss as unworthy of their attention the
> more pedestrian meaning of 'supernatural' that most of the planet's less
> intellectual, less educated, or educated but less critically-thinking
> populations believe, with no degree of open-mindedness, rules the universe.
>
> As I've mentioned before, I think the word 'supernatural' cannot be
> retrofitted or reinvented to apply to a sophisticated concept of the limits
> of knowledge. It's baggage is too great, and to the extent that the
> academic community continues to appease as legitimate an otherwise fine
> concept (open-mindedness) in the vicinity of a corrupt concept
> (supernatural) that, inevitably, leaks into popular culture without the
> protective nuance of academic context (as the perennially damaging "God
> doesn't play dice with the universe" is a stereotypical example), it does
> injury to the cause of critical thinking and to the possibility that world
> culture (the unwashed non-academic masses) may someday evolve into a force
> that views evidence-based science as a better basis for informed social and
> personal behavior than it does the hocus-pocus of the disproportionately
> influential but prosaic form of 'supernatural.' I think art-science has a
> role to play in this, and especially the writing ab!
> out art-science ? which will ultimately amplify its practice, as is the
> case with all nascent art movements, with a history of meaning.
>
> Instrumentalization? I don't think so -- no more than one could claim the
> flattening of illusionistic space by the Russian Constructivists or the
> exaltation of the ordinary by Pop Art were less than aesthetic achievements
> because their resonance was in social change.
>
> /stephen
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:40:42 +0800
> From: Ken Friedman <ken.friedman.sheji@icloud.com>
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] Achilles and Wolverine: feasts for the
> dogs and birds.
> To: Yasmin Yasmin <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <2A28B9B8-FDE2-4093-883F-522C6D06E001@icloud.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Dear Stephen,
>
> What Einstein meant in saying ?God does not play dice? is that there is no
> need for such notions as supernatural explanation and supernatural
> intervention in the universe. He meant much the same by his aphorism, ?The
> Lord is subtle, but He is not malicious.?
>
> It?s difficult to think of many things that manage to make a jump from one
> context to another without some kind of state change. Clement Greenberg?s
> essay on kitsch describe one aspect of this problem. But he?d also have
> criticised much of the art-science enterprise as overly academic in
> comparison with his vision of avant-garde art as a purist enterprise
> uncontaminated by institutions.
>
> It seems nearly impossible for something as remote from popular culture as
> art-science to serve any instrumental goals if the purpose of that
> instrumental use is to influence the larger population. In his posthumous
> book, Fractured Times, the late Eric Hobsbawm offers many examples of how
> different forms of culture underwent change as they made ? or failed to
> make ? the leap across the boundaries of social groups, nations, and
> cultures.
>
> When I went to bed last night, I thought I?d fairly well said everything I
> had to say a few days back, so I did not respond to the interesting
> comments of Roger Malina and Danny Butt. Your added note today drew me back
> in. It got me to thinking on a slightly divergent question ? the question
> is not whether art-science can be instrumental in social change, but
> whether this is even possible.
>
> Based on the evidence of history, I think it highly unlikely that
> art-science can serve instrumental goals in a larger public context. Times
> have changed too much. It was possible for art to be instrumental in
> earlier cultures when art retold stories that were woven into the fabric of
> contemporary culture. When all members of a culture knew a specific myth,
> legend, or Bible narrative, they understood what they saw or heard as the
> representation ? RE-presentation ? of one or another well-known aspect of
> their world.
>
> We think of The Iliad as a classic, and for us, it is one of the
> well-springs of Western literature. To the ancient Greeks, The Iliad was
> more like an action movie. The heroes, heroines, and their stories were
> something like the endless cycle of X-Men movies. Achilles was their
> Wolverine, a figure of dramatic complexity distinguished by towering rage
> and invincible fighting skills.
>
> ?Rage ? Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus? son Achilles,
> Murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses,
> hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls,
> great fighters? souls, but made their bodies carrion,
> feasts for the dogs and birds ??
>
> But there is more to it than this. Everyone knew the stories, and loved to
> hear them told again, sung by the aiodos (bard) who brought them to life.
> This was a living tradition, though most scholars did not believe that
> anyone could memorise and sing a lengthy epic such as The Iliad until
> Milman Parry demonstrated through field work in the Balkans that a culture
> of sung epics could preserve and transmit such works. This is also visible
> in the tradition of those who memorise and chant the Koran.
>
> Popular culture is what a people know, and it is a culture in the
> anthropological sense because it forms the framework of their being in the
> world. I can?t imagine art-science making a dent in the beliefs or views of
> the Pentecostals and evangelicals that Robert Duvall brings to the screen
> in his 1997 film, The Apostle. What makes it such an interesting movie is
> the depth of cultural understanding with which Duvall portrays this world ?
> even using real evangelicals to play roles depicting themselves and their
> culture. The world is filled with cultures, and people are embedded in
> them. It?s difficult to see the role that critical thinking can play in the
> life of someone who takes the Bible as literal truth, even as formal truth.
> During one of those occasional debates on declaring English as the
> official, sole language of the United States, one Bible Belt politician
> argued in favour of English on the basis that English is the language of
> the Bible: ?If the English language is !
> good enough for Jesus,? he said, ?it?s good enough for me.?
>
> Art is a way of knowing, but that statement can?t be expanded to the
> statement that ?art is a form of scholarship.? There are many ways of
> knowing. Scholarship, science, and research are subsets of the many ways of
> knowing. Cultures are ways of knowing. Artisan craft traditions are ways of
> knowing ? cooking, sports, martial arts, carpentry. We don?t describe a
> master chef as a culinary scholar. A great chef is a master ? a chef de
> cuisine. Picasso was not a scholar and he did no research. ?Others seek,?
> he said of himself, ?I find.?
>
> Art-science is an odd phenomenon. Is art-science a nascent art movement
> with the programmatic goals that a word like ?movement? implies, or is it a
> group of people in a loose context trying to move something new forward. I
> find myself wondering from time to time about the proportions of research,
> scholarship, and artistry that ought to go into the making of art-science.
> But on further reflection, I am convinced that art-science should not be
> instrumental.
>
> Russian Constructivists wanted to change the world. They failed. The Pop
> Artists did not want to change the world, but rather to reflect it. They
> succeeded. Both groups did well as artists ? neither group did much to
> change the cultures in which the lives of most people are embedded. To
> instrumentalise art-science won?t change the world around us. It will
> merely deflect us from the free exploration that makes art-science
> interesting.
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | ?? She Ji. The
> Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in
> Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
>
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
> Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University
> Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne
> University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia ||| Adjunct Professor |
> School of Creative Arts | James Cook University | Townsville, Australia |||
> Visiting Professor | UTS Business School | University of Technology Sydney
> University | Sydney, Australia
>
> Email ken.friedman.sheji@icloud.com | Academia
> http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
>
> --
>
> On 2014Oct29, at 06:44, Stephen Nowlin <stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> wrote:
>
> ?snip?
>
> > I am not an academic scholar (although I do think, as Roger cited in his
> reference to the landmark Exploratorium conference, that 'art is a way of
> knowing' can be expanded to 'art is a form of scholarship'). So my ability
> to contribute to the strictly academic perspective on the subject is
> limited other than to say I agree: it makes sense to allow that the
> workings of the cosmos could be different than what is currently implied
> (or dogmatized) by that which we already know about it.
>
> ?snip?
>
> > As I've mentioned before, I think the word 'supernatural' cannot be
> retrofitted or reinvented to apply to a sophisticated concept of the limits
> of knowledge. It's baggage is too great, and to the extent that the
> academic community continues to appease as legitimate an otherwise fine
> concept (open-mindedness) in the vicinity of a corrupt concept
> (supernatural) that, inevitably, leaks into popular culture without the
> protective nuance of academic context (as the perennially damaging "God
> doesn't play dice with the universe" is a stereotypical example), it does
> injury to the cause of critical thinking and to the possibility that world
> culture (the unwashed non-academic masses) may someday evolve into a force
> that views evidence-based science as a better basis for informed social and
> personal behavior than it does the hocus-pocus of the disproportionately
> influential but prosaic form of 'supernatural.' I think art-science has a
> role to play in this, and especially the writing !
> about art-science ? which will ultimately amplify its practice, as is the
> case with all nascent art movements, with a history of meaning.
> >
> > Instrumentalization? I don't think so -- no more than one could claim
> the flattening of illusionistic space by the Russian Constructivists or the
> exaltation of the ordinary by Pop Art were less than aesthetic achievements
> because their resonance was in social change.
>
> ?snip?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 23
> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 17:42:57 +0000
> From: Martha Blassnigg <martha.blassnigg@gmail.com>
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] [Yasmin-discussions] The Plight of the
> Supernatural... taking experience seriously
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID:
> <CAAYJ-SUH8C3QZr8TJCVvj_WKjJbdY=
> SE_DQ84n3MWm+PcM_v+g@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Dear discussants,
>
> I appreciate Roger's and Dan's reminders of the dialogic, the need for
> tolerance in face of the 'untranslatable' and challenges of diversity,
> especially in the context of the varieties of cultural appreciations of
> phenomena ('culture' in the widest sense i.e. shared ideas, etc.).
>
> In this discussion so far the term 'super-natural' has featured in several
> disguises some more dominant than others; e.g. as concept associated with
> the unknowable, with belief, as politically/ideologically instrumentalised
> domain, as the untranslatable...
>
> One of the aspects widely associated with phenomena that have frequently
> been summoned under the term 'super-natural' which has had more of a
> dormant presence so far is the domain of experience, although the notions
> of awe and the sublime would in some sense fall within this area.
>
> What had initially attracted me to the choice of cultural anthropology as
> main subject of academic study in combination with philosophy were indeed
> the political implications of the resistance to uniformity in the
> respectful acknowledgement of diversity in pursuit of the very basic
> questions around what it means to be human (and else and other) on this
> planet/planetary system during the particular transitions and contingencies
> of time. What anthropology had and still has to tell is how different ways
> of knowing, as Roger already referred to, have their roots in experiences
> and best practices which change over and with time, contingent within the
> manifold contextual interactions, but also, and which I would like to
> emphasise, as they are consciously and pro-actively enacted, reenacted,
> resisted and continuously transformed (individually and collectively).
>
> The constantly changing categorisations of knowledge practices have
> variously integrated or excluded those experiences that are frequently
> gathered under the umbrella of the problematic term we are currently
> discussing, be it for ideological, political or simply fashionable reasons.
> A considerate mobilisation of connected ideas and concerns might shift the
> study of these phenomena from the 'safe' grounds of 'cultural ghettos' to
> the wider implied cognitive domains and their epistemological implications,
> as some previous research has demonstrated (see for example Roger
> Luckhurst's work on telepathy).
>
> Martha
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 24
> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 14:33:51 -0600
> From: Roger Malina <leonardo.isast@gmail.com>
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] Fwd: supernatural
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAPPudS+b4waeRhJM5HRyAEj65BexYRyX7mtRLtsR9VvPbM3USQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> yasminers
>
> we are trying to bring to a close our discussion on the supernatural
> and art/science
> and welcome final statements from anyone who has a closing idea to leave us
> with
>
> I append the call for papers for the science of consciousness conference
> which
> has been one of the gatherings that brings together an uneasy community
> of people who are in one of the territories where the 'supernatural' is
> often
> above the surface
>
> martha blassnig in her closing comments states
>
> "The constantly changing categorisations of knowledge practices have
> variously integrated or excluded those experiences that are frequently
> gathered under the umbrella of the problematic term ( supernatural) we
> are currently
> discussing, be it for ideological, political or simply fashionable reasons.
>
> A considerate mobilisation of connected ideas and concerns might shift the
> study of these phenomena from the 'safe' grounds of 'cultural ghettos' to
> the wider implied cognitive domains and their epistemological implications,
> as some previous research has demonstrated (see for example Roger
> Luckhurst's work on telepathy)."
>
> indeed the art science area often departs from the 'safe grounds to
> the wider and riskier epistemological implications
>
> by coincidence tonight in los angeles david rosenboom is performing his
> Zones
> of Influence work that includes biofeedback from the performers into
> computational
> algorithms- we arent far from practical telepathy and telekinesis
>
> Zones of Influence (1984-85) is a propositional cosmology activated in
> music.
> Written for percussion virtuoso William Winant, this five-part,
> concert-length
> work for percussion soloist with instruments linked via sensors to
> real-time compositional
> algorithms that generate electronic sound worlds, noise
> constructions, gliding sound
> shapes, morphological dynamics that bend melodies in to arrays of
> counterpoint,
> auxiliary keyboard and glissando parts, and more. In Zones of
> Influence, models of worlds become instruments.
>
> http://www.davidrosenboom.com/events#Zones of Influence to be
> Performed at REDCAT
>
> In 1990 Leonardo published Rosenboom 's monograph on The Extended
> Musical Interface
> with the Human Nervous System- which fifty years from now may be
> viewed as a manifesto
> for practival telekinesis and telepathy !!
>
>
> http://davidrosenboom.com/sites/default/files/media/downloads/MusInter.LEO_.97.final_.w_figs.pdf
>
> Inevitably the Leonardo publications and networked have worked outside
> of some of the safe territories-
>
> ( after all when leonardo started , art theorists and historians stated
> categorically that it was a waste of time to try and do art with
> computers , because there
> was no way computers could contribute to creative activity)
>
> to quote martha again
>
> "The constantly changing categorisations of knowledge practices have
> variously integrated or excluded those experiences that are frequently
> gathered under the umbrella of the problematic term ( supernatural)"
>
> the organisers of the science of consciousness state that they
>
> "emphasizing broad and rigorous approaches to the study of conscious
> awareness"
>
> so perhaps we can also " emphasizing broad and rigorous approaches to
> the study of what
> is considered supernatural today"
>
> much thanks to yasminers to have kept this discussion out of the easy
> polemics !
>
> Roger Malina
>
>
>
> TOWARD A SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS 2015
>
> CALL FOR PAPERS
>
>
> University of Helsinki, Finland, 9-13 June 2015
> Pre-conference workshops: 8 June 2015
> http://www.helsinki.fi/tsc2015
>
>
> Submission deadline: 30 November 2014
>
>
> Toward a Science of Consciousness (TSC) is the largest and
> longest-running interdisciplinary conference emphasizing broad and
> rigorous approaches to the study of conscious awareness. Topical
> areas include neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, biology, quantum
> physics, meditation and altered states, machine consciousness, culture
> and experiential phenomenology. Cutting edge, controversial issues are
> emphasized. Held annually since 1994, the TSC conferences alternate
> yearly between Tucson, Arizona (Center for Consciousness Studies,
> Univ. of Arizona) and various locations around the world.
>
> The University of Helsinki is proud to host TSC 2015 in the Great Hall
> of its neoclassical main building located in the downtown area.
>
> TSC 2015 invited speakers:
>
> Patricia S. Churchland | David Chalmers | Harald Atmanspacher | Susan
> Blackmore | Peter Bruza | Deepak Chopra | Travis Craddock | Rocco
> Gennaro | Stuart Hameroff | Riitta Hari |
> John Heil | Jaakko Hintikka | James Ladyman | Steven Jay Lynn | Ariane
> Lambert-Mogiliansky | George Mashour | Alyssa Ney | David Papineau |
> Antti Revonsuo | William Seager |
> Petra Stoerig | Jennifer Windt | Dan Zahavi | and more to be announced
>
>
> TSC 2015 calls for contributed papers, contributed posters,
> contributed symposia and proposals for pre-conference workshops. The
> list of conference topic areas is on the conference
> webpage:http://www.helsinki.fi/tsc2015/topics.html
>
>
> Contributed papers: Please submit an abstract of 300-500 words
> prepared for anonymous review.
> Accepted contributed papers will be allocated in total 25-30 minutes
> (20 min for the presentation + 5-10 min for the discussion).
>
> Contributed posters: Please submit an abstract of 300-500 words
> prepared for anonymous review. Accepted contributed posters will be
> presented in separate poster sessions during the conference.
>
> Contributed symposia: Please submit an abstract of max. 1000-2000
> words. The contributed symposia proposals are not reviewed
> anonymously.
>
>
> Abstracts should be submitted by using the TSC 2015 registration form:
> http://tinyurl.com/TSC2015.
>
> Please note that the abstracts cannot be revised after submitting.
>
> All questions regarding submissions should be directed to the
> conference manager, tsc-2015@helsinki.fi
> The members of the programme committee and the local organizing
> committee are listed on this website:
> http://www.helsinki.fi/tsc2015/organizers.html
>
>
> The conference is organized in collaboration with the
> Center for Consciousness Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson:
> http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu
> and Department of Cognitive Neuroscience and Philosophy, University of
> Skovde, Sweden:
>
> http://www.his.se/en/Research/Systems-Biology/Kognitiv-Neurovetenskap-och-Filosofi/
>
> Paavo Pylkkanen (chair of the local organizing committee)
> Tuomas Tahko (co-chair of the local organizing committee)
> Ms. Paivi Seppala: tsc-2015@helsinki.fi
>
>
>
> Important dates
>
> 30 November 2014 Deadline for abstract submissions
> 22 January, 2015 Conference registration opens
> 30 January, 2015 Notifications of acceptance
> February 2015 Preliminary programme announced
> 31 March, 2015 Deadline for early registrations
> 19 May, 2015 No more refunds for registration cancellations
> 8 June, 2015 Pre-conference workshops
> 9-13 June, 2015 TSC 2015, University of Helsinki
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Abi Behar Montefiore, center@u.arizona.edu
> Asst. Dir, Center for CONSCIOUSNESS STUDIES
> Univ. of Arizona, Dept. of Anesthesiology
> POB 245114, Tucson, AZ 85724-5114
> tel. 520.! 621-9317 cell/text 520.247.5785
>
> --
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 25
> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 12:43:06 -0800
> From: Stephen Nowlin <stephen.nowlin@artcenter.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] Concluding Remarks -- The Plight of
> the Supernatural
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID:
> <
> B5FE072E6FEA1A48B04CEBCBF71CC2934C797CF6C8@LI-EXCMS01.Artcenter.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear Yasminers --
>
> As a way of concluding our discussion about the supernatural, I offer a
> few final remarks and invite others to do the same.
>
> There is a philosophical argument that the term supernatural can be
> understood as the name for 'beyond what is knowable.' I understand that
> agnostic argument, but I doubt its material veracity. In the past, what was
> unknown and is now known, even if it turned out to be very different than
> what we had expected or imagined, was naturalized by virtue of our knowing
> it. This pattern is well established. The concept 'unknowable' is, I think,
> by definition meaningless.
>
> A more prosaic argument for the meaning of the term supernatural is 'the
> magical kingdom' which supposedly underlies all material reality. This is
> the meaning to which the term is wed across multiple cultures, religions,
> and histories.
>
> Thusly defined, for the last five-hundred years science has been this
> supernatural's antagonist. And for even longer, art has been this
> supernatural's image maker. I agree with earlier discussants that those
> established relationships and their inherent tensions do not fully define
> the contemporary art-science enterprise. But I maintain that art-science
> must engage that historic and ongoing tension at least to some degree, as
> an inescapable and critical part of its discourse. To do otherwise would be
> for art-science to have naively missed the an important implication of its
> own practice.
>
> Finally, I conclude with a historical perspective. In Arthur C. Clarke's
> book and Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey," a black rectangular
> monolith was presented as the symbol for a paradigmatic leap forward in
> human cognitive evolution. (As an aside, the monolith is interesting in
> light of Minimalism as an avant-garde contemporary art form at the time the
> book and film were produced. Minimalism is physical, sculptural, and
> concrete, of this world and not of the pictorial illusionistic world of the
> imaginary.)
>
> One could say that metaphorically a similar monolith presented itself to
> the mid nineteenth century in the form of the concept 'abstraction.' Until
> the middle of that century, aesthetic experience had been largely invested
> in the illusionistic, pictorial, space of painting -- i.e.,
> representational art. With abstraction and its commensurate decline of a
> reliance upon illusion to represent reality, world views that had been
> authorized, enforced, and codified for thousands of years in the fictional
> space of painting, began to erode. Over several decades, paintings evolved
> from being windows to an imaginary reality, into being real objects in the
> same real space as their onlookers. And at that same time, revolutionary
> discoveries in science were informing the nineteenth century's
> cultural/intellectual milieu. I maintain that this erosion of illusion in
> painting that accompanied a movement toward the concrete, symbolized the
> general decline of confidence in the supernatural brou!
> ght about by the advancement of science. The traces of a cognitive change
> symbolized by art moving from fictional, pictorial space into real space --
> the same space that science studies -- can be traced from its origins in
> the 1800s, through the twists and turns of twentieth century modernism, to
> the present engagement with art-science in the twenty-first.
>
> These are some ideas embodied in my current exhibition REALSPACE, at the
> Williamson Gallery, Art Center College of Design, through January 18.
> http://williamsongallery.net/realspace .
>
> Many thanks to Roger Malina and to the Yasmin list moderators for engaging
> this difficult and potentially contentious subject of the supernatural, and
> to the thoughtful and polite writers who contributed over the past few
> weeks, as well as those who followed the discussion from the sidelines --
> this has been a stimulating conversation and I, for one, enjoyed it very
> much.
>
> /stephen
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 26
> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:50:53 +0100
> From: Ken Friedman <ken.friedman.sheji@icloud.com>
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] Closing statement -- with Thanks to
> Stephen Nowlin
> To: Yasmin Yasmin <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <2FEA8100-91DB-48AE-8980-C4AF9F0F9DD8@icloud.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Friends,
>
> There is nothing I want to add. My closing statement is simply a thanks to
> everyone for interesting conversations. Thanks especially to Stephen Nowlin
> for interesting thoughts and productive dialogue.
>
> Warm wishes,
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | ?? She Ji. The
> Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in
> Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
>
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
> Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University
> Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne
> University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia ||| Adjunct Professor |
> School of Creative Arts | James Cook University | Townsville, Australia |||
> Visiting Professor | UTS Business School | University of Technology Sydney
> University | Sydney, Australia
>
> Email ken.friedman.sheji@icloud.com | Academia
> http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 27
> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 13:49:57 +0000
> From: "Klein, Joseph" <Joseph.Klein@unt.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] Closing statement -- with Thanks to
> Stephen Nowlin
> To: Yasmin Yasmin <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <1415108999667.79186@unt.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
>
> I would also like to thank Stephen for coordinating this fascinating
> discussion, and for the invitation to participate---also to Roger and
> everyone who contributed to the discussion over the past few weeks. As an
> artist, I have been interested in exploring naturalistic and materialistic
> influences over the supernatural; so these thoughtful responses from the
> participants have given me a lot to consider as I forge ahead in my own
> work, and I appreciate the opportunity to be involved in the conversation.
> Best to all,
> Joe
> ???????????????????????????Joseph Klein, DMusDistinguished Teaching
> ProfessorChair, Division of Composition StudiesUniversity of North Texas
> College of Music1155 Union Circle #311367Denton, TX 76203-5017(940)565-4926
> (ph); (940)565-2002 (fax)Joseph.Klein@unt.eduhttp://
> www.music.unt.edu/comp/josephklein
> ________________________________________From:
> yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr <
> yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr> on behalf of Ken Friedman <
> ken.friedman.sheji@icloud.com>Sent: Monday, November 3, 2014 11:50 AMTo:
> Yasmin YasminSubject: [Yasmin_discussions] Closing statement -- with Thanks
> to Stephen Nowlin
> Friends,
> There is nothing I want to add. My closing statement is simply a thanks to
> everyone for interesting conversations. Thanks especially to Stephen Nowlin
> for interesting thoughts and productive dialogue.
> Warm wishes,
> Ken
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | ?? She Ji. The
> Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in
> Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
> Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University
> Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne
> University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia ||| Adjunct Professor |
> School of Creative Arts | James Cook University | Townsville, Australia |||
> Visiting Professor | UTS Business School | University of Technology Sydney
> University | Sydney, Australia
> Email ken.friedman.sheji@icloud.com | Academia
> http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________Yasmin_discussions mailing
> listYasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.grhttp://
> estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
> SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the
> page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and
> password in the fields found further down the page.HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on
> the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the
> last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the
> page that will appear ("options page").TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in
> the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on
> or off.If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to
> http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
>
> End of Yasmin_discussions Digest, Vol 139, Issue 1
> **************************************************
>
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
