As a person who learned to abandon likes and dislikes, I can break this proof.
"It means we can't say that any painter is better than a randomly chosen eight year old."
First, this is a non-literal arguement and so is disconnected from reality in a literal sense. We CAN say this. We can also make taste claims AND we can admit it's arbitrarily driven by many different decisions and biases developed before this lifetime, as artists and art don't exist in vacuums. We can also admit it's absolutely an adultist perspective to dismiss a person's contributions by the age of their current body. Literally everyone has different skills and the impact art has can be wildly different depending on the piece and the context it's viewed in. A person (namely me) can become inspired to change the world by witnessing a 1-year old creating a realistic drawing of pumpkin seeds. Is that art good based on whether or not the person is successful at changing the world? Who cares! It's an arbitrary and unnecessary judgment being made out of a habit of judging things, rather than observing and accepting whatever's being received.
This post represents a continuation of the cultural norms of preference-making (which is a form of limited identity), avoiding absurdity, over-reliance on classical logic instead of uncertainty logic to process reality (since it doesn't leave room for art that exists in multiple classes of equivalence of good and bad and judges art based on too short of a timeline).
Anyone who abandons their preferences gets to realize how limiting thinking like PG proposes here is, how it limits the joy and value of any artist or work of art, and how this creates a hostile environment for artists of literally every kind.
Good... bad...meh.... there exists art that meets all needs while denying none and then there's the rest.
If you've never abandoned the automated judgment and preference-making most of the world teaches, you can never realize a perspective that transcends arbitrarily subjective thinking.
Also, as an aside, tastes are, in part driven by trauma. I hypothesize this is why some people in addiction recovery develop different tastes after having spiritual experiences/awakenings: they heal from and release the stuck feelings from some past trauma(s) which were being used to judge other things in life.
So does anyone want to abandon their preferences as an attempt to falsify this perspective for science? I have a practice that worked for me and want to conduct an experiment where some people genuinely/sincerely commit to it without being aware of the practice and others choose to try it only after learning about the practice. Any brave souls want to seek deeper joy and release from cultural/ trauma programming?
"It means we can't say that any painter is better than a randomly chosen eight year old."
First, this is a non-literal arguement and so is disconnected from reality in a literal sense. We CAN say this. We can also make taste claims AND we can admit it's arbitrarily driven by many different decisions and biases developed before this lifetime, as artists and art don't exist in vacuums. We can also admit it's absolutely an adultist perspective to dismiss a person's contributions by the age of their current body. Literally everyone has different skills and the impact art has can be wildly different depending on the piece and the context it's viewed in. A person (namely me) can become inspired to change the world by witnessing a 1-year old creating a realistic drawing of pumpkin seeds. Is that art good based on whether or not the person is successful at changing the world? Who cares! It's an arbitrary and unnecessary judgment being made out of a habit of judging things, rather than observing and accepting whatever's being received.
This post represents a continuation of the cultural norms of preference-making (which is a form of limited identity), avoiding absurdity, over-reliance on classical logic instead of uncertainty logic to process reality (since it doesn't leave room for art that exists in multiple classes of equivalence of good and bad and judges art based on too short of a timeline).
Anyone who abandons their preferences gets to realize how limiting thinking like PG proposes here is, how it limits the joy and value of any artist or work of art, and how this creates a hostile environment for artists of literally every kind.
Good... bad...meh.... there exists art that meets all needs while denying none and then there's the rest.
If you've never abandoned the automated judgment and preference-making most of the world teaches, you can never realize a perspective that transcends arbitrarily subjective thinking.
Also, as an aside, tastes are, in part driven by trauma. I hypothesize this is why some people in addiction recovery develop different tastes after having spiritual experiences/awakenings: they heal from and release the stuck feelings from some past trauma(s) which were being used to judge other things in life.
So does anyone want to abandon their preferences as an attempt to falsify this perspective for science? I have a practice that worked for me and want to conduct an experiment where some people genuinely/sincerely commit to it without being aware of the practice and others choose to try it only after learning about the practice. Any brave souls want to seek deeper joy and release from cultural/ trauma programming?