rec.autos.simulators

> > He reads too many RICHARD Dawkins books.

> > JoH

> No need to shout - I was joking.
> --
> Steven Crook-Dawkins - Research Assistant - University of York.

> > > He reads too many RICHARD Dawkins books.

> > > JoH

> > No need to shout - I was joking.
> > --

> Yet the newsgroup is wondering; is there a relation? ;)

> -Gregor

> I think you're getting a bit too deep for me, Gregor!

> I simply know what I like and what I don't like.  I like the shape of a 1967
> Eagle-Weslake. I even like the shape of a 1989 Ferrari. I don't like the
> shape of a 2000 Ferrari.  End of story.

>> He reads too many RICHARD Dawkins books.

>> JoH

>No need to shout - I was joking.
>--
>Steven Crook-Dawkins - Research Assistant - University of York.

> I think you're getting a bit too deep for me, Gregor!

> I simply know what I like and what I don't like.  I like the shape of a 1967
> Eagle-Weslake. I even like the shape of a 1989 Ferrari. I don't like the
> shape of a 2000 Ferrari.  End of story.

> > > No....you've missed the point entirely.

> > > I don't understand surrealism but I love a lot of the art.
> > > I don't understand how the universe works but images of galaxies and
> nebulae
> > > and planets are gorgeous.
> > > I understand, to varying degrees of knowledge, how current F1 cars work
> and
> > > why they look like they do but they STILL look ugly to me.

> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Bruce Kennewell,
> > > Canberra, Australia.
> > > ---------------------------

> > I don't think we are disagreeing here. I am just claiming there are
> > different ways towards aesthetics. Sometimes the beauty of an event is
> > in the experience of the event itself, and this is the beauty that
> > usually strikes us most. This is, I think, what you are talking about.

> > Yet sometimes the beauty comes from seeing where and how an event came
> > about. This can have just a strong effect as the impression of a
> > beautiful event, but requires knowledge behind it to enjoy.  Still,
> > sometimes such appreciation of, for example, art can degenerate into
> > something really strange. Have you ever listened to music experts
> > discussing some piece only the author could love? They will speak about
> > minutae that so easily escape the ears of a casual listener, and they
> > would rave about those for hours. Sometimes they (usually the
> > self-proclaimed experts, though, not the real ones) even don't care how
> > the piece may sound overall.

> > True great art is able to fascinate on all levels, though. You said you
> > do not understand surrealism (which I don't believe, though :) ), but
> > you are fascinated by the paintings. Yet understanding the motivations
> > behind the painting and the details in it, and at the same time seeing
> > the overall result is where the greatest beauty lies.

> > And this does not apply to art specifically. You also mention the
> > galaxies and nebulae. They are awesome in its own right. I also consider
> > myself lucky to be able to know quite a lot about their origin and
> > dynamics as well, and that makes it all even more fascinating for me!
> > Or, when I start explaining to people how the rainbow comes about, they
> > would ask me, as a physicist, how can I even enjoy its beauty when I
> > analyze it so much? I tell them that knowing how it comes about makes me
> > even more fascinated about the event. It reaches me on both the visceral
> > and intellectual level, and that's what makes it even more beautiful to
> > me.

> > Back to F1 cars; they fascinate mostly on the intellectual level, while
> > as an overall shape they are rather messy. It is then up to the
> > individual which aspect of aesthetics they are most susceptible to, and
> > this is where we disagree.

> > But we all know that aesthetical preferences of individuals cannot
> > really be discussed. It just might be that the F1 cars look plain ugly
> > to you and not to me, and that's it ! :)

> > -Gregor

> > I think you're getting a bit too deep for me, Gregor!

> > I simply know what I like and what I don't like.  I like the shape of a
1967
> > Eagle-Weslake. I even like the shape of a 1989 Ferrari. I don't like the
> > shape of a 2000 Ferrari.  End of story.

> Agreed, but I'll admit that I think Rubens' car looks better than
> Michaels :-)

> Beers and cheers
> (uncle) Goy

> "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/
> "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/

> * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way *
> "Spamkiller"    http://www.spamkiller.com

> --
> Regards,
> Bruce Kennewell,
> Canberra, Australia.
> ---------------------------

> > but I'm
> > sorry it has to be the 2k year not the '83!

> --
> Oli
> BeoRocket Racing
> http://www.beorocket.co.yu/

> > You obviously have not seen the 1983 Pirelli calendar then?! :-)

> > --
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Kennewell,
> > Canberra, Australia.
> > ---------------------------

> > > but I'm
> > > sorry it has to be the 2k year not the '83!