Hi Louie,
I wrote:
"...what the heck are you talking about?"
I must apologize for that. I was trying to be informal, though I'm sure it =
came off as impolite. Thank you for expanding your ideas and especially for=
being kind in your reply.
As far as you "mixing up this thread," there maybe two different subject he=
adings, but they are both of the same discussion.
"Sublime" has already been interpreted several different ways in the respon=
ses so far. My inclination is that a perception sublime could manifest from=
many different situations whether spontaneous or intentional. Whether suc=
h an experiences are conveyed to others through a nature recording will par=
tly depend the underlying emotional state of the listener. Like moments of =
lucid thought, perceptions sublime require a convergence of forces not nece=
ssarily under ones own control.
John Hartog
rockscallop.org
--- In Louie <> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Perhaps it was unclear and I don't mean to derail the thread but I was
> replying to Jos=E9 who brought up the Kantian notion of the sublime. What=
I
> meant was that the sublime is quite a strange idea to mention in the
> context of a nature recordists group as Kant believed that in order for
> humans to fully appreciate the sublime (all examples of which are typical=
ly
> natural; seeing and hearing the ocean for instance), we have to filter wh=
at
> he understood as nature's terrifying elements (the 'wild, crude and
> repulsive') and re-present them in a form we could appreciate as beautifu=
l.
> I'm not sure if that is how people here see their role as recordists...
>
> Also, I was mixing up this thread with the other one (new soundscapes and
> realism), my mistake.
>
> Louie.
>
>
>
|