Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9182141" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I think this is one disconnect. It’s not so much&nbsp; bad faith as it’s an absolutely essential part of any balance discussion - ‘of the 100 million ways to achieve balance which one should we pick’.This picking always boils down to aesthetic choices because each set of options achieves balance and so balance alone cannot be the deciding factor. This part loses me again.If it’s something like - we can evaluate whether something is balanced independent of aesthetics then I agree!&nbsp; I’ve said nothing to the contrary though which adds to my confusion. What we can’t do on balance alone is evaluate which of the 100 million balanced options should be chosen. That’s where aesthetics comes in. Sure.&nbsp; Achieving that compromise usually also involves compromising aesthetics though. Assuming you mean do certain aesthetic choices require a lack of balance to maintain - I think yes - but that’s completely tangential to anything I was claiming (which rested on multiple paths to balance) - thus my confusion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 9182141, member: 6795602"] I think this is one disconnect. It’s not so much bad faith as it’s an absolutely essential part of any balance discussion - ‘of the 100 million ways to achieve balance which one should we pick’. This picking always boils down to aesthetic choices because each set of options achieves balance and so balance alone cannot be the deciding factor. This part loses me again. If it’s something like - we can evaluate whether something is balanced independent of aesthetics then I agree! I’ve said nothing to the contrary though which adds to my confusion. What we can’t do on balance alone is evaluate which of the 100 million balanced options should be chosen. That’s where aesthetics comes in. Sure. Achieving that compromise usually also involves compromising aesthetics though. Assuming you mean do certain aesthetic choices require a lack of balance to maintain - I think yes - but that’s completely tangential to anything I was claiming (which rested on multiple paths to balance) - thus my confusion. [/QUOTE]

Verification