Naveen · Kumar · (नवीन · कुमार)

Four poets were sitting around a bowl of punch that stood on a table.
Said the first poet, "Methinks I see with my third eye the fragrance of this wine hovering in space like a cloud of birds in an enchanted forest."
The second poet raised his head and said, "With my inner ear I can hear those mist-birds singing. And the melody holds my heart as the white rose imprisons the bee within her petals."
The third poet closed his eyes and stretched his arm upwards, and said, "I touch them with my hand. I feel their wings, like the breath of a sleeping fairy, brushing against my fingers."
Then the fourth poet rose and lifted up the bowl, and he said, "Alas, friends! I am too dull of sight and of hearing and of touch. I cannot see the fragrance of this wine, nor hear its song, nor feel the beating of its wings. I perceive but the wine itself. Now therefore must I drink it, that it may sharpen my senses and raise me to your blissful heights."
And putting the bowl to his lips, he drank the punch to the very last drop.
The three poets, with their mouths open, looked at him aghast, and there was a thirsty yet unlyrical hatred in their eyes.

I think it says it all, doesn't it? Was the effect of the wine in the description or in the drinking?

@My reply to naveen God :)
if artists and their connoisseurs would have gone by rationality, ART could never have existed.

"A more precise way is to learn about nature through rigours of mathematics and science. Learn mathematics, do the form of meditation(described by your religion) if necessary, describe it(rigorously)"

I don't see objectivity / mathematical rigour any different from rationality or rational behavior and therefore I stand by my earlier comment.

Anyways, in short I second prashant's first comment.
"Was the effect of the wine in the description or in the drinking?"

Then who will explain why some piece of art is more appreciated than others. Obviously you are so engrossed in the art and got so much religious about it, then any attempt of anyone to describe it in any other terms will be met with acute resistance (even if it is more accurate one, for you will not understand it). Obviously, you do not want to raise knowledge.

a lot of inferences based on Obviously for a scientic person like you. :P

Nobody loses any essence. The beauty of something can only be appreciated in the long run only if its utility is realized. That utility can only be realised through a mathematical process and a rigourous description.

Escher, Da Vinci, Michael Angelo etc, subconsciously learned those rigour through a lot of practice. And their art is great because it maintains correct perspective. These perspective description in picture maintains proportion and they look realistic. Apart from these they all learned how to use golden ratio to their advantage.

Also without rigour, axioms or proofs there will always be a doubt in the sentient beings mind. That is the same kind of doubt I am talking about even regarding religious, philosophical description of god. And one cannot claim that people do not give a damm about their religion, because they contest it and they kill for it.

Anyways the three poets did not realise that this will be a contest for wine...:)

From your comments, it becomes obvious, so to speak, that you earnestly wish for everything in the world to have a boolean value, fall distinctly between black and white. Dear Naveen Sir, IMHO, life is not about all things boolean. There is a large amount of fuzzy content, things that can't be quantified, numbered, measured in mathematical terms. How much is a glass of water worth? Nothing at all at a vada-pav wallah's in Mumbai/Pune but how about a glass of water in the scorching Arid desert? Could you peg a price for it? Suddenly, you have a new term which can be used to describe all things uncertain. None other than Einstein propounded it. Relativity.

Can you grade movies on everybody's behalf and assume that everybody will accept it? The recent movie Ghajini, to me was nothing but a rotten collection of bilge and many of my friends agree, but certainly not all the people. You just need to check out Ghajini's box office performance to get a measure. Why the difference? Relativity, dear sir.

Art, you say? Why some forms are more popular? Relativity. In many cases, popularity is not even connected with quality, but then, the measure of quality itself is often a relative term. It's easy to describe a quality benchmark for a steel ballbearing, but can you come up with one for the humble Vada Pav? For a Bollywood movie? For maternal love?

People would just love it if there could be a machine/scale to measure how loved we are no? Or would they be? If you come up with a scale and announce that it is universal and everybody accepts it, that would be the day we should accept that human beings are incapable of thought,we just follow somebody else's index.

Am I hungry? My hunger-meter tells me. Should I hug my girlfriend? Why, just get the pheromone-meter out and see if she is the mood! A completely quantified world! How do you rate this blog post? Run it through that blog-reviewing machine machine, built on the foundations of SCIENCE and you will have your answer. I, however, will continue to use my own judgment, flawed or otherwise.