Title : "James Webb Space Telescope images ranked by how good they look to eat."
link : "James Webb Space Telescope images ranked by how good they look to eat."
"James Webb Space Telescope images ranked by how good they look to eat."
Ha ha.
That's the first headline I read — absolutely not kidding — after I emerged from the comments section of the first post of the day, where I'd just written 4 comments bouncing off the question — posed by Inga — "How can any human not be in awe?"
1. "If you're so lacking in imagination, then your idea of what is objectively awesome is meaningless."
2. "BTW, what is 'awe'? OED: 'Originally: a feeling of fear or dread, mixed with profound reverence, typically as inspired by God or the divine. Subsequently: a feeling of reverential respect, mixed with wonder or fear, typically as inspired by a person of great authority, accomplishments, etc., or (from the 18th century) by the power or beauty of the natural world.'"
3. "'Reverence' is 'Deep respect, veneration, or admiration for someone or something, esp. a person or thing regarded as sacred or holy.'"
4. "What is the object of respect here — the universe itself or the images human beings were able to produce? I think it's the latter."
This post gets my "religion substitutes" tag. And I have imagination enough to know that some of us don't do religion or even have a "religion-shaped hole" that we hanker to have something jammed into.
In any case, many of us feel suspicious of the color-and-shape manipulations of these images. They're nudging us too much, insisting that we feel awe. It's a little like the January 6th Committee's over-produced show that insists that we feel anger and outrage. And some people don't think hardcore pornography is sexy. What X thinks is so sexy is exactly what makes it not sexy at all to Y. Maybe something subtler, something more real. Something human.So let's take a look at "James Webb Space Telescope images ranked by how good they look to eat," a column, in WaPo, by Alexandra Petri:
#4 Carina Nebula — Hmm, I am not sure about eating this. On the one hand, it looks savory, and I love savory eats! That rich brown color would go great in a stew or a steak pie! On the other hand, though, the texture. The texture looks, not to put too fine a point on it, very dusty. That’s not a characteristic I like in food! When I look at this, my first thought (after about 90 minutes of thoughts that are awe and wonder about the cosmos and our place in it) is: This looks like mushroom powder. Or the gravy you get in a packet. It might be okay to dip a chip in, but I am not raring to get at it, exactly. I think I would have a little of it if the person I was with said it was good, but if it were just an hors d’oeuvre being thrust at me, I might demur.
Oh! She had to put in that parenthentical!
Ha ha.
That's the first headline I read — absolutely not kidding — after I emerged from the comments section of the first post of the day, where I'd just written 4 comments bouncing off the question — posed by Inga — "How can any human not be in awe?"
1. "If you're so lacking in imagination, then your idea of what is objectively awesome is meaningless."
2. "BTW, what is 'awe'? OED: 'Originally: a feeling of fear or dread, mixed with profound reverence, typically as inspired by God or the divine. Subsequently: a feeling of reverential respect, mixed with wonder or fear, typically as inspired by a person of great authority, accomplishments, etc., or (from the 18th century) by the power or beauty of the natural world.'"
3. "'Reverence' is 'Deep respect, veneration, or admiration for someone or something, esp. a person or thing regarded as sacred or holy.'"
4. "What is the object of respect here — the universe itself or the images human beings were able to produce? I think it's the latter."
This post gets my "religion substitutes" tag. And I have imagination enough to know that some of us don't do religion or even have a "religion-shaped hole" that we hanker to have something jammed into.
In any case, many of us feel suspicious of the color-and-shape manipulations of these images. They're nudging us too much, insisting that we feel awe. It's a little like the January 6th Committee's over-produced show that insists that we feel anger and outrage. And some people don't think hardcore pornography is sexy. What X thinks is so sexy is exactly what makes it not sexy at all to Y. Maybe something subtler, something more real. Something human.So let's take a look at "James Webb Space Telescope images ranked by how good they look to eat," a column, in WaPo, by Alexandra Petri:
#4 Carina Nebula — Hmm, I am not sure about eating this. On the one hand, it looks savory, and I love savory eats! That rich brown color would go great in a stew or a steak pie! On the other hand, though, the texture. The texture looks, not to put too fine a point on it, very dusty. That’s not a characteristic I like in food! When I look at this, my first thought (after about 90 minutes of thoughts that are awe and wonder about the cosmos and our place in it) is: This looks like mushroom powder. Or the gravy you get in a packet. It might be okay to dip a chip in, but I am not raring to get at it, exactly. I think I would have a little of it if the person I was with said it was good, but if it were just an hors d’oeuvre being thrust at me, I might demur.
Oh! She had to put in that parenthentical!
Thus articles "James Webb Space Telescope images ranked by how good they look to eat."
You now read the article "James Webb Space Telescope images ranked by how good they look to eat." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2022/07/james-webb-space-telescope-images.html
0 Response to ""James Webb Space Telescope images ranked by how good they look to eat.""
Post a Comment