Several aesthetic discussions have entailed an appropriation of the essential nature of aesthetic judgment / enjoyment. Kantian ‘disinterestedness’ has been examined in numerous possibilities and shades. Such discussion rises partly out of genuine query and partly out of a need to justify aesthetics as a proper discipline. Theorists like Derrida, Barthes – “it is the language that speaks, not the author” – (Barthes 1977, p.143) and others in one sense, side with Indian aesthetics which considers Ras-nishpatti (consummation) in the Rasika (enjoyer) as the culmination point in aesthetic cycle.
One certain way to seek (and sometime, find) a solution is trial and error. Conceptually, it appeared destined for oblivion as bulk of human knowledge grew to lessen the sea of unknown. As, a large part of knowledge created increasingly grows dated, the degree of uncertainty remains the same. Some might even say that over the past decade, it has grown!
Knowledge may also be defined on scale of certainty. If in a particular village the sun would rise between one specific tree on left and another specific tree (or rock) on right, one could be sure that this direction may safely be called east. Mystics have always made fun of the idea of such ‘ascertained’ knowledge.
Openness became the mantra now. … In pulling off the veil and the wall, man has gone back to nature. .. The various deaths — of God, State, Poet, Word… the musical note — have given birth to … blogs, chat-rooms, podcast, sms and a self-centred one way non-committal unhalting communication which leave no room for silence, thought, contemplation. (From Films4debate )