# created
```dataview
LIST WITHOUT ID file.link
FROM -"windsurf"
WHERE file.cday = date(this.file.name) AND !startswith(file.folder, "windsurf")
SORT file.cday ASC
```
# modified
```dataview
LIST WITHOUT ID file.link
FROM -"windsurf"
WHERE file.mday = date(this.file.name) AND !startswith(file.folder, "windsurf")
SORT file.mday ASC
```
---
# [[diary and thoughts]]
#thought #diary
---
# Notes
# ascii art
◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉
◎╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲╱╲◎
◉╱◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉╲◉
◎│╱●══════●══════●══════●══════●══════●══════●══════●══════●══════●╲│◎
◉││╱╱((◉))╲╲╱╱((◉))╲╲╱╱((◉))╲╲╱╱((◉))╲╲╱╱((◉))╲╲╱╱((◉))╲╲╱╱((◉))╲╲││◉
◎│││╱╱╱●╲╲╲│││╱╱╱●╲╲╲│││╱╱╱●╲╲╲│││╱╱╱●╲╲╲│││╱╱╱●╲╲╲│││╱╱╱●╲╲╲│││╱╱╱●╲╲╲│││◎
◉││││╱◉◎◉╲││││││╱◉◎◉╲││││││╱◉◎◉╲││││││╱◉◎◉╲││││││╱
◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉
◎ 【S I G H T】 ◎
◉ ╱◉════◉════◉════◉╲ ╱◉════◉════◉════◉╲ ╱◉════◉════◉════◉╲ ◉
◎ ╱╱│▓▒░▒▓│▓▒░▒▓│▓▒░╲╲ ╱╱│▓▒░▒▓│▓▒░▒▓│▓▒░╲╲ ╱╱│▓▒░▒▓│▓▒░▒▓│▓▒░╲╲ ◎
◉││╱●══◉══●╲│╱●══◉══●╲││││╱●══◉══●╲│╱●══◉══●╲││││╱●══◉══●╲│╱●══◉══●╲││◉
◎││││((●))││││││((●))││││││││((●))││││││((●))││││││││((●))││││││((●))││││◎
◉││╲●══◉══●╱│╲●══◉══●╱││││╲●══◉══●╱│╲●══◉══●╱││││╲●══◉══●╱│╲●══◉══●╱││◉
◎ ╲╲│▓▒░▒▓│▓▒░▒▓│▓▒░╱╱ ╲╲│▓▒░▒▓│▓▒░▒▓│▓▒░╱╱ ╲╲│▓▒░▒▓│▓▒░▒▓│▓▒░╱╱ ◎
◉ ╲◉════◉════◉════◉╱ ╲◉════◉════◉════◉╱ ╲◉════◉════◉════◉╱ ◉
◎ 【H E A R I N G】 ◎
◉ ╱◉◎◉╲ ╱◉◎◉╲ ╱◉◎◉╲ ╱◉◎◉╲ ╱◉◎◉╲ ╱◉◎◉╲ ╱◉◎◉╲ ◉
◎╱╱╱●╲╲╲ ╱╱╱●╲╲╲ ╱╱╱●╲╲╲ ╱╱╱●╲╲╲ ╱╱╱●╲╲╲ ╱╱╱●╲╲╲ ╱╱╱●╲╲╲◎
◉│││╱◉╲│││││││╱◉╲│││││││╱◉╲│││││││╱◉╲│││││││╱◉╲│││││││╱◉╲│││││││╱◉╲│││◉
◎│││◉◎◉│││││││◉◎◉│││││││◉◎◉│││││││◉◎◉│││││││◉◎◉│││││││◉◎◉│││││││◉◎◉│││◎
◉│││╲◉╱│││││││╲◉╱│││││││╲◉╱│││││││╲◉╱│││││││╲◉╱│││││││╲◉╱│││││││╲◉╱│││◉
◎╲╲╲●╱╱╱ ╲╲╲●╱╱╱ ╲╲╲●╱╱╱ ╲╲╲●╱╱╱ ╲╲╲●╱╱╱ ╲╲╲●╱╱╱ ╲╲╲●╱╱╱◎
◉ ╲◉◎◉╱ ╲◉◎◉╱ ╲◉◎◉╱ ╲◉◎◉╱ ╲◉◎◉╱ ╲◉◎◉╱ ╲◉◎◉╱ ◉
◎ 【T O U C H】 ◎
◉▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓◉
◎░╱◉◎◉╲░╱◉◎◉╲░╱◉◎◉╲░╱◉◎◉╲░╱◉◎◉╲░╱◉◎◉╲░╱◉◎◉╲░╱◉◎◉╲░╱◉◎◉╲░╱◉◎◉╲░◎
◉▒│●│●│▒│●│●│▒│●│●│▒│●│●│▒│●│●│▒│●│●│▒│●│●│▒│●│●│▒│●│●│▒│●│●│▒◉
◎░╲◉◎◉╱░╲◉◎◉╱░╲◉◎◉╱░╲◉◎◉╱░╲◉◎◉╱░╲◉◎◉╱░╲◉◎◉╱░╲◉◎◉╱░╲◉◎◉╱░╲◉◎◉╱░◎
◉▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓▒░▒▓◉
◎ 【T A S T E / S M E L L】 ◎
◉ ╱◉◎◉◎◉◎◉╲ ╱◉◎◉◎◉◎◉╲ ╱◉◎◉◎◉◎◉╲ ╱◉◎◉◎◉◎◉╲ ◉
◎ ╱╱╱╱●●●╲╲╲╲ ╱╱╱╱●●●╲╲╲╲ ╱╱╱╱●●●╲╲╲╲ ╱╱╱╱●●●╲╲╲╲ ◎
◉ ╱╱╱╱╱│││╲╲╲╲╲ ╱╱╱╱╱│││╲╲╲╲╲ ╱╱╱╱╱│││╲╲╲╲╲ ╱╱╱╱╱│││╲╲╲╲╲ ◉
◎ │││││╱◉◎◉╲│││││ │││││╱◉◎◉╲│││││ │││││╱◉◎◉╲│││││ │││││╱◉◎◉╲│││││ ◎
◉ │││││◉●●●◉│││││ │││││◉●●●◉│││││ │││││◉●●●◉│││││ │││││◉●●●◉│││││ ◉
◎ │││││╲◉◎◉╱│││││ │││││╲◉◎◉╱│││││ │││││╲◉◎◉╱│││││ │││││╲◉◎◉╱│││││ ◎
◉ ╲╲╲╲╲│││╱╱╱╱╱ ╲╲╲╲╲│││╱╱╱╱╱ ╲╲╲╲╲│││╱╱╱╱╱ ╲╲╲╲╲│││╱╱╱╱╱ ◉
◎ ╲╲╲╲●●●╱╱╱╱ ╲╲╲╲●●●╱╱╱╱ ╲╲╲╲●●●╱╱╱╱ ╲╲╲╲●●●╱╱╱╱ ◎
◉ ╲◉◎◉◎◉◎◉╱ ╲◉◎◉◎◉◎◉╱ ╲◉◎◉◎◉◎◉╱ ╲◉◎◉◎◉◎◉╱ ◉
◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉◎◉
## more
### ╔═══╗ ╔═══╗ ╔═══╗ ╔═══╗ ╔═══╗
## ║◉◎◉║ ║◉◎◉║ ║◉◎◉║ ║◉◎◉║ ║◉◎◉║
╔═══╬═══╬═╬═══╬═╬═══╬═╬═══╬═╬═══╬═══╗
### ║◉◎◉║▓▒░║◉║▓▒░║◉║▓▒░║◉║▓▒░║◉║▓▒░║◉◎◉║
### ╔═══╬═══╬═══╬═╬═══╬═╬═══╬═╬═══╬═╬═══╬═══╬═══╗
### ║◉◎◉║▓▒░║╱◉╲║░║╱◉╲║░║╱◉╲║░║╱◉╲║░║╱◉╲║░▒▓║◉◎◉║
### ╚═══╬═══╬═══╬═╬═══╬═╬═══╬═╬═══╬═╬═══╬═══╬═══╝
### ║◉◎◉║▓▒░║◉║▓▒░║◉║▓▒░║◉║▓▒░║◉║▓▒░║◉◎◉║
### ╚═══╬═══╬═╬═══╬═╬═══╬═╬═══╬═╬═══╬═══╝
### ║◉◎◉║ ║◉◎◉║ ║◉◎◉║ ║◉◎◉║ ║◉◎◉║
### ╚═══╝ ╚═══╝ ╚═══╝ ╚═══╝ ╚═══╝
# chat about referee comments
Below is a “microscope-level” trace of where the referees detect the slide and why, line-by-line, it can look as though you change theoretical footing without signalling the change. Nothing here prescribes how to fix it; it only pinpoints the instability.
## 1. Two Competing Ontologies Surface Early
### 1.1 Introduction, p. 3
You write that, following Gorodeisky, [[aesthetic value]] is grasped through a _feeling of pleasure that [[the object]] deserves_.
- "Deserves" presupposes [[the object]] already _has_ a normatively loaded property.
- Pleasure is thus evidence for that property, not itself [[the value]].
→ Readers file this under an object-centred ontology (value first, experience second).
### 1.2 Immediately after, still p. 3
You adopt Zangwill's "verdictive beauty", explicitly a property "regardless of the ways in which it is realised."
→ Same ontology reinforced: [[the object]]'s beauty is primary; judgement/assessment recognises it.
Result: by the end of the third page the paper looks committed to "value-in-the-object, judgement tracks it."
## 2. A Sudden Switch to Experience-Centred Language
### 2.1 Section 2.2 ("[[The Pleasure]] of Use"), p. 8
"Using an object allows for aesthetically appreciable _interactive experiences_; mere observation does not."
→ Value now seems to _reside in [[the experience]] itself_.
No explicit statement says, "Here I change from object-properties to experience-properties," so the referee experiences whiplash.
### 2.2 Same page, last paragraph
"The snowball's [[aesthetic value]] emerges _from [[the experience]] of actually throwing it_."
- Verb "emerges" suggests value is generated in the act.
- This conflicts with the earlier "deserves"/"verdictive beauty" vocabulary where value pre-exists.
G's marginal question is therefore predictable: "Is [[the experience]] revealing, or creating, [[aesthetic value]]?"
## 3. Mixed Signals in Technical Borrowings
### 3.1 Zangwill (object-property) vs. Nguyen (process-value)
- Zangwill: beauty is verdictive → assessment.
- Nguyen: harmony/effortlessness is found _in_ agency → phenomenology.
The paper invokes both authors as if they were complementary without telling the reader whether they in fact belong to one unified ontology or to two.
### 3.2 Spencer's "superfluity of fitness" returns to object-properties ("reveals a surplus of ability"), yet two sentences later you say the very same surplus "is what _feels_ good." The bridge from property to feeling is not articulated; it is only implied.
## 4. Reviewer-Specific Triggers
- Referee G's quoted dismay:
"relies on Zangwill's 'verdictive beauty'… result of a judgement… yet author seeks to move away from Forsey's judgement."
→ G flags the silent oscillation between verdictive (objective) and agentive (experiential).
- Referee A's Chemex question:
"Is it always true that the interaction matters? Or is it sometimes true that the sensory experiences are the whole story?"
→ A cannot tell whether value is in object properties, in sensory appearance, or in lived use.
- Referee H's query:
"Is [[the experience]] itself the feeling of pleasure merited by its design? Or is [[the experience]] of use part of a complex that is itself an object of [[aesthetic evaluation]]?"
→ H literally names the two ontologies and asks which you mean.
## 5. Why the Slide Persists Even in the Passage You Cited
In the viola paragraph you emphasise that "only the violist herself" has access to the valuable experience.
- If the value is purely in the experience, then third-person judgement (audience, critic) should be _secondary_.
- But earlier you employed "merited pleasure" language, implying that a critic _could_ judge whether the violist's feeling is appropriate.
Because the paper never declares whether:
1. the experience _grounds_ (constitutes) aesthetic value,
2. or merely _discovers_ value already possessed by the object,
the reader senses an unresolved ambiguity—the slide.
## 6. Minimal Statement of the Core Problem
You have two theses in play:
A. Object-centred: the designed artefact possesses verdictive beauty; interaction is epistemic evidence.
B. Experience-centred: the aesthetic value is identical with, or generated by, the user's agentive experience.
The manuscript moves back and forth between A and B without announcing which domain each section is working in or how the domains relate. That oscillation—_not_ your commitment to experiences per se—is what the referees call the "conceptual slide."