>>572591864>you could make it into something that lifts you out of your normal experience via interpretation
Yeah you could take anything and make it transcendental. That's the process of making art. However it's not trivial as you seem to imply.>You have a completely subjective set of values that determines what's transcendental and what's not
Sure, I've never argued against that. However I do believe that there's an overlap for the majority of people and the point of even talking about a subject like this is to find that overlap.>Objectively, everything is transcendental to some capacity
This is pretty meaningless. It's like saying objectively everything has some good parts. At best it's a cop out of having to think deeply on something by throwing your hands up and leaving everything to degrees and parts. At worst it's a nonsense statement that has no real meaning.>But if you thought about anything long enough, it will.
I disagree. There's somethings that will never be sublime no matter how much you think about it, unless you mean some kind of stream of consciousness thing where I eventually think about something else. But at that point I would say it was something else that moved you. And again, this whole process is not trivial like I said above, and would in itself be related to the process of creating art.If you really break it down it doesn't even seem like we're disagreeing on some things here, as you're basically saying if you work hard enough you can create art, which is exactly what I've been saying.