[Sol Falling]

Originally Posted by ccie20012

I refer to an authoritative source

Source - the tragedy "Mozart and Salieri" (1830) Alexander Pushkin (1799-1837). Word of Salieri (scene 1):
To art I made out of facility,
And facile I became: my fingers gained
A dry obedient dexterity,
My ear reliability. I deadened
The sounds, dissected music like a corpse,
Proved harmony by algebra. And then,
Then only did I dare, with all my lore,
Yield to the bliss of my creative fancy.
I started to compose, but quietly,
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/push...eksandr/p98mo/
Ironically: the futile attempt to judge the artistic creation, based only on a rational beginning, excluding the feelings, the unconscious, etc.

While your source might be historically respected, it cannot be called authoritative. There are many schools of art, and the school emphasizing emotional responses which you have cited here is specifically the school of romanticism, popular amongst the artists/intellectuals of Europe in the 18th/19th centuries. While I myself am hardly interested in puffed-up academic studies which aren't immediately accessible to mass/general people, if you were to actually place Nishio's writings into some school of art in particular, it would be better to interpret them from the perspective of post-modernism.

Why?
I agree with the first part and disagree with the second.
There is Occam's razor. Do not invent unnecessary entities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Emukae - then an extra essence. This is an artificial construct.
Zen love to Medaka. Medaka love to Zen. End.
The principle of least action.

Heh. The "Occam's razor" part you have forgotten here is that Medaka actually doesn't love Zenkichi. Not in any sense that she thinks he is a "special" person, and not in any sense that she feels that they are bound together. If Medaka doesn't in the end carry any special feelings for Zenkichi, then why should they actually end up together?

Originally Posted by Tenchi Hou Take

Your kinda entirely missing the point, color would be a more logical example there is no right and logical choice for the most part it's a combination of factors. Fact of the matter is there's a few thousand stimuli that determine a persons each individual behaviour some are simple with obvious significant effect in which certain key stimuli can be infered as a factor others are not, to say we understand love to the degree your talking about is fallacious at best. We still understand a very small amount of the human brain, we may be approaching the amount of ram required and rough processing speed to reproduce a human brains functions but we're still very far from understanding it.

We have a rough understanding, but our very sentience itself affects the standard instinctual to some degree, which love encompasses. Your talking in definitive answers when the what we're talking about doesn't have one so I take offense to what your saying as your talking bull. I don't know how much you understand about the subject, but your conclusions are sentience. I'm actually laughing about incorrect it is such a you would require a ridiculous amount of information on each individual subject matter to come to reasonable response which could be entirely wrong.

Some advice never talk in definitives and facts in these sorts of subjects are professional could see your inaccuracies from a mile off.

That's kind of irrelevant. Obviously it is true that no single human or computer currently possesses the capacity to completely analyse things like "love" (or most other aspects of personality) in a mechanical manner. I'm not talking about something complicated like predicting all the microscopic processes through which a person comes to experience a feeling of "love" towards other people, though. I'm just talking about the possible causes which would form the root basis of that happening. I.e. Why does Zenkichi love Medaka? 1. Sexual attraction? 2. Emotional attachment? 3. Intellectual agreement? etc. etc. There might be one or two or hell maybe even three main factors/causes ( lol), but so long as you can describe/understand all of them, you have a rational understanding.

On a more abstract level, there are tons of fields like Thermodynamics which studies the macroscopic behaviour of some sort of system, and this sort of approach is sufficient to begin to rationalize any sort of system of incomplete information. Macroeconomics, Social Psychology, and etc. countless other disciplines all exist as examples of a scientific/logical methodology which deals with imperfect degrees of information. As a matter of fact, macroscopic judgements based on incomplete information is a model for how people generally make interpretations about everything throughout their everyday living. Rational understanding does not have anything in particular to do with "perfect" information; as a matter of fact, "perfect" understanding being an impossible concept anyway, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a "rough" understanding, just so long as it is accurate.