Holy Cow! We send our logs into Cheerskep's sawmill and the only thing left is sawdust. Is it wrong to say that it's useful to use a subject and an object? So there is, let's say, a specific Delacroix painting, the object and then there is me, the perceiver, the subject. Perception is the synthesis of subject and object and that relationship can be judged, and in metaphorical ways, explained. So why is it fuzzy (I hate how Cheerskep rolls out that word almost as much as I hate that other goddam word, cherishable) to speak of that relationship its synthesis, its organic connection? Why does language need to be so concrete, if it can ever be concrete, in trying to deal with the most subtle of all forms of cognition, the blending of the abstract with the literal? No, for the umpteenth time, I am not saying that the essence of excellence resides in an object, like the soul is resting in Descartes' pituritary gland. This accusation drives me nutty (and since being nutty is insanity I have no obligation to awaken the same notion in Cheerskep's brain. Insanity can't be communicated).
Excellence is a singular perception of a subject of an object. It is an experience that makes us most human, as my new best friend Schiller argues. It is the same as beauty. The object "speaks" -- often much more clearly and benignly than the linguist cop -- and enlivens my brain, my mind, my perception. If there wasn't "something" independent that forms the other end of a relationship, then we are trapped in swirling pools of confusion. Cheerskep is like the 2nd grade teacher who raps a budding Mark Twain with a ruler for saying "ain't". He raps my poor knuckles bloody too for speaking fuzzy and blurry stuff. I offer that everything is fuzzy and blurry, that nothing is so clear to be without the sin of fuzzy edges to entrap children and wandering insects. And it's perfectly acceptable to speak "as if" objects had some essence--loaned to it by ourselves individually, probably collectively too, --enabling us to examine how we experience it. In fact language is all about separating things one from another, allowing the pretense that we can step aside from our own fantasies, to regard named objects as if they had qualities, something more than simple concrete, mute existence. I prefer philosophy in Schiller's sense where it is a genre of poetry, a little unwieldly, non-technical, fuzzied up and feathered --- like a new pair of wings. Cheerskep might do well to tell us himself precisely what achievement and excellence denote. Meanwhile, I'm taking my sawdust back to the glue shop. Besides, there's no point in going ahead with excellence as an aesthetic experience. The conversation is stopped at the gate by Cheerskep demanding linguistic papers, perhaps forgetting that the positivist mindset is finally out of fashion and human feeling -- fuzzy-wuzzy -- is hot stuff again. All metaphors intended. WC --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It's not just I playing the philosopher of language > when I say the fuzziness > is appalling in all you guys as you talk about > "achievement" and "excellence". > > > For openers, it's not clear if you think of these > whatever-they-are as > something you are ascribing to a creator, or the > created thing, or in some > blurry > way to a "career", or to an event, or..... > > William seems to think of it as a "quality/property" > in a work that causes a > certain feeling. He reaches for poetry to convey > something of what's on his > mind: "You > won't forget its presentation of the moment, the > precise moment of consciousness of the "frozen right > now", fusing spectator and painting in a sphere of > infinitude." William here appears to be trying to > describe an "aesthetic > experience" -- a phenomenon that I applaud > examining. Notice: it can't be > the > "consciousness" of the artist that's doing this > fusing of spectator and > painting. And yet it hard to think of the > spectator's moment of consciousness > doing > the fusing. Or maybe William in some way means the > painting is doing the > fusing > of a moment.... And so forth, or, rather not forth, > sideways maybe, or > backward... > > William writes: "excellence is a one-time experience > in relation > to an object". Wait -- the contemplator's experience > is the excellence??? So > it isn't that Delacroix had "excellence". It's not > even that the painting has > "excellence". > > William goes on: "whereas achievement is abstract, a > standard, a measure." > But others on this thread seem to think of a given > work's being an > "achievement", or winning a prize, or being elected > to the Academy at a very > young age. > > If one wants to call "excellence" a quality/property > that a work "has" that > produces an a.e., then a work can "have" > "excellence" for one man, and not > for the next. > > As for "achievement" as an "abstract, a standard, a > measure", then no work is > an "achievement", no prize, no election. And it > prompts the questions: A > "measure" how? Of what? When? Moreover, go look at > the various winners of > prizes > for literature. Sometimes the winner is a work -- > Pulitzer Prize -- sometimes > it's the writer. > > William may again claim I'm kicking a dead horse. > But I assert the listers in > this thread are monumentally fuzzy and confused, and > the dead horse looks > very lively as it extrudes a great deal from its > anal aperture. (Don't fash > yourselves; I'm just a fellow lister trying to > reinject some liveliness into > the > forum.) > > > ************** > Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video > on > AOL Home. > > (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00 > 030000000001)
