Now why is it that I don't understand Cheerskep's lengthy comment? What the hell is he really saying? He rambles. He maintains that I want to say words have meanings, me, the champion of meaninglessness!
I should stick to painting, a very faulty practice where moving a dirty, fuzzy-tipped stick around on cloth merely commemorates ambiguity and wandering associative feelings, thoughts, puzzlements, and all the brain germs. Back to Cheerskep's linguistic hospital. All those intangible connections between inert words and thoughts keep on changing. When Cheerskep stops to spray them dead, they've already scooted away and are tomfoolering with other words. That's why poetry and painting, as samples of the game, are so appealing. They enable play. My pal Schiller figured that out in 1795, a few years before the linguistic inspectors. WC --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It's fun, this -- spotting sources of fatal > fuzziness in forum arguments. > Makes me feel like a hospital inspector in the > nineteenth century after > Pasteur > discovered the pernicious effect of germs. "Sir! > There are germs on your > apron! > On your hands! On your instruments, your bedding, > yourb&." > > I could do without 'fuzzy', but in truth I cherish > it a bit. (Insider joke > for William!) I could use blurry, foggy, cloudy, > muddy, muddled, as I stride > through the operating room, the ward, the bathrooms > of philosophy. > > There's no question there are smart people on our > forum. The frustrating > aspect of the germ-hunting assignment is not that > others lack intellect. It's > getting smart people to grasp the necessity to stop > and examine the notions in > their minds that they are trying to "articulate". > Yet another danger of > language is this: When we're fussing around with a > blurry notion, very often > our > effort turns to finding a word or phrase to > "express" the blurry thing before > we've cleared up the focus to a serviceable degree. > Often what we settle for > is a > familiar word that has been used before to convey > "something like" the notion. > The word then acts as an anodyne, a Valium, that > quells the fussing, the > sense that our notion isn't sharp enough. It's one > of the causes of inadequate > poetry -- and muddled, vague, ambiguous philosophy. > > William writes: > "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." > > As hospital inspector, I'm content to accept the > word 'perceiver' -- but I > cite as a germ the word 'perception'. And also: > 'synthesis', 'relationship', > and 'explained'. The words can be germs in the mind > of the speaker in that > they > veil very foggy notions, but it's possible they > don't -- i.e. sometimes the > speaker can have a serviceably clear notion but > choose a word to convey that > lands in a very germy way in the other guy's mind. > Each one of the germ words > above can be associated in a listener's mind with > all sorts of different > notion. > The speaker may have one fairly useful notion in > mind, finds a relieving word > that he can persuade himself will "say" it, and he > happily utters (or writes) > it without nearly enough attention to how germly > ambiguous it can be in the > listener's mind. > > Which adds a second requirement for smart folks: > After making sure you have > sharpened your notion into as clear a form as you > manage, take pains to grill > each word you're considering to convey your notion. > Picture yourself as the > casting director for a play or movie. It's not > enough that the auditioner have > great head shots, and look the part. He has to be > able to project the > character. > > > William writes: > "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." > > "You, Billy! You stay away from that Schiller boy! > He's a bad influence! Come > inside. I'll make you a nice cup of cocoa." > > Williams writes: > " Cheerskep is like the 2nd grade teacher who raps a > budding Mark Twain with a ruler for saying "ain't". > > Now, William, it ain't fair of you to say that. Look > back in the archives and > you'll see I've often used 'ain't' -- at which time > I should have had my > knuckles rapped -- not for using bad grammar but for > trying to be "cute > > William again: > "I offer that everything is fuzzy and blurry, that > nothing is so clear as to > be without the sin of fuzzy edges." I agree with > William here, whether what he > has in mind with 'nothing' is the word or the notion > at the moment (or even > an object in the non-notional "real" world). But > it's a matter of the degree > of > sinfulness. Some arguments are doomed from the > outset by fatally muddled > vocabulary chosen. Words abet the mind in its many > muddling proclivities. For > example, words discrete and stabilize. You can > quickly see something > potentially > suspicious in a phrase like 'the river'. 'River' is > a discrete and stable > word, > and 'the' conveys a feeling of definiteness. > Medicated by the vocabulary, > we're happy to accept 'the river' as labeling > something discrete and stable. > But > it doesn't, because the river ain't. Still, 'the > river' can be serviceable, > and in fact it usually is. "You can go from Albany > to New York by boat on the > river." Fill in your own examples of where 'the > river' can be can be > contentiously ambiguous or vague. > > William writes: > "Cheerskep might do well to tell us himself > precisely > what achievement and excellence denote."
