Soul, nice example of dialectical thinking! Boris Shoshensky -- saul ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ipso facto everything is fuzzy and nothing is because the other is an impossibility Saul Ostrow Visual Arts and Technologies
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:26:23 EDT > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Fuzzy writing, fuzzy reading. > > Brian, after reading my harassing post to William about William's use of > disablingly fuzzy words, writes: > > "All of this reads like a defense for a doctrine of "clear and distinct" > ideas. Intimated in the accusation that "very often our effort turns to > finding a > word or phrase to "express" the blurry notion before we've cleared up the > focus to a serviceable degree" is the presumption that distinction is always > possible." > > Comfortably for Brian, he evidently missed my repeated posts asserting that > ALL notion is indeterminate, indefinite, multiplex and transitory. Plus my > many > remarks about how language misleads by "discreting" -- that is, since words > are discrete -- i.e. "distinct" one from another, and you can see their > "borders", their beginning and their end right there in front of us -- we > tend > erroneously to assume the notions they allegedly label are also discrete. > > But even without reading those, he had all the evidence he needed, right in > the post he was commenting on, to show I was perhaps the last person on the > forum to champion "clear and distinct ideas". > > In that posting I remarked on the frustration I feel when I see smart people > USE words lazily, carelessly, fuzzily. I feel a similar frustration when I > see readers READ things that way, and not link the various accumulating > remarks > in a given statement. A dark failing as a reader that Brian manifests, and > that he shares with William and Derek, would seem to be this: From a long > statement they will seize some one or two elements to call inscrutable, or to > disagree with, and use it as the pretext to avoid addressing all the other, > more > seriously rebutting arguments in the post. Though Brian, I admit, didn't > convey > that he even noticed or grasped that there were pertinent other elements. > > No intelligent reader of my post would infer "it reads like a defense for a > doctrine of "clear and distinct" ideas." > > My major complain in the post to William was the proclivity too many of us > have to use a word that doesn't convey our notion -- because we simply don't > stop to consider what a variety of notion the word has the potential to > occasion > in our readers' minds. In William's post I cited the words 'perception', > 'synthesis', 'relationship', and 'explained'. William, for example, said > "perception is the synthesis of" a painting and its contemplator. This, I > maintain, > is a deceptively foggy assertion, a kind of fervid, dreamy locution written > by someone who hasn't really worked to make his own notion serviceably clear. > Here are descriptions of the two most common notions occasioned by the word > 'synthesis': > > As an action: "The combining of separate elements or substances to form a > coherent whole." > > As an object: "The complex whole so formed." > > When I look at a painting, my thoughts/feelings/notion is quite separate from > the painting causing it. So William's "perception", since it's said to > "synthesize" what's in my head with what I'm looking at, must be different > from > what's in my head. His "perception" must be something other than my > thoughts/feeling/notion. But what can anyone's "perception" be other than the > actions of > thinking and feeling, or, as object, those thoughts and feelings? It is > romantic, murky moonshine to assert there is the painting, the contemplator's > complex > notion, and a third entity -- "perception" -- that is a "synthesis" of > painting and notion. > > It reminds me of the boozy bunkum of my schooldays: "We are all members of > one another!" "The world and I are one!" > > Look at the quote above from Brian. How could he possibly figure I was > looking for "clear and distinct" ideas when I specifically convey I am only > looking > for a "serviceable degree" of clarity? ('Serviceable' is another word I've > elaborated on to an extent William has found tedious in the extreme. I hope > William has noticed that, despite how often I stress the serviceability of a > line > like, "Please pass the carrots," listers still maintain that since I feel > communication can never be perfect I must feel no communication at all is > possible.) > > In the posting Brian is commenting on, I explicitly urge speakers to sharpen > their "notion into as clear a degree as you can manage". It didn't occur to > Brian to reflect on why I don't say, "sharpen them until they are clear and > distinct." > > Still later I explicitly agree with William's assertion, " everything is > fuzzy and blurry, that nothing is so clear as to be without the sin of fuzzy > edges." I add, " But it's a matter of the degree of sinfulness." I indicate > the > fuzzy edges of a phrase like, "the river", but I go on to say, " Still, 'the > river' can be serviceable, and in fact it usually is." > > I should perhaps modify my line, "No intelligent reader of my post would > infer "it reads like a defense for a doctrine of "clear and distinct" ideas." > I > should perhaps observe that what's prevailing here is either a lack of > intelligence or a ruinous carelessness at reading. Either way, it frustrates > the > likelihood of useful discussion. > > > > > > > > ************** > 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=aolhom00030000000001) > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. _____________________________________________________________ Click to make millions by owning your own franchise. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4t12ixOcuWuFqLU7Wsha6E17 Na4gM8R6aZh3JzoPH4J1M5hy/
