Deep in my soul I felt it was something that had to be said - I wanted to give expression to the meaningless of those who would seek meaning by imposing their impossible standards on others when they do not hold themselves to the same standards - after all we should all be able to live together and accept the fact that some of us are brain damaged and others are delusional- Saul Ostrow Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art
> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:05:40 GMT > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Fuzzy writing, fuzzy reading. Correctoin > > Sorry for typo(Soul)in previous post. > > Saul, 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)
