On Mar 29, 2008, at 8:38 PM, William Conger wrote:
I've said it again and again. Either Cheerskep is going bonkers trying to whip us into linguistic form or he can't believe that anyone else already knows that there're big slippages between thoughts, words, stirrings and whatever else stands between us, each other, and the rest of the world
When you attend carefully to things in motion or in flux, like spoken language, you'll observe that at any discrete moment, the image or sound or feeling is indistinct, lacks a precise edge or boundary, is seemingly incomplete. But when it's taken in the greater flow, the flux, the motion, you organize and coalesce the whole stream of perceptions and impose an organization so that it seems distinct and precise. Listen to the way people speak: slurred consonants, mushy vowels, missing syllables, warbling pitch, but it seems complete and coherent to you. Likewise, the fuzzy brushmarks in the painting, the brutal chip marks in the stone, the peripatetic vowels in the song.
Perfection, a form of precision and antipode of fuzziness, is like the suitors' test to win Penelope's hand. They had to shoot an arrow through 12 axe handles. Not one or two, but 12, each loop narrowing the amount of permissible inaccuracy. Any of the suitors could have shot directly at the mark, but Cheerske-- uh, Penelope--made sure they used all twelve!
Sometimes, antifuzziness prevents infidelity. At other times, it's contrary to actual experience.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
