William writes: "Frankly, I think you philosophers are lost in the wilderness. Both philosophers, I mean Derek and Cheerskep, seem to..."
My gracious, William, I think it cruel and wicked of you to stigmative both Derek and philosophy by calling Derek a philosopher. You write: "in fact, we never have any control over the hearer's response." Sure we do. And you believe we do, or you'd never bother to post anything on the forum. The word that earns your statement an 'F' is 'any'. If we take pains to be as clear as we can, we "communicate" more serviceably than if we just slap down any old lingo. We're all a bunch of slow learners on this forum, William, but over time we do learn. You grouse about my traffic cop role on the forum's thruways and dead-ends of language, but I'm confident at least some listers will now occasionally spot confusions -- on the forum and in other reading of theirs -- that they wouldn't have without my countless warning-tickets. One lister I can say with surety is not as bad as he was before all this pulling-over of reckless drivers is. . .Cheerskep. WC: "Cheerskep seems to want to exclude lyrical, descriptive, metaphorical language". Not so, you ungrateful villain. E.G. note all the metaphorical stuff in the previous paragraph. Rhetorical metaphor can often be helpful in quickly conveying a notion with a minimum of verbiage. Incidentally, I think your Cinderella's shoe image has some cherishable elements, but I suggest you have it backwards. Usually we work to find the words (the shoe) that fit the notion (the foot). And you mustn't say I'm against descriptive language. I repeatedly ask listers -- and myself -- to please describe the notion lying behind key words. "Lyrical" writing is not intrinsically opaque, but if the following is your idea of "lyrical", then, yeah, I'm agin it (as traffic cop, I'd say your driving in the dark without your lights on): "I've never felt that art should be defined but instead symbolized in the form of art propositions through self-reflective experiences and projected inclinations." -- WC You write: "I suspect the fundamental cognition is > pictorial. We sense pictures and then try to clothe > them in words...while they act like restless kids." > It may be for you, given that you're a gifted visual artist. It's not for me. Note: This time you got the image right: the body is the notion, and we struggle to find the apparel (the words). And I like your "kids" image. Kids and notions are indeed indeterminate, indefinite, multiplex and transitory. WC: "Thus Cheerskep gives himself wiggle room, saying that more than one word might be serviceable but deep down he'd prefer it was unnecessary. "I wish you guys would get it settled. Is the tennis ball of reality in the subjective court or the objective court? Or is it the net that defines reality?" I gotta admit, William, judging from those two paragraphs you yourself seem in no danger of learning anything from me. You make me want to change my traffic-cop image. I think I'm more like the school's street-crossing guard trying to protect the kiddies from recklessly speedy ideas. ************** Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
