RE: 'My gracious, William, I think it cruel and wicked of you to stigmative both Derek and philosophy by calling Derek a philosopher.'
Philosophy has many mansions... DA On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 1:52 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
