Ah, William, it's good to see you're still young enough to display such vigor in your exasperation and anger. There's a ream of possible response, but I don't have time for that at the moment. (This isn't a cop-out; I very much hope to get back to it. In fact I have a semi-ream of more in-depth response on my hard drive.) Still, a few quick remarks are possible.
Again, for reasons I can only guess at, you neglect to look for anything worthy in the other guy's position. I have no doubt that you ardently want non-"fuzziness" in many areas of your life. I too, in certain creative work, am in favor of fuzziness -- in the sense of fruitful ambiguity, multiplexity. But I want as little fuzziess as possible in my surgeon's work, or my accountant's arithmetic, or the instructions that come with my tv and its remotes. I'm fairly certain you agree with that last sentence, but you cannot bring yourself to admit the other guy has a point and sometimes fuzziness is a bad thing. I often embrace it in fiction, but seldom in non-fiction. And almost never in the alleged non-fiction we call logic, argument, philosophy. These are moments when our aim is to stir in the other guy's mind notion that is as close to our notion as we can manage. (Granted, as in so many other subjects our forum addresses, "clarity" is a matter of degree.) It's dismaying how often you dismiss Derek and others for lacking clarity, specificity, explanation. And yet with a dizzying inconsistency you embrace those lacks yourself. To my mind, the signal instance is exhibited in your use of the word 'art'. You in effect assert some things ARE "art", and others are not. Yet you have never -- and I suspect will never -- describe what you have in mind in terms that will enable us to see why you think the category you calls 'art' "exists", and how you distinguish between objects you'd say ARE "art" and those you'd say "are not art". Anyone who thinks of himself as an artist -- and likes to argue on a forum about "philosophy of art" -- should make an effort to achieve a respectable degree of clarity about this. And then, having put that delusion behind him, get on to the more interesting questions of "aesthetics". In a message dated 7/11/08 10:47:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I've been thinking about Cheerskep's favorite > admonition: Fuzzy. > > What is fuzzy? I mean what actual tactile sensation > is fuzzy but not, say furry? I guess furry requires a > longer sort of fuzziness, something like my cat's fur > or something long and hairy. Oh, how does hairy > distinguish from furry? Is hairy simply less thick > fur? > > None of this matters of course because for Cheerskep > fuzzy is a metaphor akin to blurry or indistinct. He > says some words are fuzzy, or some ideas or > expressions are fuzzy. When we encounter (feel) > fuzzy things we instinctively feel down to the hard > base from which it stems. Or do we? The trouble with > fuzzy is, well, it's so fuzzy. > > As an artist I think fuzziness is a virtue. In art > it's hard to be fuzzy but so necessary to achieve any > degree of genuine quality or symbolic content. > Fuzzier the better I say. But fuzziness needs to be > balanced so that one vague "stirring" (another > Cheerskep logo) reveals another without altogether > disappearing. And another, and so on. It's even > better when one fuzzy stirring begets an opposite > fuzzy stirring. Ah, paradox, the elemental life > force, the anti-matter, the invisible other side of > mass, the secret thought propping up the social > thought. Name an artist and you name a fuzzyist. The > poets call it, flatly, ambiguity. > > Why is Cheerskep so stuck on avoiding fuzziness? What > would he have us do? Is his an insistence on the the > old correspondence theory -- fully discredited in > these days of cultural theory and melting > (hmmm...melting is another sort of fuzziness, but more > optical than tactile) divides between saying and > seeing, or between reality and its symbols? > > He cares about communication whereby one person is > able to verbalize a specific thought to another > whose consciousness is "stirred" to reproduce the same > thought. And the more successfully this is done the > more useful the verbalising is. But is this how > people really communicate? I think not. Most good > conversations are like a mutual decorating of a > Christmas tree with one person adding this, the other > saying "how pretty" and then adding something herself, > and so on...until the tree is all but hidden under a > distracting but sometimes dazzling array of > decorations. The process is to and fro, a > collaborative event that often leads far from the > original "stirring" and results in war or peace. > Fuzziness is our lot, our prize, our burden, our fate, > doom and salvation. Long live fuzziness! > > WC > > Let's embrace fuzziness. It feels good. > > WC > > > ************** Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
