I think we might also want to recognize multiplicity - that we use language in a manner as to reference inter related concepts - as such may use the term fix to simultaneously attempt to repair a concept as well as put it into place Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art
> From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:50:05 -0700 (PDT) > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: fuzzy > > It is possible to use clear language without resorting > to either kitchen table talk or technical > philosophical terms. Phrases like kitchen table talk > evoke rather picturesque images and don't help clarify > much at all. Foe instance, my kitchen table and > chairs were made for me and so an allusion to them > would signify something rather unique, not common. > > This list is not the domain of ordinary folks with > their folk languages and myths. I'd say that almost > all, if not all, are well informed laymen when it > comes to language, usage, and the like. We don't need > folk talk unless we are pushed to ridicule something > in which case it is, as always, quite effective. > > I suspect Cheerskep may not be the only "trained" > philosopher here at least at the undergraduate level. > I was "trained" in philosophy as an undergrad and was > even named to Phi Sigma Tau, or something like that, > the Philosophy Honorary Society . Admittedly. I am > not on a par with Cheerskep in that field but I know > how to read philosophy. I think Michael is pretty > well informed too. An Saul. And others. So I think > Cheerskep can allow us to graduate to the next grade > where we can dispense with folk phrases like kitchen > table talk, fuzzy, muddled, and other vivid picture > terms. For all his faults even Descartes knew that > philosophy by pictorial analogy was misleading. > > Ambiguity is a well known term. It refers to layered > meanings, not fragments of meanings, and it proposes > that those layers are interrelated or harmonize in > some ways. Ambiguity does not refer to disconnected > thoughts but to thoughts that can amplify one another. > This is an important issue in aesthetics. > > Take the St. Louis Arch as an example of a monument > having ambiguity. Many symbolic attributions come to > mind with the Arch: modernist materialism, the > "triumphal" spirit of Manifest Destiny; its name > Gateway evokes allusions to the Big Sky of the > American West, the shape of covered wagon top spars, > engineering that "does the impossible" and still more. > Each one of these allusions evoke still others, > public as well as private. There was a recent PBS > film re the Arch. I've been to the Arch and rode in to > its top viewing area (a claustrophobic ride in a very > tight elevator!) > > If we can't deal with ambiguity in art and aesthetics > we are not confronting the problems of knowing what > art experience can be. > > WC > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean.
