In a normal dialogue among good willed people Michael's striking comment below would settle the matter once and for all. He did it by analogous metaphor. Yet what we know is usually far more than what we see; if not we'd probably not see much at all. We're continually refining and altering our beliefs in what we know-see.
WC --- On Sun, 7/27/08, Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "An 'aesthetic experience' MAKES the work 'art'" > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, July 27, 2008, 12:52 PM > On Jul 25, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Saul Ostrow wrote: > > > But if you respond to the request rather than > discoursin gon it - we > > would > > soon enough know where the difference may lay and > potentially > > adjust our > > own responses to those differences - > > > All of a sudden, I got this flash of insight into this > extended topic: > The problems enunciated by Cheerskep and the counter > responses of > others form a near-perfect analog of the Heisenberg > Principle in an > area outside nuclear physics. In the flux of conversation > and > discourse, the particles we use--the words--seem to drift > within > regions of signification, which we call the > "meaning" (or "meanings") > of the words. Within the discourse, some meanings are less > suitable to > forming a complete or coherent "understanding" > (in a functional sense) > than other "meanings." More precisely, some > *potential* meanings are > less suitable, as are some energy states, velocities, or > vectors of > subatomic particles. > > In order to ascertain the specific quantum state of a > particle, a > scientist has to observe it, and to observe it, he has to > *stop* it, > virtually, by measuring one of its dimensions. But by doing > that, the > other dimensions cannot be accurately measured. They are > indeterminable and thus uncertain. Hence the Uncertainty > Principle. > The quantum states are described as probabilities. (Mind > you, the > probabilistic distribution of quantum states doesn't > often cause a > building to fall down or an atom of carbon to irradiate the > artist > wielding the charcoal stick.) > > By analogy, the functional use of words serves us > sufficiently well in > most circumstances, until, under close scrutiny, we find we > cannot > determine both the "velocity" of the word and its > "position" in space. > This is Cheerskep's acting as the observant scientist, > constantly > locking down the speed of a word or its location, only to > see the > other quality slither away uncertainly. > > This whole matter of the "meaning" of words also > resembles the degree > of overlap between Newtonian and quantum physics. Newtonian > physics > works pretty well until we get to extremes of size and > speed, at which > point it fails from lack of extension. Quantum physics can > reach where > Newtonian physics cannot, and when the discussion comes > down to > matters of subatomic behavior, quantum physics is better > suited. But > Newtonian physics is quite up to the task of describing the > mechanical > effects of engineering stress and loads, of gravity at the > Earth's > surface, and the reactive force of rocket motors or a kid > kicking a > scooter along the sidewalk. > > Let me bring up, once again, my message of March 30 about > the way we > perceive coherent and focused activity that passes us > by--it looks > clear, we see things "in focus," the appearance > of things is "normal." > But when the movement is stopped, as by a camera, we see > many > oddities, small exaggerations of posture, unexpected > details, and a > lot of blurred edges in the still picture. > > Clarity of meaning is much like that, I submit. It's > understood with > greater definiteness in a dialogue of several voices, all > refining the > stress on the words and stabilizing their relationships > with other > parts of the conversation, both within the context and > pointing > outside to other things (connotation, referencese, etc.). > > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
