Maybe I erred but I thought I was commenting on a post by Miller, not -- this
time -- Cheerskep.
I am not at all the in the least disgruntled. Most of the time I in fact do
agree with the comments of other listers. However, the fun about the list is
its criticality and we are all here to sharpen our views not, I hope, to pat
each other on the back for glimpses of truth now and then.
I do want to make a distinction between using the word ambiguity in its
poetical sense, that is, to signify multiple allusions, each one possibly
precise and clear, and the more common use of the word to signify vagueness,
indistinctness, blurriness, muddledness and so on. I do realize that the two
uses of the word can be mingled as for instance when a very vague allusion
actually reveals a rather precise state of mind. In text, er see "er..." as
vague prefix to to suggest a speaker's hesitant state of mind.
I am impressed by Cheerskep's thought that what he perceives as my disgruntled
behavior ("cantankerously confrontational" is the better phrase to stir the
notion he seems to have in mind), severe enough to warrant a visit to a
psychotherapist. I am an avid advocate of psychoanalytic process and have even
published short commentary in the field (Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Art,
and others). If I could afford it I'd be happy to undergo thorough
psychoanalysis.
Cheerskep just can't stand being confronted by anyone who wants to dig into the
superficial truth we all agree with -- that meaning is not in anything. He
wants to be the final authority on that little issue and I say fine. But there
is still the problem of meaning being conveyed. Should we call it opinion?
How does one convey one's opinion to another, including we may conjecture,
himself or herself. Don't we all have the hesitant "er..." prefixing our every
thought we have or hear? I say, er, yes. Does meaning exist in some
chemical/electro brain function? Is that how we act on cognition? If so, does
it exist 'in" our brains? If so, where do we draw the line...when people are
too handicapped, when we get to dog and cat brqains, frog brains, where? Can
electrical currents, as in computer functioning, convey meaning or opinion? Can
inaminate objects thus convey meaning or opinion? If so, what's the dividing
line between those that can and those
that can't?
I'm not mad (an ambiguous term of the second type). I just want to know stuff.
WC
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Inspirations and intentions
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 10:49 AM
> William writes:
>
> "The use of the word ambiguity in art, esp. poetry, is
> to call attention to
> THE MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS EVOKED by an image or
> allusion, phrase, or word.
> It does not specify vagueness. While the word ambiguity
> can be properly
> used to denote vagueness, in poetry it simply means many,
> as with layers. THE
> ARGUMENTS BELOW MISS THAT POINT. (Stresses are mine. --
> Cheerskep)
> WC"
>
> I can't ask readers to read again something I've
> written -- unless they are
> commenting on it. So I do ask William to read again my last
> message because it
> says exactly the opposite of what he seems to think it
> does. I wrote:
>
> "Certainly if anyone thinks any work of art, or any
> > utterance at all, is
> > "perfectly clear" he is failing to recognize
> > ambiguity in this sense: He
> > doesn't
> > realize NO TWO VIEWERS CONTEMPLATING THE SAME WORK
> WILL BE ENTERTAINING THE
> EXACT SAME NOTION."
>
> William does not describe what he has in mind with
> 'vague'.
> What most people have in mind is perhaps conveyed by such
> words as these:
> Indistinct, imprecise, dark, lacking clear outline or
> borders. These notions were
> not what I had in mind in my last posting, and that's
> why I did not use
> 'vague' at all in that posting.
>
> I explicitly conveyed that there are times in my work when
> I wanted viewers
> to entertain different possible interpretations of what
> they've just seen or
> heard.
>
> Perhaps I confused William with my assertion that both
> clarity and ambiguity
> are a matter of degree. All lines are to a degree
> ambiguous. The writer can
> never fully prevent lines from occasioning interpretations
> alien to his
> intentions, but with effort he can cut down on their likely
> number. I should have made
> clearer that what I also had in mind was the relative
> frequency of ambiguous
> lines compared to those when I want viewers to have no
> doubt about a "fact" in
> the storyline. Some playwrights, like Pinter, have a much
> higher percent of
> intentionally ambiguous lines than I ever do.
>
> William continues to dismay by how infrequently his general
> disgruntlement
> allows him to cite something he agrees with.
> Psychotherapists talk about a
> patient-type they term a "grievance collector",
> and they try to point out to those
> patients the various ways that conduct hurts them in the
> end.
>
>
>
>
> **************
> It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find
> your travel
> deal here.
>
> (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
