William, you have it the wrong way around. What's narcissistic and quasi-solipsistic is your notion that the way YOU think, and the notions YOU have are universal to everyone. You think you is we.
"We pretend that there's art and we pretend that there's illustration. We can't think in any other way." Wrong. E,g, I don't think that way. "We always pretend to objectify our thoughts. We can't do otherwise. We can't. We just pretend that we can. That's what brains do. We can't get past that." Similarly wrong. Your assertions remind me of those of my Catholic friends after I "left the faith". "You CAN'T believe there's no God -- I KNOW you can't." It took me a bit to realize they assumed it was literally impossible for me to believe there is no god. "But I DO believe there is no god!" "No you don't," they'd reply with a comfortable surety. "You may say it, but you don't really believe it." I've spent far, far more time than you pondering such mental blunders as the reification of abstractions (what you call "objectifying our thoughts"). I've pondered long enough so that, just as I can do that "impossible" thing of believing there is no god, I don't reify my notions the way I did as a youngster. When a "thought" comes into my mind, I realize it is solely notional, I don't "objectify" it. Moreover, I realize it's a notion that will morph "before my eyes" because all notion is to a dgree transitory -- and indeterminate, indefinite and multiplex. When Wittgenstein asserted that "meaning" is not a "thing" inhering in each word but merely a way of using a tool, there were smart people around him who sincerely believed he'd gone a bit insane. They felt it was impossible for a sane person not to realize that meanings are things that "words have". I'll say this for you, William, you don't look your age. It is very youthful of you to believe that everyone MUST think the way you do. In a message dated 9/11/08 10:42:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Cheerskep drives home his point again.....like those circus people who > pound nails up their noses. It's an illusion. If he were to become dictator he's > insist on solipsism as a constitutional ammendment. We always pretend to > objectify our thoughts. We can't do otherwise. We can't. We just pretend > that we can. We pretend everything through our consciousness. That's what > brains do. We can't get past that. So we go on make-believing everything. The > argument he makes is clinical and thoroughly moot. It makes no difference to > anything we say or do. We pretend that there's art and we pretend that > there's illustration. We catagorize in order to pretend an order to our > consciousness. We can't think in any other way...unless we want to wallow in separate > self-delusional narcissism and solipsism. And that's madness. > > WC > > > --- On Thu, 9/11/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: "What IS xxx?" "IS xxx a yyy?" > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 9:14 AM > > Chris, encourage us -- tell us you don't miss > > Sendak's point. It's not the > > 'mere' that pains him -- it's the > > 'illustrator', the fact that he considers > > himself not an 'artist'. Sendak deludedly > > believes there "exist" two > > distinct > > "real", ontic categories of visual creators -- > > artists and illusrators -- and > > he > > himself classifies illustrators as "mere". > > > > But I'll accept there's little chance that > > you'll get MY point. > > > > ***** > > The question "What is xxx?" is a necessary > > platform for loads of eloquent > > theorists -- all of whom are deluded by the assumption that > > external-to-the-mind > > "categories" exist, and that every object either > > IS or ISN'T a member of a > > given alleged category no matter what any mind thinks. > > Expressed in Platonic > > terms, this error assumes that each object either has or > > has not (or > > "participates in") the required categorizing > > "quality" -- of "artness", > > "conceptual > > artness", "abstract artness", etc. > > > > Many listers pay lip-service to this argument -- > > "Well, of course, everyone > > knows that, that's a dead horse" etc -- and in the > > next breath use the word > > 'art' in a way that betrays that they DO believe > > each object either IS or > > ISN'T > > "art", and either HAS or HAS NOT a never-defined > > (chimerical) quality/essence, > > "artness". > > > > (This delusion is prototypically exhibited in a story this > > week about Maurice > > Sendak, in which he took seriously the muddled question, > > "Is XXX an artist or > > merely an illustrator?") > > > > > > > I don't see any fuzzy thinking from Sendak here -- > > because there's two > > > verifiable facts here: > > > > > > 1. He often gets called "a mere illustrator" > > (and I just called him one > > > myself) > > > > > > 2. "a mere ANYTHING" is a derogatory term - > > regardless of what it means to > > > those who use it. > > > > > > You wouldn't want to be called a mere story > > teller, or mere retired > > > publisher, > > > or mere nominalist -- would you ? > > > > > > > > > ***************** > > > "It is not that Mr. Sendak is angry that people > > question Rockwell's talent; > > > rather, he fears that he has not risen above the > > 'mere illustrator' label > > > himself." Despite the ambiguous phrasing, his > > regret is about what he feels > > > he > > > "IS", rather than being simply tagged with a > > vacuous label. He believes he > > > belongs > > > to the category of "mere illustrators". > > Again we see the perniciousness of > > > the not-thought-through, deluded belief in actual > > "real", "ontic" > > > categories. > > > > > ************** Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
