--- On Tue, 9/23/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Examining the theory > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 10:15 AM > As to all experience being ultimately subjective: Yes. > However, is there not > some substantial difference between "The temperature > today is 70 degrees F.
70 degrees F is a metaphor as are all measurements. > and " Being in love is like floating on a cloud, being > lost in the sky and > feeling rapturous ..."? Wasn't it you who > discriminated between primarily > sense experience and statments of opinion: "Edward > Albee wrote that play" > vs. "That play is the most important drama of the 20th > century and mirrors > most marriages exactly". All statements are judgments and all judgments are opinions and all opinions are metaphors. > So, all experience is ultimately subjective but some > experiences are more > verifiable by others. It's always a matter of degree. > All experiences being mediated by metaphor: I don't get > that. "It's 70 > degrees outside" is a pretty plain fact. One senses the heat before one knows the metaphor of degrees F. > "It's as hot as the kitchens of > hell" is metaphorical (or should that be, a simile). > Perhaps all experience > may be conveyed (to an extent) by metaphor. > Leonardo's statement's clarity: I guess we're > different folks. I don't claim > to understand EXACTLY what Leonardo meant by > "improve". I do feel I > understand some meaning from the statement. Maybe he > recognized that his > statement would be ultimately understood in the > perceiver's own way and was > OK with the perceiver defining "improvement" in > his/her own terms. I feel I > understand less of his explanation of aerial perspective. > Perhaps that's OK, You're ahead of me in understanding L's improvement but I thought his aerial perspective would be as descriptive as one can get. The 3 rules are: with distance from the observer there is dimunition of size, dimunition of color, dimunition of clarity. Early perspective centered on the first, dimunition of size. > as I have no interest in investigating or translating the > meaning, as I'm > surely no graphic artist. Well, I'm not a psychologist and I do have interest in how we sense, think, act, and why. Art is pretty close to that. > I would agree that, as what we mean to convey is more > emotional/affective/sublime, we may have a greater need to > rely on, or to > utilise, metaphor. Not all experience is so meaningful > though. Please give an example. It will have to rely on function, why we act without full information. WC > > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: RE: Examining the theory > >Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 07:40:21 -0700 (PDT) > > > >Geoff Crealock wrote: > > > > > Who are some of the artists I've read, > writing about > > > art? Leonardo da Vinci > > > and Paul Klee are two examples. If reference is > made to > > > sense experiences, I > > > do get it but when the references are to > opinion-based or > > > personal-experience-based events, I tend not to. > > > >Are there any experiences that do not ultimately rest > in subjective sense > >experience? Are there any experiences that are not > related by means of > >metaphor? > > > >If you can "get" Leonardo's explanation > of, say aerial perspective, which > >is very declarative, what about his statement, "He > is a poor student who > >does not improve upon his master"? I would agree > that the latter statement > >is quite vague, particularly in not defining what he > means by improve. > > > >Does Leonardo's "improve" refer to art > quality -- the truly mysterious -- > >or to explicating and demonstrating rules for art > production? Since art > >quality is almost always -- certainly always in > Leonardo's era -- conflated > >with production rules (like those prescribed for > anatomic proportions, > >perspective, sfumato, etc.) how does one eliminate the > mysterious, > >ineffable, unclear and non-sensible from the expository > literalness of > >production rules? The two conditions are so > interdependant that one must > >admit to some incomprehensible insensible element-- > let's call it an > >information gap -- that must be filled with metaphor, > something > >subjectively invented by the reader or perceiver. > > > > What I'm driving at here is the idea that > it's not just that "some" > >sensory experience forces us to rely on subjective, > metaphorical > >substitution for that which is experienced but that ALL > sensory experience > >requires subjective metaphorical substitution. > Incidentally, This is where > >I agree with Cheerskep in his insisting on the function > of language to be > >the search for some "serviceable" link > enabling people to reasonably share > >otherwise very mismatched notions or ideas, meanings, > and the like. He puts > >the empahsis on the literal IS, a presumed one to one > equation between a > >wod and a referent. I put the emphasis on finding some > common ground, as > >it were, between metaphorical expressions where the > very nature of the > >metaphors is necessarily ineffable because our > experiences are subjective > >and entangle reasoning with feeling. > >WC > > > > > > > Requiring something inexpressible to be beyond my > > > experience: I infer that > > > you mean that I need or make something > inexpressible to be > > > beyond my > > > experience. If we are dealing with the > inexpressible or > > > ineffable, we're > > > dealing with things which are going to resist > > > communication. I'm not aware > > > of needing to impose some kind of meaning but I > would leave > > > room for not > > > understanding all about myself. > > > >I respond by claiming that you cannot help but impose > meaning, a subjective > >metaphorical "as-if" substitution. I agree > that this substitution may not > >be easily communicated or one may choose to not attempt > communication for > >both syntactical and normative societal reasons. > >WC
