Geoff writes: > Cheerskep wrote: "you have to make sure he's connecting your utterance > "Red!" with the color and not, say, with the shape of the object you hold up". > I understand you to have written that there are no relationships. However, > our minds do recognize relationships/"connections" as you suggest in your > last post. Our minds do the work (if you insist) but relationships are > inferred/understood." > No, Geoff, that's just my usual combo of obtuseness and carelessness at work. I should have said, "you have to make sure he's ASSOCIATING your utterance "Red!" with the color and not, say, with the shape of the object you hold up".
> The trouble with "our minds do recognize relationships/"connections" and > "relationships are inferred/understood" is their connotation that > "relationships" and "connections" are "entities". Some medieval philosophers believed > exactly that. They spoke of "relations" between extramental objects as "roads". > > Alas, my own phrase -- that "the mind associates" -- also has the unfortunate suggestion that associating creates an "association" -- an entity, an object. I want to distinguish between an action and an object -- but that's complicated stuff that I'm clumsily tackling in the unsent posting on "relations", so I shall be satisfyingly but unsatisfactorily brief here by holding my remarks to those in this paragraph, except for this:. Here are some excerpts from a commentary on medieval thinking about relations. They should give a feeling for the radically differing views on "relations". "Albert the Great, for example, objects to polyadic properties on the grounds that we are not presented in experience with anything but individuals and their so-called absolute attributes-that is, substances and their quantities and qualities.[10] "Ockham and his followers, for example, accept Auriol's view that relations exist only in the mind as concepts or beings of reason. "If we take anti-realism to be the view that (a) nothing in extramental reality corresponds to our relational concepts and (b) nothing is related independently of the activity of the mind, it is not hard to see why most medieval philosophers would reject it." Which is to say, "most" of them took exactly the opposite view from that of Albert, Ockam, Auriol and others.) > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Expertise and aesthetic experience > >Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:46:24 EDT > > > >In a message dated 10/11/08 11:27:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > > > Most philosophers say that whatever the aesthetic "experience" is, it > > > cannot be fully explicated because to do that is to describe it in terms > >separate > > > from the experience. > > > > >For William's sake, I'll say this as quickly as I can: Any philosopher who > >hunts for what something allegedly "IS" -- i.e. what non-verbal "thing" a > >given > >word in some way "signifies" -- is doomed, not only in the particular > >pursuit, > >but in useful work in general in many sub-divisions of philosophy. > > > >But William's core point is right. In general, the only successful way to > >convey what we have in mind when it's experiential is by ostensive > >definition > >-- > >"pointing at" the thing. Picture someone who's been blind for the first > >twenty > >years of his life. He undergoes a curing operation, and wakes up in a > >totally white room. There's no conceivable way that someone can convey to > >him > >with > >words what the visual experience of red is. You have to "show" him. > > > >How one "shows" him is a bit more complicated than it sounds -- for > >example, > >you have to make sure he's connecting your utterance "Red!" with the color > >and > >not, say, with the shape of the object you hold up -- but it can be done. > > > >Something of the same sort of difficulty obtains when trying to convey what > >you have in mind with "aesthetic experience". It has complications of a > >different sort. It's a commonplace in philosophy that, in fact, even when > >you > >and I > >agree a given object is red, I can never know for sure that your visual > >sensation is the same as mine. You may be "seeing" what I would call blue > >if I > >could > >somehow have your visual sensation at that moment. But I can't. > > > >If you and I stand and look at Van Gogh's SUNFLOWERS together, I know I > >will > >be feeling something I call an "aesthetic experience". It's something of a > >combination of being awestruck and quietly ecstatic. But I may have looked > >the > >same way standing in front of the nursery window in the hospital the day > >our > >first child child was born. If I look at you, and you are nodding and > >smiling, > >I can't be sure your feeling is (roughly) what I'd call an a.e.. > > > >I say "roughly" because no two experiences are ever absolutely identical > >even > >those of raw sense data. > > > >And note that my total experience at that moment is multiplex. I can > >identify > >in my consciousness the portions that are "visual sense data", and the > >portion that is the exultant feeling I'm calling an "a.e.". > > > >So as we gaze at SUNFLOWERS together, your smiling and nodding may be out > >of > >admiration, not exultation. You may be admiring, say, Van Gogh's technical > >skill with the brush and paint, without being "moved" in the peculiarly > >ecstatic > >way I am. In truth, though, if we talk about it enough, we can usually > >clear > >up any confusion about that. However, though I may become convinced you are > >experiencing what I'd call an a.e., I could never claim it's identical in > >character with my a.e. -- but I could feel it's close enough. > > > >When Luciano absoslutely nailed his "Vincero!", my wife and I could look at > >each other know we had "shared" an a.e. > > > >If I do become convinced of your feeling in front of SUNFLOWERS, I could > >say, > >"THAT'S what I mean by 'aesthetic experience'!" In sum, I would not have > >conveyed my notion of a.e. by using words; I would have done it > >ostensively. > > ************** New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
