Geoff; You recite Cheerskep's manefesto: There's no meaning in the words. Well I agree but once the words are used, or read, they evoke or convey some meaning. So, words must remain in a closed dictionary to remain devoid of anything like meaning. I won't press this issue because the jury has met and delivered the verdict and judge Cheerskep has pronounced sentence. I guess that makes you a prosecutor. I assert my innocence. I'm such a great fan of meaninglessness but only as an idealized goal. I don't deserve jail time even though I never said we could ever attain a consciousness of meaninglessness, for that would be meaningful.
Your analogy to the fortune teller, I forget her name, is not so good in my view because she never wrote a great work of literature, as Proust did. She never painted a great painting, as Cezanne did. She never wrote a piece of great music, as Stravinsky did. Those people and others are the prescient subjects of Leher's book, not willy-nilly fortune tellers. An analogy should aim at equal comparables, not propose an aburdity as a way to devalue what it is compared to. I understand your remark regarding the Ancient Egyptians and their art/artifacts/works. You mean it was essentially unchanging and thus not subversive. However, with acquaintance, one can notice that Egyptian history and "art" falls into several major periods and several "intermediary" periods throughout its long history, each with its distinctive features. It is not difficult to see how style and purposes changed over time, how native and outside rule fostered those changes, how the general styles ultimately dissipated in the midst of greater cultural intermixing. One period in the New Kingdom saw radical purposeful stylistic and religious/political change. This was around 1370 BC, during the reign of Ak'tenaten and Nefertiti. Although the antiquity of ancient Egypt and its geographic isolation helped to slow internal change, it was no less intrinsically invulnerable than any other ancient culture. Those that came later were and less protected by geography and more technologically mobile and interdependent on neighbors. The dramatic subversion of early relief sculpture by late relief sculpture by means of a shorthand and faster technical process and for a far more public function is just one of many examples one might point to. WC --- On Fri, 11/14/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: 'The value' is linguistic quicksand > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, November 14, 2008, 11:48 AM > William: Nope. Doesn't work. I think Cheerskep might > join with me in > asserting that there is no meaning in a test result. The > meaning comes when > I decide that the cancer is bad. A surgeon might predict > death in a certain > time period without intervention but he/she would not > necessarily view the > cancer as "bad". Leading to more or more intense > symptoms/death and > therefore bad, perhaps. And, as a footnote to that > argument, there would be > a big difference for me if the cancer was skin or prostate > cancer versus > liver cancer, although, yes, none would be good. > The value-free methodology produces information/words which > we consider and > after a moment's thought, conclude that the information > is bad or predicts > trouble. The meaning is not in the words - it's reached > when we > decipher/associate to the words we hear/read. > Geoff C > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: 'The value' is linguistic > quicksand > >Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:34:38 -0800 (PST) > > > >How about this? Tests show that your body has cancer. > That cancer is bad > >for your body. > > > >There's a value free methodology pronouncing on the > value (cancer is bad) > >of an artifact (your body). Millions of other examples > can be found, I > >suspect. > >WC > > > > > >--- On Fri, 11/14/08, armando baeza > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: Re: 'The value' is linguistic > quicksand > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: "armando baeza" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: Friday, November 14, 2008, 9:51 AM > > > > Geoff wrote: > > > > > > > >> "I just don't see how a > methodology which > > > is supposedly value-free > > > >> can > > > >> pronounce on the value of artifacts. > > > > > > > > > A phrase to remember, thanks, cheerskep. > > > mando > > > > > > On Nov 14, 2008, at 7:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Too briefly: The phrase "the > value" is > > > communication quicksand, both > > > > because of 'the' and because of > > > 'value'. The word/notion > "value" > > > > is what > > > > I'll call > > > > "soft" as opposed to > "hard" -- > > > i.e. it doesn't come attached to > > > > current or > > > > potential sense data. "Eiffel > Tower" and > > > "taste of vanilla" are > > > > hard phrases. > > > > Soft, derivative phrases aren't useful > without > > > serviceably precise > > > > descriptions > > > > of the notions behind them. > > > > > > > > The definite article 'the' both > reifies and > > > implies there is solely > > > > a single > > > > "referent". But readers will claim > there are > > > many different kinds > > > > of "value". > > > > This prompts Chris to an oblique > half-response: > > > > > > > > "Some artifacts serve as better > scientific > > > evidence than others > > > > -- that's > > > > how." > > > > > > > > Geoff's response to that aims to harden > the phrase > > > a bit, but the > > > > exchange is > > > > unlikely to escape the quicksand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************** > > > > Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, > theaters, movie > > > news & > > > > more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10000 > > > > > > > > 0075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?redir=http://toolbar.aol.com/ > > > > > > > moviefone/downloa > > > > d.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
