Chris, I'm willing to hang in there on Shaw until you dig out his distinction between "rareness" and "rarity". The old classic philosophers would say the likes of this: "Rareness" is the quality that makes an "object" a "rarity". Then they'd have to describe the quality. So would Shaw. So far, one of Shaw's intelligence lapses manifests itself in his sometimes seeming to talk of "rareness" as a feeling in observers, as distinguished from a quality in the object. When talking about it as a feeling, he almost seems to suggests it's a quasi-Lockean "primary" feeling/impression like fear, yellowness, or pain.
In the end, he must address the concern that you have expressed, and I too apprehend, that all sorts of things that none of us would ever say have "art" but all would admit have "rareness" -- i.e. your being swallowed by a whale, to which I'd add the likes of that child who had eight limbs, certain other highly rare afflictions, being the richest man in the world, or the tallest, or going twenty NFL football games in a row without winning. Until he surprises me profoundly, his assertion that "rareness" DEFINES "art" marks him as a dimwit and a waste of time. ************** One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
