Miller's comment is  much too simplistic.  Even if our emotional/feeling 
reactions to things are not transferable to others except through metaphor and 
in that way are different for everyone (the as-if is not as), there are 
inumerable symbols that can convey the sense of feeling, and some of them go 
well beyond what one or another person experiences.  In fact, that's one reason 
we like to experience art. We like to become aware of symbolized feelings that 
expand our own. After all, why should we assume that our individual 
emotions/feelings are superior to the ways they can be symbolized?  And 
whatever can be symbolized can be shared.  

Note: I put emotions/feelings together here for the sake of convenience.  I 
realize that they are separate in neurological terms.  What matters in this 
comment is that we cannot be sure that the symbol of something is more or less 
than an actual object in the degree or intensity of its subjective asslusions.  
I'll guess that it's mostly much more.  If so, then our feelings/emotions are 
generally amplified by symbols and without them are nebulous and weak.

For aesthetics that would imply that our purely subjective and non-symbolized 
(unshared)art experiences are less strong in the absence of symbols and more 
strong with or by means of symbols.

WC


--- On Tue, 1/27/09, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Chris Miller <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Active voice - passive voice
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:24 PM
> O.K. -- I wouldn't want to be barbaric (though -- I do
> wonder whether any
> languages have gotten by without a passive voice. One
> internet page suggests
> that Slovenian is such)
> 
> Instead -- Aesthetics should just ban reference to
> knowledge or feeling unless
> they specify the ones who know or feel. (with the single
> exception of this
> sentence, of course)
> 
> That way, we could also get rid of "one knows" --
> or Derek's favorite -- "we
> know".
> 
> 
> Other exceptions might be allowed for rhetorical effect --
> but the real
> problem is that  thinking, not just speaking, is occurring 
> passively. It's
> the herd mentality, and it reduces aesthetics to an
> up-scale variety of rumor
> mongering.
> 
> "One knows that XXX is an important
> artist/style/movement/gallery/museum" --
> so unless one wishes to appear ignorant -- one spreads the
> word.
> 
> 
> 
>                           ******************
> 
> 
> 
> Active and passive allow one to place different kinds of
> emphasis on the same
> content, or allow one to eliminate information that is
> unhelpful or unknown in
> a given context (NB constructions use 'one' as a
> subject are an ersatz
> passive).  One's choice to use either the passive or
> active, then, has
> everything to do with desired effect.  To say that one must
> in certain
> circumstance write in one or the other is barbaric.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> Click here to become a professional counselor in less time
> than you think.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc21PbJeD7Av3QYuCb8z4cyk1Q
> 5E8GOs6UXycxrA1Zlio2s7a/

Reply via email to