On Feb 27, 2009, at 7:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Your two sentences above claim that what you call "good and bad
qualities"
and "The raw material" BOTH in some way reside "in the objects". Do
you think of
them as two different entities? I can see claiming that "raw material"
resides in objects, but I hear no justification for the existence of
something you
call "qualities". The "predicates" 'good' and 'bad' can be taken as
solely the
words, or as the notional feelings inside our heads. In either case
they do
not "reside in" the object.
Please quote me accurately. I didn't say "good and bad qualities." I
wrote, "such as qualities that can be evaluated as 'good' in a work"
and "The raw material that leads to 'good' and 'bad' predicates reside
in the objects."
I'm picking my words carefully, too. A quality is a property or
attribute of a thing. I used it with that notion in mind, not the
casual, everyday, kitchen-table notion of a degree of excellence,
which calls for a judgment. I believe that qualities inhere in the
substance of things and that those properties are disposed and
configured in such a way that, when we encounter them, we will
perceive the same qualities in the same configuration repeatedly.
(Yes, clouds and water and other fluid things do vary shape, but
rigidity is not an essential property or quality of clouds or water.
So, let's not get sidetracked about that.)
The qualities in the work don't vary, don't come and go as the
transient ephermera of thought. Our judgments do not inhere in the
things, but they are in here, in our noggins where we interpret our
perceptions. And they may change as time passes: we may initially deem
a thing to be badly formed, but later reevaluate it and judge that it
is good, or vice versa. We make the judgment of "good" and "bad" based
on what we think and feel about the disposition of the qualities in
the thing.
Some arrangement or configuration of qualities tend to be judged the
same way, with little variation, through the years and by many many
people. Those configurations are said to be "timeless proporitons,"
say, like the Golden Section. Other material properties of a thing
might enjoy popularity and pleasant responses for a time, but then our
judgment of their forms shifts, tires perhaps, and we think less of
the object. This is fashion, mainly, the passing approval of social
forces. My paradigm for this is the 1962 Dodge and Plymouth, really
unattractive cars that were popular for a season or two,
http://www.allpar.com/reviews/photos/fury/1962.jpg
or Dodge
http://www.chooseyouritem.com/classics/photos/109500/109887.1962.Dodge.Lancer.770.2-Door.Hardtop.jpg
unlike the 1957 Chevrolet BelAir, a "classic" design.
http://www.hubcaps.org/blog/wp-content/images/2007/08/1957chevrolet210.jpg
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
