I consider a physico-chemical structure as a quality. Mountain is different from water regardless of human presence. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: inevitable and resolved Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
I think the mountain is a quantity, not a quality of matter. A quality is a valuing of some sort (chosen by humans). Thus a mountain may have one quality for the miner, another for the photographer, another for the landowner, etc., etc. But it has no quality independent of a person defining it. The mountain is just there -- as stuff. Even the laws of nature are human distinctions for the sake of utility, measuring, and valuing nature. Whether or not a mountain shows great upheavals of strata due to abrupt movement or simply reveals flat strata due to erosion is no evidence of quality, except for the geologist seeking one or the other as a particular example of the natural processes. wc ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:29:06 PM Subject: Re: inevitable and resolved The mountain is inevitable and resolved, and it is a quality of matter formed by laws of nature. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: inevitable and resolved Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:00:10 -0700 (PDT) The mountain is not inevitable and resolved; that is, the mountain is not a quality. What is inevitable and resolved is the state of mind or the feeling or the aesthetic experience of the viewer of the mountain. We might say that the mountain is beautiful or seems to have a sense of being inevitable and resolved but of course the mountain is neither, it is just there. It is meaningless. It is an empty container, as Lakoff and Johnson say, and we fill it up with metaphorical meaning. Now, instead of saying mountain, say art, or painting , or something else. It's still the same relationship between something empty and the filled up perceiving mind that is a churning cauldron of metaphorical potentiality, instantly offering up a plethora of meanings and allusions to still more meanings at every instant of experience -- if we allow it. Sometimes, a perception of metaphorical meaning seems to correspond so well to what we call the formal attributes of something, the subjective comprehension of its physical attributes, that we feel a sense of rightness so strongly that we say it's inevitable, it's resolved, it's "right" or that it couldn't be otherwise and still feel so right. But none of this is proving that the thing itself has the meaning or the rightness or anything other that its physical substance -- meaningless but present. Is this feeling possible with anything at all, I mean the sensation of the inevitable and the resolved? Maybe it is. When we don't have that experience in relation to something in the world, a mountain or a painting, is the problem with us, our unwillingness or inability to let the "churning cauldron" of metaphoric possibilities bubble over, as it were? Maybe. I think so. I think we always have the capacity -- if not the ready ability -- to experience the world as inevitable and resolved, as beautiful as a mirror of our metaphorical perceptions. If that's right then it's our responsibility, not the mountain's and not the painting's. wc ________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:51:32 AM Subject: Re: inevitable and resolved William made it up? Well, a fine phrase it is - especially regarding images that are recognizable scenes or people. As every mark within them doesn't feel "inevitable and resolved", they deserve to be called "mere illustration". But even if nothing is recognizable, still -- if "inevitable and resolved" is not the first response that comes to mind, such images deserve to be called "mere decoration" or "mere self expression" As Mando agrees - "inevitable and resolved" is a very high bar (and he's not even sure that all of his own work can clear it) It's the quality found in natural things: mountains, canyons, flowers, birds and such. (and to return to Louis Sullivan - I think this is why he suggests that great architects will only be those who grew up in the countryside rather than the city) Is any kind of special knowledge or ability required to recognize this quality ? I think it's only necessary to keep such a concern foremost in the attention - although with so many possible distractions -- perhaps that is not always so easy. And the longer that attention has been practiced, the more demanding (though not necessarily more narrow) it is likely to become. Is such an effort similar to what William calls "heavy lifting regarding content" ? I have no idea how he distinguishes "content" from "meaning". Does anyone else? ____________________________________________________________ Want to work all of your life? Click here for investment information and start saving today. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxQyrslAXurUuAStMfXRlsOqN FC11KbErcSx8unI4gqHQKM9GJJ8FS/
