In a message dated 6/26/09 8:52:16 AM, [email protected] writes:
> There is no mark on Dicken's writing. This is a metaphorical use of a > word whose meaning is physical. Miller's definition included words like > "leaving a trace on a surface". This is a simple dicussion about a > thing. One might ask-does an artist,seeing a mark in someone else's work, > think-I could do that,I like that,how would I use it? > Semi-philosophical discussions turn out never to be simple. I've been browsing some mid-twentieth century philosophers on "meaning". It's astonishing to see them assuming they all have the same notion when they use key terms, and how often they've never considered how cloudy their notions are. "Miller's definition included words like 'leaving a trace on a surface'." That's not a serviceably clear definition to me. Certainly I cannot use the remark to conjure a notion tht I can reasonably apply in any non-visual genre. What leaves the trace? Did Miller's definition include nothing about "intentional"? And what sort of intention? Sure, if I spit on a painting, some Brooklyn Museum painter might say, "Jeez, that's interesting. I wonder how I might use that?" This couldn't be Miller's definition, but let's use it for a moment: "In this discussion when I say 'mark', the notion I'd like to arise in your mind is that of any visually observable change in the surface appearance of any physical object whatever -- painting, sculpture, building, tree, wall, pond, mountain." Using that definition, what newly illuminating notions do you think follow from contemplating that definition of 'mark'? ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006)
