>What beguiles me is that the experiences from HAMLET, SUNFLOWERS, and LA MER are vastly different, and yet we are content to call all three a.e.'s. Why? It's true that though the "experiences" with chocolate, steak, and cognac are also vastly different, we have no hesitation in calling them all palatal (and olfactory) -- because we can point right at the specialized nerve-endings involved. It's hard to do that with a.e.'s. The eyes and ears conduct all sorts of sensations that occasion no a.e. "
This seems, so far, to be the clearest expression, yet, of Cheerkep's beguilement with the phrase "aesthetic experience" And I wonder whether a similar beguilement would accompany his usage of the word "pain", since the eyes, ears (tongue, skin, etc) conduct all sorts of sensations -- but we are all content to call only some of them "painful" -- and when we do so -- the rest of us have a good idea about how it felt. But then -- I also wonder why some degree of beguilement might accompany the contemplation of any phrase at all -- even "olfactory experience" since our noses are always sampling the world around us -- and who is to say when one sample is a called an "olfactory experience" and another is not. Perhaps such beguilement is just the radical nominalist's bewonderment that language ever seems to work at all. And why should anyone else care? ____________________________________________________________ Nutrition Improve your career health. Click now to study nutrition! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=2eJ4dBeO2MHQ7A536skyCgAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASQwAAAAA=
