My problem with 'fuzzy', applied to art, is not the meaning of the word, but the flavor. It lacks elegance. I like 'fuzzy' when applied to the certain way of thinking. Boris Shoshensky
---------- Original Message ---------- From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Validity of Cheerskep's Argument Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:18:09 -0400 > i like fuzzy, because a little this way or that, in the > final design, would not alter it's aesthetic value > You might like 'indistinct' better. Every notion or idea we construct from sense data is an approximation and thus is indistinct, inexact, and fuzzy. Every idea we have about the outside world and anything we make that 'represents' something else is an approximation of the other thing. The raw sense data of our vision and hearing is less than the full range of light or sound waves, so that besides being imprecise and inexact, we hear and see only a fraction of what can potentially be heard and seen. The English language has roughly 1,000,000 words in it. About 100 of them are fixed "structure" words, such as pronouns, prepositions, and articles. These categories of words almost never add new members; they're closed. But the other 999,900 words belong to various "descriptive" categories (nouns, verbs, modifiers) that are used to describe and denote the world out there. And they aren't enough! All language and verbal communication proves to be imprecise, ambiguous, vague, open to interpretation--Cheerskep's fuzziness. As I mentioned several times before, when we are awake and alert, our daily experiences of the world seem to be more or less sharply focused, but they constantly pass before us in motion, with overlapping sounds, smells, tastes, and touches. We pick and choose how to give them priority and clarity (probably close to William's frequent remark about "projected" meaning)--except, of course, for pain and the internal alarm when our body is injured or sick. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
