On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:08 AM, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:56 AM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I'm always opposed to these sorts of statements. They all have the ring >> of >> retro conservatism. They are a plea for the return of something that once >> comforted their authors. The onrush of the new is like a flood bringing >> all >> sorts of unsorted and entangled debris ashore, worthless stones and a few >> gems. >> It is better to be probing in this flotsam than to be re-polishing the >> few gems >> already found in an old flood. >> >> Also, what is imagination if not fancifulness run riot? And...any >> ornament can >> be a mere ornament until is is perceived as something else. The >> responsibility >> for turning fancifulness and mere ornament into something more profound >> rests >> with the beholder who is capable of metaphorical thinking. The things >> themselves >> are meaningless until that happens. Mr. Jonston's lament is directed to >> what he >> sees and what he sees is the blankness of his own metaphorical >> capability. Too >> bad. He failed to use his mind. >> >> Come on Berg, give up this fuddy-duddy yesterday stuff and play the game >> of >> metaphor! The new -- in its total meaninglessness, is a rich opportunity >> for >> discovery. >> >> wc > > > > When you speak of discovery, do you mean the discovery of new experiences?: - No one is so eager to gain new experience as he who doesn't know how to make use of the old ones. Marie Ebner von Eschenbach
