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. > > Concerning discovery: - The real voyage of *discovery* consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new *eyes*. Marcel *Proust *
