so each art or discipline is a meta-language ? On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 5:41 PM, caldwell-brobeck < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hmmm, my formatting seems to have caused some confusion. My apologies. > The "Make the users..." is Cheerskep's. > The Why's are mine. > > And no, I don't think Cheerskep's the Saviour. In fact, I have very little > sympathy with his position; I guess I find it more boorishly narrow than > anything else.. I am, on the other hand, very sympathetic to Armando's. > Grappling with questions like the essence of the human form, or what being > a rock means, seem to me fairly straightforward bases on which to consider > what art is all about. I don't think, on the other hand, think that purely > verbal responses are necessarily the best way to proceed with addressing > such issues. For an artist, the natural place for the discussion to take > place is in art; for a musician, in music; for someone with a scientific > bent, perhaps in neuroscience and Bayesian analysis (that was my first > formal intro). > > Each field will tend to have its own means to address an issue like these > that will be largely understandable to people within the field, and often > obscure to those outside. So when I say "why not try and understand what > they are getting at, from their viewpoint", I am simply suggesting applying > a little philosophical charity (don't leave home without it), and assume > that within the framework of their own natural language (art, science, > whatever) their statements have validity. If I were talking to Armando, for > example, in person, and wanted to question his notion of the essence of the > human form, I would probably ask him to show me, through his artwork and > those of others, where it has been expressed well, and where it has not > been. We'd probably disagree strongly on the boundaries, but humanly > constructed categories are (usually) at best fuzzy anyway. > > Cheers; > Chris > > > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 5:19 PM, saul ostrow <[email protected]> wrote: > > > But Cheers is already a missionary among the un-astute - inversely word > are > > not hallucinatory our belief in them is dellusionary - in the same manner > > that you believe that one might make someone understand what they are > > getting at - rather than one doing the work of understanding what they > > (one) is getting at and as such end the game - in which case may I ask > you > > what you are getting at using commands as "Make the users describe the > > notions behind their noises. Get them to see how psychoactive..." Are > you > > telling us you think Cheers is the savior > > > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM, caldwell-brobeck < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Why "Make the users describe the notions behind their noises. Get them > to > > > see how psychoactive, how hallucinatory, words are, especially that > > > deluding > > > figment "IS"." ? Why not try and understand what they are getting at, > > from > > > their viewpoint? > > > Cheers; > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:09 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > In a message dated 7/29/12 8:20:58 AM, [email protected] writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > And what is the essence of the human form? > > > > > > > > > All questions of the form "What is X?" are suspect because they in > > effect > > > > make existential assumptions. Words use the user. > > > > > > > > "What is genius? What is art?" "What IS a miracle? What IS a ghost?" > > "Who > > > > ARE you?" Think of so-called "words" as like bacteria. They are > > countless > > > > -- > > > > some helpful, some harmful. If you don't have - in your head -- an > > immune > > > > system for your "words", to detect and dismiss the bad ones, you're > in > > > for > > > > trouble. Make the users describe the notions behind their noises. Get > > > them > > > > to > > > > see how psychoactive, how hallucinatory, words are, especially that > > > > deluding > > > > figment "IS". Do that, and you're halfway home. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > S a u l O s t r o w > > *Critical Voices* > > 21STREETPROJECTS > > 162 West 21 Street > > NYC, NY 10011 > > -- S a u l O s t r o w *Critical Voices* 21STREETPROJECTS 162 West 21 Street NYC, NY 10011
