William wrote:
> I'm inclined to let Michael's argument below pass, but only because I'm
exhausted these days by all my activities and responsibilities. Yet...yet...I
don't think Michael can slide by the issue as adroitly as he seems to do.
Terms like Unity, Truth, Beauty are among the most elastic terms every
invented. They are also so inclusive as to defy any presumed exceptions. What
part of Unity is not Truth? What part of Truth is not Beauty? Using the
analogy to photography, Michael claims that that three shutter functions rely
on each other but are not each other. But, again, what part of each is not the
other? If there are such parts of each term what disqualifies them from being
necessary to both other terms?
I first said that these each of these properties or qualities is a
manifestation of the others (sort of like avatars of Vishnu--oops, an
analogy!).
William said that if all A (Unity) = B (Truth) and all B = C (Beautiful), then
all A = C.
That may well be true, but he also said that this A = B = C is circular. That
is not so. His A = B = C scheme attempted to make an identity of them, but
that doesn't mean that the definining qualities of A are the same defining
qualities of B or C. That was what I said in rebuttal. Merely to assert that
Beauty, Truth, Unity, and Goodness are elastic terms is insufficient and in
fact beside the point. (Cheerskep continually returns to his thesis of fuzzy
ideas and imprecise statements, which allows enough room for elastic
denotations.)
But this small dispute is a mere adjunct to Berg's question, "Did Conrad mean
that an
artist's creation should provide a clearer view of reality?" This is a
question about right action ("should provide"). I was answering that question
when I introduced the Scholastics' theory (O-G-T-B).
My "Art moralizes Nature; Nature demoralizes art" encapsulates my belief that
the rules of art (as of other disciplines) codify a set of preferred or
endorsed or valued uses, which can be called moral to the extent that they
prescribe behavior. Nature is oblivious to these rules and reveals itself in
every imaginable way, rules be damned. That's how I came to bring O-G-T-B into
the discussion.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
