OK, I want to slink away from Michael while whispering if all A is B then all of
whatever A consists of is identical to B, even as I need to recognize that all A could be IN B, which is what Michael is asserting, I think. It's a matter of choice, predicated by some unmentioned limiting context. This takes us to people like Derrida and his idea that no matter how explicit we try to be, something gets away, something is left unexplained, or left over. Now, on to morality: If nature is 'indifferent in moral terms' (assuming we can say that ) then how does it survive? If nature was purely amoral in its processes, then why do people deal with morality? One of the possible conditions of total amorality would be total annihilation, I presume, whereas moral acts are fundamentally intended to avoid that. If nature is and always was amoral, it wouldn't be, or would it? Either morality is necessary or it isn't. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, August 2, 2012 5:35:58 PM Subject: Re: b My task is, above all, to make you see.b 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
