I take it Cheerskep agrees with my statement where I mention that any word will elicit some meaning. When a person responds to a word by saying it's meaningless, he is right to the extent that all words are in themselves meaningless. In another sense he is saying that he doesn't understand the context with word addresses. But in his brain many meanings for the word have already reached consciousness an some of them may be taboo or too odd to express and so 'cultural' rules apply and he excuses himself by saying 'it's meaningless'.
On the question of aesthetic ideal, I don't see what all the confusion is about. There are lots of aesthetic ideals. Generally one or two is dominant in any given era and culture. Individuals may think they are free from these ideals but the best they can do is a variation on it. True yesterday, true today, true tomorrow. The hard part is recognizing when an aesthetic ideal is at the point of radical transformation. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, August 31, 2012 11:54:21 AM Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ideal William writes: "When we hear or read a word that seems meaningless, our amazing brains will. . . . resort to onomatopoeia [and other devices as it attacks] the job of explaining whatever it senses. It will come up with a 'meaning', always. " I recently completed a one-act play that addresses the topic. The full nineteen-page one act is available at: http://tommccormackplays.com/pdfs/Why-Bren-Left-PHILOSOPHY-8-29-.pdf Here's an excerpt. BREN is an academic in exile, KIT is the recent-college-graduate daughter of his landlord: BREN You -- and some philosophers -- are like children who believe in tree-spirits. In effect, you think inside every "word" dwells an abstract imp. On yonder shelves, you assume there are a million inky imps carrying out abstract actions twenty-four-seven: "naming", "referring", "picking out". . ."denoting", "designating", "signifying". . . "meaning". Wonder the shelf don't collapse under all that truckin'. . . . .Those imps are as mythical as angels. What you call "words": audible or inky, they are incapable of DOING ANYTHING. After a writer puts ink on paper, the ink -- that you'd point at and say "That's a word" -- is as inert as stone. When you read, you're inclined to say it's the "word" that's acting, but ALL THE ACTION IS BY YOUR BRAIN -- (lightly taps KIT's head) -- recalling memories connected with those sounds and inky shapes. And piecing together new notions you've never had before. KIT Wait -- BREN -- Suppose I say "hypostatize" to you. What notion rises? KIT . . . "Hypostatize"? Everyone knows that. It's a kinky sex position from the Kama Sutra. You made the word up. To me, it's meaningless. BREN Right. 'It's "meaningless" to you.' Which you say because the sound "hypostatize" connects with nothing in your memory. KIT . . . But 'hot' and 'milk' DO connect! So do 'justice', 'beauty', 'art'. You trying to tell me they're meaningless? BREN YOU wouldn't call them meaningless. Because if ANYTHING comes to your mind when you hear my talk-noise, you'd say: There! That's obviously "the meaning for me"! But these notions, these "meanings for you" -- where do the pieces come from, and how do they get assembled? KIT ..."How do they get assembled"? I'm not sure what you're -- BREN -- When I say "apelsin", or "milk", "democracy", "designate" -- or even "Cleopatra!" -- what comes into your head are solely BITS OF MEMORY retrieved and mosaicked by your racy brain as it processes the familiar sound. KIT -- Wait. Slow down -- BREN -- You think your notion of Cleopatra comes from a bolt shafted down by Plato or Zeus? KIT Slow down! . . . . BREN If you want to call whatever comes to your mind a "meaning", you can argue your life has a headful of meaning. But it's your head's meaning, not the words'.
