The judgment is a reflection upon the response to the experience Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 21, 2013, at 7:28 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > ate interpreted "reaction/experience/feeling" as naming three different > events in sequence. She wrote: >> >> "You [and Saul] agree with each other as to the sequence of >> events-experience,reaction,response,judgement." > But that's not what I mean to convey at all. I meant all three words -- > " > reaction/experience/feeling" -- to refer to the same single event. > > Do you mean to say that you think all three words occur at the same > time concurrent with the event? It seemed to me that there is a > sequence since the event has to occur in order for anything to be felt > or reacted to.Did you assume that Saul and I thought this simultaneity > as well? > -----Original Message----- > From: Cheerskep <[email protected]> > To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 6:53 pm > Subject: Re: Aesthetic experience > > I confess to a dizzying obtuseness about how something I write can be > interpreted in ways vastly different from what I had in mind. I'm not > being > arch > with that line; I do mean it was I erring in not seeing how I could be > read > in different ways. > > I wrote: > >> "I use 'response' when I have in mind 'what I say or >> do in specific reply'. So, for me, it comes after my "reacting", the >> feeling I have as I experience. I always react, but I often don't > respond. >> >> "For me, >> a reaction/experience/feeling is prior to judgment." > Kate interpreted "reaction/experience/feeling" as naming three different > events in sequence. She wrote: >> >> "You [and Saul] agree with each other as to the sequence of >> events-experience,reaction,response,judgement." > But that's not what I mean to convey at all. I meant all three words -- > " > reaction/experience/feeling" -- to refer to the same single event. When > I hear > a melody, I react to that melody; that reaction is itself a feeling; > that > feeling is an experience. Probably I should have said there are TWO > discrete parts to my CONSCIOUS awareness: the hearing (that is, the > aural > sensation) and the reaction to the hearing. (They are all but > simultaneous.) > Sometimes the hearing occasions boredom, sometimes it occasions an a.e. > > We might put it this way: First there's the hearing-experience, and then > there's the reaction-experience. Sometimes that reaction-experience is > boredom, sometimes it's simply null -- blah. And sometimes it's an a.e. > -- an > aesthetic experience. > > Kate goes on: >> "Experience in "aesthetic experience" >> is not in the same place in the sequence as experience." > What I'm now trying to clarify is that the "sequence" is composed of > only > two parts when I'm exposed to a melody -- the aural event, then the > reaction > event. That is, an aural-experience, then a reaction-experience. > > Kate goes on: "If all > experiences are not aesthetic,then an aesthetic experience is either a > reaction or a response or a judgement. One of these experience uses > should change If all experiences are aesthetic then something is very > strange. > > A logician might rephrase Kate's first phrase to eliminate an ambiguity. > Thus: "If some > experiences are non-aesthetic,then an aesthetic experience is either a > reaction or a response or a judgement. One of these experience uses > should change. If all experiences are aesthetic then something is very > strange." > > If the logician is misinterpreting Kate, it doesn't make much > difference, > because at no time do I mean to say all experiences are aesthetic. Some > are > boring, some are blah, etc. > > To repeat: I always react, but sometimes I don't "respond" in the sense > of > "actively reply". > > I don't use 'judgment' in the same way as Saul. If, for Saul, to have a > blah reaction or a bored reaction, amounts to making a judgment, then, > for > him, > "judgment" is part of the reaction-experience. As I've said, for me > "judgment" tends to involve factors outside the work itself. If a > script bored > me, I'd reason that it wouldn't please enough people to sell well > enough, and > I'd decide not to publish it. I don't "judge" that a smell is > unpleasant, > though if were a chef I might judge a smell is not enticing enough to > please > my customers. But that'd be AFTER reacting negatively to the smell.
