I think this comment by Saul "the judgment is a reflection upon the response to the experience" is crucial to recognizing that the experience itself cannot be examined. One can only examine - reflect upon -- the response to experience. I suppose the closest one can get to a replication of the experience is another similar experience, either by repeating the encounter that 'occasioned' it or through some equally compelling metaphorical 'occasion'. Maybe that's why some people think the art critic -- or explainer of aesthetic encounters -- needs to also be poet or another artist. Maybe it takes a poem to reveal a poem. wc
________________________________ From: saul ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 7:18 AM Subject: Re: Aesthetic experience 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.
