William writes: > 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. > My last posting was, in effect, about how we forum members use different words for the same thing and thus have a tough time following each other. That's because it's hard to control all the scraps of notion that arise in our readers' minds, occasioned by the words we supply.
Here's a possible transcription of William's (and Saul's) remarks into the words I would use. > [I think this comment by Saul: "the judgment is a reflection upon the > reaction-component in the two-part 'experience' -- the first part being the > raw-hearing-component that occasions the reaction-component" --is crucial > to recognizing that the two parts of the experience -- i.e. the hearing and > the reaction to the hearing -- cannot be examined. One can only examine > -- reflect upon -- the reaction part of the two-part experience."] > I concede at once that both William and Saul might claim my transcription is effectively gibberish; or in any case not at all what they were thinking. But my transcription is not meant as a parody; it's an honest attempt by me to convey the notions that roil around in my head when I read William and Saul. In other words, I want to convey how easy it is to be "misunderstood" if we don't do what we can to see that what we write occasions in readers' minds notions as close as possible to the notions of us the writers. We need to describe the notions behind our use of key words. We need to realize that when we use words like 'experience', 'reaction', 'report' the reader may conjure notions different from ours. It also is also probable that William and I don't have the same thing in mind when we use 'examine'. William says, "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'." William seems to me to be implying that "to examine" means "to replicate". He loses me there, because I somehow believe that's not his meaning. Or, at any rate, we don't have the same thing in mind with "replication". His next two lines are, "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." With those lines, William seems to suggest that the goal is to "reveal", and to "reveal" is "to replicate". I know I'm not following William. My hope here is that William will believe I haven't gone through this exegesis to poke fun or sneer. William is here talking about some very complicated concepts; I know the concepts are hard to get clear in one's mind, and then hard to articulate into words that will occasion the same notions in other readers' minds. A couple of days ago I posted an apologia to Kate, saying I astonish myself when I see how obtuse I've been in failing to notice how I could be misinterpreted. I push and push for clarity, and then fail by a wide margin to achieve it myself. The reason is a failure of concentration, and a failure of imagination: I write a word, and it doesn't cross my mind how many different notions it may occasion if I don't do what I need to describe it, qualify it, convey what it is NOT intended to mean.
