The question of interpretation is at the heart of the determination of aesthetic experience and judgment - the point being that varied aspects are in themselves stimuli and others affect - the stimuli/ experiences are not available to us - the affects through cognitive processes do become available - it does not mater if these are communicantable - what does matter is we in some manner reflect upon and act on our own understanding and determination of these experiences - our inability to comprehend them in their totality is what leads to habitually confuse them with the objects we associte with having induced them
Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 22, 2013, at 1:52 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > 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.
