I have no idea how you create,but banishing the unwanted ones that one invariably starts with, sooner or later are discarded as the creating takes shape and our best reflections appear in our memory.
On Dec 28, 2013, at 10:28 PM, saul ostrow wrote: > So failure to create is little more than banishing bad reflections - > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 29, 2013, at 12:05 AM, armando baeza <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> In the process creating something, I think all we do is remove >> the bad refections from the good to it's conclusion and that's it. >> ab >> >>> On Dec 28, 2013, at 6:38 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Saul said that judgment followed the aesthetic ecstasy earlier in a >>> different phrasing. I also think affect is a better word than >>> experience and certainly than ecstasy, which has other connotations >>> and is a surprising choice on Cheerskep's part.The aesthetic affect >>> can vary from a what was that to a much longer and more complex event >>> and I would suppose that both extremes would have their own kinds of >>> reflection. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Cheerskep <[email protected]> >>> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Sat, Dec 28, 2013 6:25 pm >>> Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ecstasy >>> >>> In a message dated 12/28/13 4:08:06 PM, [email protected] writes: >>> >>> >>>> might aesthetic reflection work better - and allow the ecstasy be >>>> understood as affect >>>> >>>> For some it certainly may. For me it doesn't, because I see three >>> different >>> stages in the kind of aesthetic event I'm addressing. First, the >>> raw-data >>> encounter with the work -- seeing it, hearing it, reading it. Second, >>> the >>> almost immediate reaction -- the feeling I'm now calling aesthetic >>> ecstasy. >>> Third, any subsequent attempt to articulate what just happened, and how >>> I felt, >>> and (to the extent possible) why. I persist in feeling third stage >>> amounts to my "reflections". They can go on for a long time after the >>> ecstasy >>> itself is over. If you go to GOOGLE and enter the two words >>> "Reflections on" you >>> see a large number of essays with titles that begin that way, and, for >>> me, >>> that period of reflection is, for me, unmistakably different from the >>> ecstasy. (Burke's REFLECTIONS ON THE FRENCH REVOLUTION runs to 98,000 >>> words. In >>> literature-appreciation, there have been "Reflections on" given short >>> stories >>> that are longer than the story itself, and they are cerebral events, >>> not the >>> "feeling" itself.) >>> >>> But exactly what I've been claiming is that individual "words" do not >>> "have" "meanings". That second stage -- the "ecstasy" -- is emotional, >>> a >>> "feeling", and I personally think of "reflections" as something >>> collected in >>> tranquility. If I burn my hand by encountering flame at the stove, I >>> wouldn't think >>> of the pain as a reflection on the flame. But that's my own personal >>> word-use. If a different use works for someone else, there's no way I >>> can call >>> them "wrong". At most I might claim their use will occasion an unwanted >>> notion >>> in many readers (I often did that as an editor), but I could be wrong >>> about >>> that.
