Platt said
> ... but without [definition]
> we couldn't understand one another at all.
That is patently untrue. We value and understand many things by shared
aesthetic experience. Definition is something done with hindsight - for
good pragmatic simplification reasons, in context etc ... but it is not
at all "necessary" for understanding.
It is "always" a compromise, a dumbing down, a devaluing, and is far
from necessary.
[Ron]
Ian, I beg to differ on this simply because all experience could be
viewed as a definition
of some sort. The only way we communicate is from a shared perception of
experience on some
Level or another which is defined by our senses "shared aestetic
experience" is a relative
context for the base of a shared Understanding. In the valley of the
blind, the one eyed are king
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
