Cheerskep; In keeping with the established tone of the list, one that keeps pricking at little assertions and nitpickings among members, I need to remind you to read all of the words in my posts, not simply those that offer you a phrase to attack. That's what Derek does, too.
No, I don't take my comments from the internet, or other unvetted sources. You'll note that I actually name my sources when it's relevant. As for PhD physicists, theoretical or experimental, I raised one. About art, my views have been stated many times and they don't rest on whatever it IS that you say. I've never felt that art should be defined but instead symbolized in the form of art propositions through self-reflective experiences and projected inclinations. I don't have a problem with your ISness. My whole approach to artmaking is to maximize ambiguities. For example I like the Vorticist ideas of Pound, etc. I want poetry -- more allusions, more metaphors, more paradox, more more more from less less less. You want less from less, where a word's meanings (projected of course) never exceed the letters. Fine. At least I know that's not the way to make art or to examine it or to experience it. Artists only plant seeds. They bloom in the minds of others. Derek's comments to me of late have been ridiculous in distorting what I wrote, trying to place my words in opposition to his simple and obvious statements concerning paleo "art", as if I or anyone informed on the subject would adopt his recasts of my words. Same goes for you in trying to shove my into your arena of idiots who think that subjective qualities of mind are extrinsic facts. I plead not guilty of the Cheerskep felony and I restate my opinion that this favorite issue of yours is chapter one in most intros to philosophy. It is an important issue and can be examined in depth but it's still the beginning point. When I was a student it was called Naive Realism. I'm not angry. I'm just interested in fruitful, informed, sympathetic discussion and I'm less interested in unending disrespect, redundant lessons re ISNESS and "gotchas". Truly, I am Mr. fun and happy , your everday friendly, modest, tame, agreeable and curious student who is eager for truth, advice and correction. I'm just a country boy in a wrinkled shirt and worn down shoes skipping along and painting great artworks on the fly. WC --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 4/21/08 4:21:50 PM, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > "Here we go again. Cheerskep is teaching lesson > one in philosophy, the > lesson that brings criticality to "naive realism". > > "Re Einstein, he was a theorist. Today we call it > theoretical physics. > > "Cheerskep. Please! -- WC" > > That's a bad response, William, a graceless flight > from all the posting's > valid questions and criticisms that apply to you. > E.g. you use the word 'art' > repeatedly while evading all efforts to get you to > describe what you have in > mind > with it; you use 'science' without having thought it > through; you do think of > your dispute with Derek as not just about whether or > not to CALL something > "art" or "science", but whether or not it IS art or > science. > > Which is to say you do believe there is a > metaphysical fact-of-the-matter > concerning whether xxx "IS" art or yyy "IS" science, > which entails there are > somehow mind-independent metaphysical standards > somewhere that a work must > satisfy > to BE art or science. You do demand Derek reveal his > standards, but you > steadfastly refuse to state yours. > > You take the position that you needn't respond to > such charges as mine > because they are mere "philosophy". You don't > appreciate that logic and > philosophy > of language have been developed solely to help us > think more clearly. You > dismiss philosophy in a tone that would suggest you > know what you're talking > about: > " Cheerskep is teaching lesson one in philosophy, > the lesson that brings > criticality to "naive realism"." But the subject my > posting addressed was far > from > "naC/ve realism". As Casey Stengel said, "You could > look it up." > > Meantime I guarantee that what I've been "teaching" > on this forum about > language, metaphysics, and philosophy of mind is > equally far from "lesson > one". > > I wrote that your view of "science" "would push > William into the > uncomfortable position of asserting that Einstein > was not doing "science" when > he came up > with his special theory of relativity -- without > ever testing it himself. > Indeed no one didb&" In a reply apparently aimed at > conveying you would not > be > discomfited at all to find yourself claiming > Einstein was not doing "science" > at > that time, you remark, "Re Einstein, he was a > theorist. Today we call it > theoretical physics." Certainly this connotes that > theoretical physics "is" > not > science. In case you want to reconsider your comfort > I refer you to something > from an internet site I suspect you've already > consulted: > > "Albert Einstein ( March 14, 1879 - April 18, 1955) > was a German-Jewish > theoretical physicist widely regarded as the most > important scientist of the > 20th > century and one of the greatest physicists of all > time." > > I save 'ad hominem' for remarks that are irrelevant > to the argument at hand. > I don't think it's ad hominem to say again, William, > you're too damn angry > much of the time. Especially when you apparently > take damage to your arguments > as > damage to your ego. I say "apparently". I can't know > what it is, but I'm sure > it distorts and untracks your reactions. > > > > > > > ************** > Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. > used car > listings at AOL Autos.
