In a message dated 5/8/08 2:25:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> But I don't want substitutes! I want the words and the associated concepts > (particularly vague in the case of 'aesthetic'!) avoided altogether. It is > perfectly possible to discuss art - individual works and the general idea - > without them. And it would make people *think* - instead of just relying on > worn out cliches. > You caught me. I sensed I was being lazy as I wrote 'substitutes', I should have said 'replacements' as I did when I argued for the replacement of 'real' and 'reality' with less harmfully ambiguous words. Indeed I did use 'replace' later in the paragraph. But I think this is important for you personally, Derek: Notice how you ignored the core notion of the paragraph in favor of picking on a word you find fault with, 'substitute'. Moreover, the rest of the paragraph described what I had in mind with the word 'substitute'. Here's what you said you were proposing: "[ban] the use of the word 'aesthetic'. I now propose extending that to include 'beauty' (and its cognates, and 'ugly') ." Note: You weren't trying to tell people to expunge whatever notion they had in mind when they used the words you find counter-productive. You were asking only that the words be banned -- just as I was, when I asked that the words 'real' and 'reality' be avoided. Here's my entire responding paragraph again: "I think you'll have even less luck than I will with 'real' and 'reality'. I tried to aid my case by offering substitute locutions that I believe can be used with no loss in conveying the notion one is entertaining, and with the benefit of reducing confusion. Any thoughts of comparably helpful substitutes for 'aesthetic(s)', 'beauty', and 'ugly'? They'd be much harder to replace, I suspect." I honestly believe no one of competence could fail to grasp what I was after when I asked for "locutions that can be used with no loss in conveying the notion one is entertaining, and with the benefit of reducing confusion". I didn't go on at length about the sort of thing I was recommending because I thought I'd made it amply clear in discussing replacements for 'real' and 'reality'. And yet you did not address that central thrust of my posting, and my request for "Any thoughts?" Believe it: I'm not at this moment making a whine of amour propre: "Jeez, you didn't address my precious ruminations!" I'm truly trying to figure out how your mind let's you do that. ************** Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
