> > William, I accept we'll never receive from you a
> serviceably clear
> description of the notion in your mind when you say
> 'art'. 

You won't receive it because I've never claimed to say what art is.  I have 
mentioned artworks, reminding you that I choose my words with care, and there 
is a big difference between the ignudo condition of art and the real condition 
of artworks.  Artworks, I've always maintained, are propositions.  They ask, 
Can this be art? Or they ask, Can art be possible?  The floating definitions of 
art are always merely functional, implemented as a result of various, ever 
shifting, persuasions.  Over and over I've quoted Theirry deDuve who said that 
the "jury is always still out" when it comes to the identity of art.  That 
implies that the evidence has been presented to the jury but it may be 
insufficient or lacking or too complicated to resolve.  I'd say that Thierry's 
comment is about as good and concise as one can expect (and metaphorical, too). 

Will we be equally
> frustrated
> if we ask you to try to give us a serviceably clear idea of
> your notion of
> 'metaphor' that you believe persuasively shows a
> statement like, "A
> professional
> football field is 110 yards from endline to endline"
> is metaphorical, and
> why, indeed, you think -- or appear to think -- ALL
> statements of any kind are
> "metaphorical"? You may quote from Lakoff et al
> if you like.

Your question wrongly implies that "football field" is the metaphorical object 
when in fact it is the use of the expression 110 yards that is metaphorical 
because the plot of earth constituting the field of play is in fact so much 
dirt of such and such quantity.  The way we express that quantity is a devised 
numerical system enabling us to relate that quantity of dirt to some other 
planar quantity. The devised numerical system is metaphorical.  I can suppose 
our long ago ancestors, lacking that system enabling them to say this numerical 
system stands for that quantity of dirt, had some other means (another 
metaphor) of expressing a planar quantity of dirt.
> 
> As for your daughter the astrophysicist, my bet is
> she'll tell you that,
> though poets may later invent metaphors drawing on her
> observations, in her
> everyday work -- like say, in a surgeon's everyday work
> -- metaphor plays no
> role at
> all, though similarity might. Moreover, she will tell you
> that ultimately all
> immediate observations, and all proof of conjectures about
> the implications
> of those observations, depend or will depend on sense data.
> Indeed, she might
> tell you that what she "means" by any conjecture
> is, ultimately, that if you
> view XXX under certain circumstances your observing will
> yield such-and-such
> sense data -- not metaphorically but "literally".
>   (If you do put the
> question
> to her, please don't paraphrase me. Show her this
> paragraph.)
> 
> It's humorous that you use a metaphor to liken a physicist's work to a 
> surgeon's work.  One function of metaphor is similarity of a certain kind and 
> may involve analogy but essentially it is likening one thing to another in 
> some respects.  I admit this is a broad definition but it is also correct. 
> Metaphor is not necessarily poetic any mnore that representation is artful.

I get your condescending remark that I should not paraphrase your comment.  You 
presume I cannot retain its brilliance. Never mind that sense data is already 
transformed when it is recognized as sense data. Even Aristotle said as much 
when he said that nothing is in memory (he means consciousness) that was not 
first in imagination (fantasia). And he claimed that there is nothing in 
imagination that is not first in sense (the common senses). But he would also 
claim that even the senses are affected by prior beliefs (the stick appearing 
bent in water).  So if that's at all true then we can't be sure that our senses 
are truthful.  In that case we can't rely on sense data for proofs but must 
rely on rational systems, which in the way I claim, are metaphorical.

But don't worry, I won't paraphrase you.  I prefer good logic.
WC


> **************
> 
> Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
> challenges?  Check
> out
> WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
> calculators.
> 
> (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)

Reply via email to