A "WATCHOUT"!
________________________________ From: William Conger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, August 30, 2011 1:32:55 PM Subject: Re: Fiction A "ghost" is already a likening of something because something is said to look like a ghost. ...otherwise it wouldn't be imagined or hallucinated. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, August 30, 2011 3:00:20 PM Subject: Re: Fiction Try a"ghost' ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, August 30, 2011 12:28:16 PM Subject: Re: Fiction Do you suppose that making something up which you had nevr seen and which was unseeable anyway counts as a beginning of fiction? If it does-what about the Willensdorf Venus-or if you think there might have been someone like her there are others,definitely imaginary and even older. KAte Sullivan -----Original Message----- From: William Conger <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Aug 30, 2011 11:36 am Subject: Re: Fiction I want to agree with Cheerskep but I am troubled by suspicions that there is indeed an essence to things and to concepts. What I have in mind is the notion of necessary and sufficient. Concepts -- let's say the professional game of football -- has a few necessary and sufficient elements to make it the game of football (or, specifically, American football). I suppose they would be the rules of the game. This is different from a football as an object. That too may have a few necessary and sufficient properties. How about mathematical concepts? Does zero have a necessary and sufficient property? And so on. When Cheerskep mentioned football he didn't say it was a game. He right away went to subjective perceptions of the game and so in a slight-of-hand way he transferred the query of essence from the game of football, an objectively discernible activity ( in this case of the professional American variety), to the shifting and elusive subjective perceptions of the game, such as "violence" or "competition". Once in that subjectively interpretative territory he is of course correct to say that the essence is too slippery to identify. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, August 30, 2011 10:02:17 AM Subject: Re: Fiction In a message dated 8/29/11 5:09:47 PM, [email protected] writes: > What you are saying is: > There are apples and then there are apples.. > All different sizes / colors / and flavors.... > Perhaps even snowflakes differ from each other... > So the essence of all things are alway subjectively perceived? > I want to give a nice, definitive answer, I'm bold that way, so I say unto you: Yes and no. No: There is no "THE essence of" anything. If each of us were asked, "What is the essence of football?", unaware that it is a faulty question (i.e. it assumes there IS a "THE essence"), one of us might say, "The essence of football is violence!" Another might say, "The essence is that peculiar quality of all games -- competition." Another: "Struggle." Or, "Tactics, and learning to use the tools you have." Etc. Yes: There is no "THE" essence, but each of us might tend to cite our dominant recurrent impression as we watch football games. That impression is indeed always subjective, and we might seize on the amiguous word 'essence' in our attempt to stir in our auditors a notion of what is for us a recurrent feeling every time we see a game. But OUR "essence" should not be thought of as THE "essence".
