So failure to create is little more than banishing bad reflections - Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 29, 2013, at 12:05 AM, armando baeza <[email protected]> wrote: > > In the process creating something, I think all we do is remove > the bad refections from the good to it's conclusion and that's it. > ab > >> On Dec 28, 2013, at 6:38 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Saul said that judgment followed the aesthetic ecstasy earlier in a >> different phrasing. I also think affect is a better word than >> experience and certainly than ecstasy, which has other connotations >> and is a surprising choice on Cheerskep's part.The aesthetic affect >> can vary from a what was that to a much longer and more complex event >> and I would suppose that both extremes would have their own kinds of >> reflection. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Cheerskep <[email protected]> >> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sat, Dec 28, 2013 6:25 pm >> Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ecstasy >> >> In a message dated 12/28/13 4:08:06 PM, [email protected] writes: >> >> >>> might aesthetic reflection work better - and allow the ecstasy be >>> understood as affect >>> >>> For some it certainly may. For me it doesn't, because I see three >> different >> stages in the kind of aesthetic event I'm addressing. First, the >> raw-data >> encounter with the work -- seeing it, hearing it, reading it. Second, >> the >> almost immediate reaction -- the feeling I'm now calling aesthetic >> ecstasy. >> Third, any subsequent attempt to articulate what just happened, and how >> I felt, >> and (to the extent possible) why. I persist in feeling third stage >> amounts to my "reflections". They can go on for a long time after the >> ecstasy >> itself is over. If you go to GOOGLE and enter the two words >> "Reflections on" you >> see a large number of essays with titles that begin that way, and, for >> me, >> that period of reflection is, for me, unmistakably different from the >> ecstasy. (Burke's REFLECTIONS ON THE FRENCH REVOLUTION runs to 98,000 >> words. In >> literature-appreciation, there have been "Reflections on" given short >> stories >> that are longer than the story itself, and they are cerebral events, >> not the >> "feeling" itself.) >> >> But exactly what I've been claiming is that individual "words" do not >> "have" "meanings". That second stage -- the "ecstasy" -- is emotional, >> a >> "feeling", and I personally think of "reflections" as something >> collected in >> tranquility. If I burn my hand by encountering flame at the stove, I >> wouldn't think >> of the pain as a reflection on the flame. But that's my own personal >> word-use. If a different use works for someone else, there's no way I >> can call >> them "wrong". At most I might claim their use will occasion an unwanted >> notion >> in many readers (I often did that as an editor), but I could be wrong >> about >> that.
