Aesthetic ecstasy does not occur in a virgin mind. It's pointless to attempt a listing of a causal sequence in the mind because the mind is already filled with experiences, affects, and judgments and it's impossible to know how any 'new experience' is modified, altered, and fertilized by any individual mind. An analogy might be the tossing of seeds onto soil that is already filled with varied nutrients that will affect their growth.
wc ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:09 AM Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ecstasy aesthetic effect is ecstasy,judgement follows, or the result of the effect is judgement,or the judgement is ecstasy after the effect and whatever follows after in the shape of reflection and and the forming of an opinion is also called judgement? -----Original Message----- From: saul ostrow <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Cc: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Dec 29, 2013 1:25 am Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ecstasy Aesthetic effect - ecstasy Aesthetic effect - judgement Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 28, 2013, at 9:38 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.
