Then we shouldn't call the initial impression aesthetic until after
it has rolled through the other stages? I suppose this lets the man who
weeps with pleasure at both Crystal Chandeliers and una poco fa off
the hook. He can always claim that when he thought it over he realized
that Crystal Chandeliers was a mistake.
-----Original Message-----
From: saul ostrow <[email protected]>
To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]>
Cc: aesthetics-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Dec 29, 2013 9:42 am
Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ecstasy
My point is there is a stimuli (an impression) the affect (consequence)
of
that is the discernment (the judgment) that the experience I have had
is one I
come to associate with something called the aesthetic ( in that it
primarily
stimulates/ appeals to my senses) - reflecting up this I determine if
I have
found it to be pleasurable or not and to what degree -
The experience is a reflex (partially intuited and partially tacit) -
the
reflection and discernment learned - the determination subjective
(taste)
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 29, 2013, at 9:09 AM, [email protected] wrote:
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.
