but what of those who do not create but receive
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:28 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >>> >> > -- [image: Inline image 1] [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/png which had a name of image.png]
