Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 11:57:01 -0700
Subject: Re: George Edward Moore


Edward Moore,

Here is an unfair blast of fragments thrown your way in the form of a
quick note/response before I head to Philly for a few days.    

While I'm glad we agree that the questioning of closure relies on your
gnostic, my poetic, your music, my unfounded, ungrounded reception and
communion, a form of relation not restricted to familiarity or
reliability so much as promise (dread?)and emotion itself,

"All writing is a fragmentary act," says Blanchot.  What is written is
Not, as nominating you 'George' frees you from the burden of a common
understanding of what you are list(en)ing to, requiring identifications
nonetheless, however, but an altered facilitating function, and awry
forms of knowledge perhaps, though, as always, still less poetry than
another mechanical reproduction of words and still a custom(w)ary salute
or obeisance.

Facts are facet merely, facets not merely facts, and Being more than a
matter of facet.  What eludes our separate identities, the net of our
separate familiarities with fact, facets and Being need not itself be
limited by our appreciation.

Some private understandings could stand a little airation, having grown
stale and hardened into response.

Triggered emotions shape response to mood -of piece- in its unique
reception; but I grant you, the effectivity of the piece, fact, facet or
face, depends upon needs and desires....

We can limit poetry or music to language... as we can anything in excess
of direct profits or a reliable return on investment....  We "share"
only on faith dependent upon familiarity or community (with emphasis
upon the meaning of relations over understood designations) or that
which communicates as little as we see fit if comfortable, or tolerate
if resentful.

Yes, gnosis effects!

As for George Moore, he's known for taking the world as he found it. 
Because he was relatively free of dissatisfaction with ordinary methods
of conception, I thought I could play Kierkegaard to your "Moore".

Some questions he tackled:  Is an idea a mental state or a universal
meaning?  Is music propositional?

I appreciate his granting importance less to concepts than to our
relation with them.  He wondered, for example, if meaning were dependent
upon the correspondence or the lack of one, between coordinates of music
say, and another, such as fact, facet or face.

What we hear may be more of ourselves listening than we think....

Well apologies for the cursiveness.  I hope to review things on Monday
or thereabouts.  Please disregard the irrelevant here...  if you can!

Transmuting depressed chaos into a stimulating nod,

Don Socha