File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2000/bhaskar.0001, message 14


Subject: Re: BHA: Adorno on style
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:13:05 -0500


Hi Colin--

I wasn't saying that it's *always* possible--in the practical sense--to be
clear about one's understanding of complex objects, just that *in principle*
the two are distinct, a point which you grant.  My case was simply that
Aristotle's claim that (as you put it) "we should only expect as much
clarity as the object allows" really doesn't hold water analytically, since
*sometimes* (even if not in every instance) expression can be clearer than
the object.  On the other hand, I suppose if I put more emphasis on
"expect," then I'll grant that such clarity of expression is more the
exception than the rule.  For the most part, as you observe, we struggle to
find any way to express our ideas at all!  So I think we're not really in
much disagreement here.

Mervyn--please, are you *trying* to be obtuse?  From the snippet of your
Intro that you shared with us, I *know* that you have more imagination than
you're exercising right now.  If you believe hallucination doesn't involve
thoughts, then let the clause read, "schizophrenia must be the font of
insight."

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-mail.com
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005