From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gis.net> 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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005