Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey Burns
    Hi Jim, Am I all wrong ? I am sorry to hear that. Is the correlative truth that you are all right ? Perhaps... Let me try to righten myself at the dawn of your
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 6, 2005
      Hi Jim,

      Am I all wrong ? I am sorry to hear that. Is the correlative truth that you are all right ? Perhaps...
      Let me try to righten myself at the dawn of your reasons.
      "You need to think of the aesthetic and the ethical as two very different primary orientations of the individual's personality rather than isolated experiences we attach to different objects or situations."
      OK. I am doing this. Orientations. Two. And very different.
      I have got it.
      "This isn't a very difficult concept and I don't believe you really
      don't understand it."
      No, you are right, it is not for even I can get it.
      Your key-word is, I think, orientation.
      Ethics is an orientation.
      Asthetics is another orientation.
      Let us stick to the aesthetic field for I am still not half-confident the ethical is a proper subject of discussion on a public forum.
      Aesthetics is an orientation.
      OK. I get it.
      Now, wait! What is an orientation ?
      When the weathervane is oriented to the west, what does it mean ? Not only that it will rain in England (it always rains in England, besides I suspect eng or ang means in an ancient german dialect: rain...) it means in a more matter of factly manner that the cock, the rooster or the fish, if one has chosen a fish, is pointing at the West. One could always argue it is pointing at the East as well, I can't argue for after all it is true...
      No matter that it should point both West and East, it is still pointing at a direction and this is what it means to be oriented, to have an orientation.

      Aesthetics is an orientation.
      To have an orientation is to point at.
      So the aesthetic as you define points at...
      What does it point at ?
      Why this, for me, would be easy: the beautiful.
      No, 't can't be for you have told me I was completely wrong! Aesthetic was not about experiences or objects which were by themself beautiful but an orientation...
      Then again I must admit I don't get it. What does the aesthetic point at if not the beautiful ?
      Did you mean to say that the aesthetic was pointing at herself ? But then what would the difference be with, say, identity ? And wait if ethics is the how of a becoming onself's task, the aesthetic would be the orientation of ethics. No, no, no! I thought there was an either/or between the two. It can't be that! Hmm... I don't get it, I just don't get it!
      I don't get a thing. There seems to me to be a contradiction here.
      So for my sanity reason I must give up your reasons & conclude that the orientation is towards something else than itself.
      Either beauty must be an outward factor of K's Either/Or so that aesthetism could be an orientation & then my original question is not so "completely wrong" even in the kierkegaardian context: where is beauty ? What is beauty ?
      Or the aesthetic is not an orientation, it is, say, a nature, the nature of beautiful things and beautiful inclinations. Then again it is vital for us to understand why, how or better: whow beauty is beauty ? What is beauty ?
      Am I, once again, completely wrong ?
      I don't get it. So probably I am.

      Best regards,
      Jeff Burns

      Yahoo! for Good
      Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.