Two Good Reasons

[thomas kyhn rovsing hjoernet]

On 22/02/03 19:21, "prozak at anus.com" <prozak at anus.com> wrote:

> 
>>> > > it is not originally my usage
>>> > > 
>> > You, as it were, endorsed the concept of ³soul² by using it without
>> > indicating the least critical distance to it.
> 
> I endorse the language used around me.
> 
All of it?
> 
> Do you endorse the word "is"? Defend it.
> 
The word ³is² is used more frequently than the word ³soul² + would be
difficult beyond comparison to refrain from using. I¹m not saying that the
verb ³to be² is 100% unproblematic, but I judge that on the grounds of its
highly frequent occurence in most language genres, its usage generally
doesn¹t require indication of any sort of critical distance. And as the word
³is² is used with such frequency and in such diverse contexts as is the
case, it is nowhere as burdened as the word ³soul,² the use of which is
restricted to a far more limited range of contexts and language genres.

>>> > > "to reject metaphysics in all forms is a nihilism so profound no art
>>> > > would be created"
>> > 
>> > So, ³art production² is dependent on metaphysics (/non-rejection of
>> > metaphysics)? Why is that?
>> > The materiality and meaning/discursiveness of ³art² seems not to be
>> > dependent on metaphysical assumptions. Why should its production depend on
>> > such assumptions?
> 
> Metaphysics is like art itself a language which can express many
> things internally.
> 
Internal to what? 
If metaphysics is a language, what would be the material of that language
(if it¹s material at all, that is)? What would be an example of metaphysical
language?
> 
>> > And once more: you wrote, ŒMetaphysics is within the realm of art, at least
>> > as I see it, and thus any art which addresses something more than surface
>> > (aesthetics, dogma, socialization) communicates at this level.¹ I take this
>> > to mean that the kind of ³art² specified communicates at ³the level of
>> > metaphysics.²
> 
> Once again, going in circles.
> It addresses concepts within the discipline of metaphysics.

Does that make communication take place at ³the level of metaphysics² (by
which I take it you mean that the meaning being communicated is somehow
being transmitted at a metaphysical level, as opposed to the material level
of, for instance, this communication)?

> Such is the nature of the epistemological
> interpretation of the external inherent to art.
> 
So, you hold ³art² to be a fixed and stable category with ³natural²
³inherent² qualities?
What is this ³external² external to?
 
>> > Now, if ³art² is capable of having materiality and
>> > meaning/discursiveness without these qualities depending on metaphysics
>> > (which is not to say that it cannot address issues of metaphysics,
>> > epistemology, etc.), why would it communicate at ³the level of
>> metaphysics²?
>> > + How do you determine that it does so?
> 
> I think once again you're trying to project your own theories onto me
> :)

I¹m not interested in projecting theories, what I¹m interested in is
learning what you mean by communication taking place at ³the metaphysical
level,² as well as what ³the metaphysical level² is, how you distinguish it
from other levels, etc. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20030222/5779ef06/attachment.html>