an explanation of cubism
Dilettante
"The varous aspects of an object fall into two broad categories.
There are those that cannot be seen from one ;particular viewing
position, but which become visible as we look at the thing from all
sides, either by walking round it or by turning the object. (Both
movement and time are involved, whichever we do.) Secondly, there are
those aspects of an object which are not externally visible: the
hidden, internal apsepects of the object. We may be able to deduce or
to intuitively sense the interior shape of a thing from its surface
appearance, particularly if it moves.
Or we can dissect the object physically to discover this internal
prospect. In the case of the "Nude Descending a Staircase" (Duchamp),
for example, the artist reveals certain internal aspects of the
figure...which are sensed by virtue of the surface movement, and
aspects which are known through actual anatomaical study.
It was the cubist and futurist momements that developed the practice
of depicting in one painting what can be seen of an object (as either
it or the viewer moves in space), together with what is known about
object as the result of analysis and study from many different
viewpoints.
This... produced many difficulties for the viewer, who had been
conditioned for so many centuries to an art concerned only with the
appearance of things seen from a fixed viewpoint. Simultaneous
projection of these serialist images in one design produced drawing of
the head, for example, in which a profile was superimposed over a full
face and a full face over a profile, as in Picasso's drawings....
If you study (The Bust, Picasso)...you will be able to pick out the
various explored aspects of a head, even down to the skull-shaped
front view with its one eye and large nose at center-left.
Yet these differing 'parts' are put together by the artist in such a
way that they cease to be merely a series of differing sensations.
....Although this cubist approach leads to the visual fragmentation of
the object, a new unity is created in the work of art....
It is this intuitive re-creation of the object into a new cohesive
images, after a series of sensation experience in sequence, which I
would describe as cubist vision."
-----------------------
this passage from the book, "Form, Space, and Vision," by Graham
Collier, chapter 20
posted by Dilettante
Thur
can be said to be worth looking at, now that as a mode, it
is passe.
I cannot believe that Collier is promoting the idea that every
single work made by Cubists are worthy pieces of art.
Another question is whether the Cubists themselves believed in
their creations as finished works or just stops along a development
way, in themselves meaningless, but welcomed as a source
of funds.
I always ask myself about these modes, that if they are so important,
then why have artists moved on?
Thur
"Dilettante" <hu...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:ba63903f.03122...@posting.google.com...
Mani Deli
>My question is - how much of the product of this 'movement'
>can be said to be worth looking at, now that as a mode, it
>is passe.
It would be well worth looking at if it was well done, which it
wasn't. The only artist at the time doing cubism who at least had a
sense of color and ideas was Gris. Some elements of technical cubism
are incorporated into the finer aspects of art deco artwork.
Picasso' signature double face which he scratched out at every
opportunity and anyone can paint as badly, is more stupid than
informative.
>I cannot believe that Collier is promoting the idea that every
>single work made by Cubists are worthy pieces of art.
>
>Another question is whether the Cubists themselves believed in
>their creations as finished works or just stops along a development
>way, in themselves meaningless, but welcomed as a source
>of funds.
>
>I always ask myself about these modes, that if they are so important,
>then why have artists moved on?
The haven't moved on. Most of the modern atrzy work which followed is
far worse and void of any ideas at all.
- a non-response
- only to quarrel
-and a retreat into sarcasm (nobody else here ever uses sarcasms)
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Leo Papandreou
> My question is - how much of the product of this 'movement'
> can be said to be worth looking at, now that as a mode, it
> is passe.
>
> I cannot believe that Collier is promoting the idea that every
> single work made by Cubists are worthy pieces of art.
>
> Another question is whether the Cubists themselves believed in
> their creations as finished works or just stops along a development
> way, in themselves meaningless, but welcomed as a source
> of funds.
>
> I always ask myself about these modes, that if they are so important,
> then why have artists moved on?
Are you making a comparative point about "realism," which hasn't moved on?
(It has, to film and computer graphics. In painting realism is no longer
privileged. Maybe you have a perfectly good reason for thinking it ought
to be, but it isn't.)
There is a certain amount of thematic continuity in a culture, which is what
permits us to distinguish different cultures in the first place.
Representation that looks "real" threads ours, inherited from classical Greek
and Roman times. I quote real because reality cannot be represented in an
innocent state ununmediated by intervening minds and social mechanisms. It's
just another metaphysics. Cubism _is_ real, but from a different metaphysical
perspective, and classical painting looks remotely back at stereoscopic
vision mediated by mind. My mind, at least, where classical painting resembles
Saturday morning cartoons much more strongly than it does "real."
Imagine asking your question in the context of an African, Eastern or South
American civilization. Is their art a fad too? The reason I ask is because it
is when we appropriate it, like when the Rev. Madonna borrows Indian religion
for a dance hit, but completely natural -- "real" -- to it's native artists,
and has been, or once was, for longer than we've been painting "realistically."
Anna Karina is as real as the Bible is as real as Shakespeare, and African
tribal masks are as real as Rembrandt is as real as Scooby Do. No worldview
(including science) is the only, or even best, means by which we can understand
reality and humanity. People who rant on and on about their worldview as if
reality were transparent and well understood are called "cultists."
Art is about significance.
Ultimately, what you make of art depends on where you try to situate it.
As reality, a classically painted cartoon can be much less evocative than
non-representational art -- to a modern physicist or cognitive neuroscientist,
for example; and outside the lab, as a kind of phenomenology, there can be a
lot of depth to art that doesn't look it's "supposed" to.
Thur
I going with these points?
Realism versus Abstraction would be too simple. In practically
every painting that I like, there is always some effort to modify
reality for aesthetic and other reasons.
I do no know of any suggestions on this board ( that I have seen)
that preach Photo-Realism IS art and everything else is less because..
etc.
What has moved on is that their is now no pretence that a work of
art has a meaning that can be viewed without an instruction book.
Cubists, in some part were still influenced (by the current
expectations of the world of Art)into weaving some sort of meaning
and complexity into their works. I am thinking of Guernica,
and Portrait of Ambrose Vollard (1910) as examples.
http://arthistory.westvalley.edu/images/P/PICASSO/VOLLARD.JPG
When I wander around my local galleries I see an uninhibited attempt
on the part of all the abstract artists to display a complete carelessness,
a complete lack of complexity, and an absence of any attempt to capture
the eye of the viewer, or to entertain that eye with the materials to hand.
All I see is a juvenile exhibition that might have once meant something but
now is an empty shell of past creativity.
Mani's works also repel me as much as the total abstractions, but he at
least can claim Surrealism (is that what he does?) needs a skilful painter.
Similarly Cubists may have produced works here and there that deserve
to be displayed for their historic value and some maybe for their
genuine worth as true works of art.
Classical art was always in some way a play on reality rather than an
attempt to display absolute realism, except for the funerary monuments.
Even these carry an unconscious style of the artist.
Just how many of these works deserve to be displayed is worth the debate.
This would relate to my complaint about Abstraction in general, and if it
is worth even a look, or worth gallery space.
>South American civilisation. Is their art a fad too?<
Understanding the art of the ancients needs an understanding of their
culture.
In most cases this is guesswork, relying on interpretation of artefacts dug
up,
rather than the full range of evidence such as contemporary documents,
and a continuity into a documented world of the Romans.
As I understand it, much of the South American "Art" has a totally cultist
origin.
I am no student of these works, but they seem to me to have a place in a
museum of history rather than an art gallery.
Much of the stuff has a rarity value only. Much like toy trains in England.
> As reality, a classically painted cartoon can be much less evocative than
> non-representational art -- to a modern physicist or cognitive
> neuroscientist,
There is no need to bring in scientists to make the point that we are
looking for many different things in art, but what Must be the same is that
art is a visual recreation. You cannot make art into something that must
only exist as a periphery of an accompanying text.
Even Japanese art, some of which includes poetry within the work itself,
and is defined and defines the work, exists totally as a visual work.
Thur
"Leo Papandreou" <koan...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:1146a1e0.0312...@posting.google.com...
> > > trimmed for space<<<
Leo Papandreou
> When I wander around my local galleries I see an uninhibited attempt
> on the part of all the abstract artists to display a complete carelessness,
> a complete lack of complexity, and an absence of any attempt to capture
> the eye of the viewer, or to entertain that eye with the materials to hand.
I don't doubt you see that. I'm sure some of it is, perhaps most of it.
Why not, most accessible art is the same way and in the same proportion.
It's just more accessible. How about Rothko? Many people seem unable to
read him with any comprehension, or they refuse to. That is their loss.
I think Rothko was a brilliant talent. I love all his work, especially the
signature floating rectangles (which reproductions in a book cannot do
justice.) I respond to it intellectually, which you can also do if you learn
something more about it, but also emotionally, on a spiritual level, which
might never become your experience.
The point is you could say about Rothko that he displays a "complete
carelessness, a complete lax of complexity, and an absence of any attempt to
capture the eye of the viewer, or to entertain that eye with the materials to
hand." You'd be wrong on every point. It would be something you said -- your
accompanying text -- and nothing, not one thing more. The question is, why
should I trust your accompanying text instead of Rothko's?
> You cannot make art into something that must only exist as a periphery of an
> accompanying text.
All art has an accompanying text (and maybe a grammar too). Why are those two
exaggerated cartoon figures on the Sistine Chapel trying to touch fingers? Are
they supposed to be homosexuals? I made a point (densely) about taking visual
signs and language for granted in a recent message here:
<http://tinyurl.com/2pbvr>.
Mani Deli
wrote:
> How about Rothko? --
>I think Rothko was a brilliant talent. I love all his work, -- I respond to it intellectually, which you can also do if you learn
>something more about it, but also emotionally, on a spiritual level, which
>might never become your experience.
>
I sense laziness, self-delusion, boredom and bitterness in Rothko, all
human emotions. However, this adds nothing to the merit of Rothko's
stuff or makes it any better than below average designer bed sheet.
DOES SOMETHING MERIT THE LABEL "GREAT ART" IF ANYONE CAN IMITATE IT?
That is the question you need to answer. My answer is NO. That is why
I consider Rothko and Co. minor patzers.
Rothko is a Modern Academic Art put-on, an economic phenomenon. His
big canvas nothings are a foil for endless Artspeak gas. If any Rothko
were signed R. Mutt it would be considered worthless trash. .
Practically nothing can get you off if you squeeze your imagination
hard enough. Lots of believers see the Virgin Mary in clouds.
Leo Papandreou
> On 27 Dec 2003 19:46:26 -0800, koan...@earthling.net (Leo Papandreou)
> wrote:
>
> > How about Rothko? --
> >I think Rothko was a brilliant talent. I love all his work, -- I respond to it intellectually, which you can also do if you learn
> >something more about it, but also emotionally, on a spiritual level, which
> >might never become your experience.
> >
>
> I sense laziness, self-delusion, boredom and bitterness in Rothko, all
> human emotions. However, this adds nothing to the merit of Rothko's
> stuff or makes it any better than below average designer bed sheet.
Zzz.
> DOES SOMETHING MERIT THE LABEL "GREAT ART" IF ANYONE CAN IMITATE IT?
> That is the question you need to answer. My answer is NO. That is why
> I consider Rothko and Co. minor patzers.
Your answer is NO. Well gosh I guess a loud unreasoned NO paints a picture
of art you like and declares formally ignorance of art you don't but do you
think maybe you could tell us WHY the answer's NO?
Is it because you could have done it? Well then why didn't you? Why don't do
something equally imitable that hasn't been done yet? Is it because you can't
imitate originality? That would certainly explain why they call it originality,
would it not, and why Rothko is Rothko and you are ... who are you again?
All art can be "imitated." Indeed, some of the art you've created or stated a
preference for can be imitated by a complete duffer using a computer. Rothko is
not especially easy to imitate. He is harder to imitate than formulaic kitsch
cranked out in ateliers (where it seems students can't help but imitate each
other), comics you recommend we should study instead of Nicolaides, and air-
brushed vixens and T-Shirt graphics you like in Juxtapose.
I suppose photography is harder to imitate than airbrush art. I guess that
means photographers merit less esteem than comic artists --heck, than inkers--
because "anyone" can take a picture but inking a comic, that takes "skill."
Sure enough, most photographers couldn't ink a comic if their life depended on
it. You've obviously given your pronouncements a lot of thought, Mani.
Rothko's paintings have a unique presence. If you ever attend a Rothko
exhibition, you will notice people don't chat much or walk through it bored.
They come, and they stay for a long time.
In order for "anyone" to imitate Rothko, Mani, they have become Rothko-like.
They have to become a painter, first (no small feat or else you would have done
it) then infer his mind, which was complex and formidable. That rules you out.
You're not just "anyone." They have to read his biography, study his writing,
travel to museums and there make detailed, critical inspections of his
paintings. They must try to imitate his surface (which was very painterly) and
then research his methods and materials (because you can't get his surface with
regular oil paint.) Finally, after years of dedicated study, practice and one
abject failure after another, they might paint an "original" imitation Rothko
that would fool Mani Deli, some kook on the Internet trying to imitate Dali
with Kai's Power Goo. That's the kind of effort that helps explain why the
first person ever to paint a Rothko was Rothko.
You're an idiot. You haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about.
http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_work_md_138_3.html
http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/rothkosplash.html
> Rothko is a Modern Academic Art put-on, an economic phenomenon. His
> big canvas nothings are a foil for endless Artspeak gas. If any Rothko
> were signed R. Mutt it would be considered worthless trash. .
Zzz.
> Practically nothing can get you off if you squeeze your imagination
> hard enough. Lots of believers see the Virgin Mary in clouds.
What?
> No skill no art!
No originality mani deli!
> Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
The best thing that can happen to you, Mani, is you become tired of modern art.
G*rd*n
> > How about Rothko? --
> >I think Rothko was a brilliant talent. I love all his work, -- I respond to it intellectually, which you can also do if you learn
> >something more about it, but also emotionally, on a spiritual level, which
> >might never become your experience.
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>:
> I sense laziness, self-delusion, boredom and bitterness in Rothko, all
> human emotions. However, this adds nothing to the merit of Rothko's
> stuff or makes it any better than below average designer bed sheet.
>
> DOES SOMETHING MERIT THE LABEL "GREAT ART" IF ANYONE CAN IMITATE IT?
> That is the question you need to answer. My answer is NO. That is why
> I consider Rothko and Co. minor patzers.
>
> Rothko is a Modern Academic Art put-on, an economic phenomenon. His
> big canvas nothings are a foil for endless Artspeak gas. If any Rothko
> were signed R. Mutt it would be considered worthless trash. .
>
> Practically nothing can get you off if you squeeze your imagination
> hard enough. Lots of believers see the Virgin Mary in clouds.
I'm not a big Rothko fan, but he doesn't appear that easy to
imitate to me. I am told that his working methods were
rather laborious, and my close examination of the pictures a
few months ago did not contradict this assertion. Doing a
Rothko imitation might be a useful exercise (one which I
contemplated since I don't seem to get the blast from the
pictures that others do, even when I stand next to them).
Note that I am not equivalencing inimitibility with
aesthetic quality.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Phan C. Pant
>I'm not a big Rothko fan, but he doesn't appear that easy to
>imitate to me.
Since many of Rothko's works, and especially
those of the "rectangles on rectangles" genre, have
been severely degraded since painted, it would
be virtually impossible to imitate them now.
Rothko is known to have used non-artist materials
and many of his colors have shifted, faded or
darkened irreparably. The ones I saw in the
Rothko Chapel in Houston many years ago were already of
a similar somber darkness with little if any of
the original color still evident.
Dilettante
> -and a retreat into sarcasm (nobody else here ever uses sarcasms)
as if that exculpated yours.
>
>
>
> No skill no art!
No soul no art!
D.
Dilettante
>
> DOES SOMETHING MERIT THE LABEL "GREAT ART" IF ANYONE CAN IMITATE IT?
> That is the question you need to answer. My answer is NO. That is why
> I consider Rothko and Co. minor patzers.
Not really a valid argument. Bach and Beethoven worked in styles that
could be copied to a degree. For example--Brahms emulation of the
latter, his fist symphony was called "Beethoven's 10th". But that
does not lessen the work of Beethoven or of Bach.
Some artists create styles that avail themselves of imitation, such as
surrealism. But the work of Picasso has never been successfully
copied, not even by people accused of doing it.
Anyone could copy the works of Helen Frankenthaler. She created a
genre. This does not lessen her genius.
D.
keith o'connor
mani get under your skin e.g. your phrase directed at mani: "You're an
idiot. You haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about".
He reduced you to his level - he won the argument. He won because to mani
the argument is not about ideas it is about an emotional war in which he
must be the victor. As a side point the metaphorical application of the
English language in reference to its use in our culture: argument is war.
Again as a side issue - if language operates metaphorically then art being a
language also operates metaphorically. In both instances not all
participants can understand the underlying metaphorical application. The
extension of this aside is that mani cannot grasp the artistic or linguistic
element of metaphor and will therefore never have access to wisdom. And to
address an idiot as an idiot is akin to demanding that a rock speak and that
is arrogance.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Leo Papandreou" <koan...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:1146a1e0.03122...@posting.google.com...
Thur
posing as the group's sage?
You know very well that this title belongs to another.
> In both instances not all participants can understand the underlying <
> metaphorical application.<
> mani cannot grasp the artistic or linguistic
> element of metaphor and will therefore never have access to wisdom.<
We all use these message boards to satisfy our own egos, don't we?
If you are going to cruise this one with yours, there will be no room for
the rest of us.
Please accept these comments from a mortal, and don't choke on
the turkey, eh?
Season's Greetings.
Thur
"keith o'connor" <ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote in message
news:Yb0Ib.158636$2We1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Mani Deli
When you have no ideas of your own you paraphrase. Any talk of skill
irritates artzy fartzies no end.
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
>>
>> DOES SOMETHING MERIT THE LABEL "GREAT ART" IF ANYONE CAN IMITATE IT?
>> That is the question you need to answer. My answer is NO. That is why
>> I consider Rothko and Co. minor patzers.
>
>Not really a valid argument. Bach and Beethoven worked in styles that
>could be copied to a degree. For example--Brahms emulation of the
>latter, his fist symphony was called "Beethoven's 10th". But that
>does not lessen the work of Beethoven or of Bach.
Experts aren't Anyone. All art evolves from imitation to creation.
>Some artists create styles that avail themselves of imitation, such as
>surrealism. But the work of Picasso has never been successfully
>copied, not even by people accused of doing it.
The three stooges of Modern Academic Art, Rothko de Kooning and
Pollock are easily imitated be students who learn a minuscule of
technique.
Picasso takes more skill. Fine technique requires expertise. The
finest work is inimitable.
>
>Anyone could copy the works of Helen Frankenthaler. She created a
>genre. This does not lessen her genius.
>
She may be a genius but not as an artist.
Lets see your work.
Dilettante
> Lets see your work.
Not necessary where you are concerned.
>
>
>
>
> No skill no art!
No soul no art.
D
Dilettante
> You are very knowledgeable and can express yourself fluently. But you let
> mani get under your skin...
Papandreou is the poster on this ng who has the patience and the
arsenal to handle mani. You should read the great job he did on Mani's
attack of Nicolaides's book, The Natural Way to Draw.
Dilettante
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
>> Lets see your work.
>
>Not necessary where you are concerned.
>
>
Not necessary where anyone is concerned. I'm not concerned.
>>
>>
>>
>> No skill no art!
>
>No soul no art.
>
Skill frightens dilettantes
G*rd*n
> >
> > DOES SOMETHING MERIT THE LABEL "GREAT ART" IF ANYONE CAN IMITATE IT?
> > That is the question you need to answer. My answer is NO. That is why
> > I consider Rothko and Co. minor patzers.
hu...@myself.com (Dilettante):
> Not really a valid argument. Bach and Beethoven worked in styles that
> could be copied to a degree. For example--Brahms emulation of the
> latter, his fist symphony was called "Beethoven's 10th". But that
> does not lessen the work of Beethoven or of Bach.
>
> Some artists create styles that avail themselves of imitation, such as
> surrealism. But the work of Picasso has never been successfully
> copied, not even by people accused of doing it.
>
> Anyone could copy the works of Helen Frankenthaler. She created a
> genre. This does not lessen her genius.
I think Mani's point of view is that art is a sort of athletic
contest. There are certainly people who approach (for instance)
opera and dance in this way: the best dancer is the best
gymnast or contortionist, the best opera singer the one who
can hit the highest (or lowest or loudest) note. This contradicts
his dictum of some time ago, "If it's not on the wall, it's not
there at all," which suggests that the pedigree or history of
an artist's techniques is of no account in appreciating or
judging the final work. But maybe someone else said that. In
any case, _de_gustibus_.
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>:
>> >
>> > DOES SOMETHING MERIT THE LABEL "GREAT ART" IF ANYONE CAN IMITATE IT?
>> > That is the question you need to answer. My answer is NO. That is why
>> > I consider Rothko and Co. minor patzers.
>
>
>I think Mani's point of view is that art is a sort of athletic
>contest.
Like all the great art of the painting of the past and most anything
requiring a modicum of skill.
> There are certainly people who approach (for instance)
>opera and dance in this way: the best dancer is the best
>gymnast or contortionist, the best opera singer the one who
>can hit the highest (or lowest or loudest) note.
The worst artwork is something most anyone can do, whether or not it
hangs in a museum or is the subject of the usual critical bullshit.
Has nothing to do with an athletic contest.
Mani Deli
wrote:
Rothko and most AE garbage is falling apart because they are done with
the cheapest house paint. I even know where a lot of it was purchased,
having lived in the village and being familiar with the suppliers.
There are specialist restorers who make a mint repairing that crap.
Its a good profession.
Mani Deli
>
>I'm not a big Rothko fan, but he doesn't appear that easy to
>imitate to me.
Guess this guys art school didn't teach that method.
> I am told that his working methods were
>rather laborious, and my close examination of the pictures a
>few months ago did not contradict this assertion.
You examination is worthless.
> Doing a
>Rothko imitation might be a useful exercise (one which I
>contemplated since I don't seem to get the blast from the
>pictures that others do, even when I stand next to them).
>
>Note that I am not equivalencing inimitibility with
>aesthetic quality.
Check out wall decoration on TV they do Rothko like stuff
occasionally. Sometimes even bigger than Rothko.
Mani Deli
>Again as a side issue - if language operates metaphorically then art being a
>language also operates metaphorically. In both instances not all
>participants can understand the underlying metaphorical application. The
>extension of this aside is that mani cannot grasp the artistic or linguistic
>element of metaphor and will therefore never have access to wisdom. And to
>address an idiot as an idiot is akin to demanding that a rock speak and that
>is arrogance.
Speaking of idiots take a look at his artwork.
No skill no art!
Thur
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bssaa8$7l2$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
> which suggests that the pedigree or history of
> an artist's techniques is of no account in appreciating or
> judging the final work.
I note that once an artist has a "name" that people remember and
associate with artistic importance, then all that artist's works are
sought after, so long as they have the signature, and no matter
how poorly or carelessly finished they are.
Some of Picasso's stuff are really experimental scribbles and
visual notes that would have been used to start the fire the next
morning had he lived a little further North.
It seems that the "collector's" influence changes the real value,
and work gains or loses value depending upon demand, market
forces etc.
It also suggests that the art market is populated with numbers of
people who don't give a fig for a single work of art, only for it's
investment value.
Not enough art lovers, who have the pocket to influence art, and
an eye for it.
Thur
Leo Papandreou
> You are very knowledgeable and can express yourself fluently. But you let
> mani get under your skin e.g. your phrase directed at mani: "You're an
> idiot. You haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about".
>
> He reduced you to his level - he won the argument. He won because to mani
> the argument is not about ideas it is about an emotional war in which he
> must be the victor. As a side point the metaphorical application of the
> English language in reference to its use in our culture: argument is war.
>
There's a difference in my mind between an argument, splicing words and
references to empirical reality as we perceive it with the rules logic, and
some fool dogmatist trying to force their view on everyone else by waging a
relentless campaign of ad hominem, vague prejudicial language, and illogic.
Mani is that fool. He does not argue. Not once has Mani taken part in an
argument here on RAF. He is not consistent with what we call "reason," hence
you could say he is irrational. I suppose that is a kinder and more accurate
description than "idiot."
So Mani, since I know you're collecting my rhetorical questions, let me ask
you: why do you hate reason?
I don't want to give the impression I think I'm right every time I write a
comment, or that Mani won't give the correct time twice a day. It's not that.
Arguments don't decide that some proposition is true. Rather, they decide which
propositions are invalid: given its assumptions, which might not be true, we
can determine if an argument is deductively valid (if we believe the
assumptions we say the argument is also sound.) Non-invalid propositions are
working hypotheses, tentative explanations that explain some small set of facts
or phenomena about the world. They turn out wrong, eventually, and are replaced
with newer working hypotheses (the history of knowledge refers.) These working
hypotheses may contradict each other, which is cause for interminable argument.
I like argument: blah, blah, blah is what people do and I like people (pretty
much.)
It's clear to me that this isn't Mani's thinking. Because he knows the truth
he has no need to argue, and so he doesn't. I'm sure he's a nice guy -- nicer
than me, probably -- but still.
keith o'connor
Bank Street. Printed off mani's posting on my last piece of paper and gave
it to my dog defenbaker - gets him excited - he hasn't gotten out much these
past few days - the elevator has been broken.
Chief inspector is trapped on the third floor. He broke the window so his
wife could toss him food - he won't share with anyone - he must have been a
greedy little infant on the tit. The unions are on strike so no one can
enter or leave the building.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ibi3vvoko435l0dte...@4ax.com...