01-24-2012, 04:32 AM
"But you cannot use muddled language to produce an exegesis for another
muddle. At some point, you must use speech of the most plain sort.
Otherwise, you might as well leave the original muddle to speak for itself."
Of course you can (or, at least, I can). And 'muddle' DOES make you think
(if you're inclined to). Of course, the thinking that ambiguity necessarily
encourages can't be controlled that well. So, sure, I can make you think;
I just can't predict very well what you'll be thinking about. Pictures of
kittens are easier than Mark Rothko's painting: "Orange and Brown". Oh,
wait... judging from your Warhol remark, I guess that Rothko* would make
your thoughts easier to predict.
And, for all you topic police out there, this directly (and in speech of the
most plain sort, by the way) illustrates the problem with infinitely
muddled concepts like "beauty".
* Not that I'm a big Rothko fan; I like my muddles shaken, not stirred.
muddle. At some point, you must use speech of the most plain sort.
Otherwise, you might as well leave the original muddle to speak for itself."
Of course you can (or, at least, I can). And 'muddle' DOES make you think
(if you're inclined to). Of course, the thinking that ambiguity necessarily
encourages can't be controlled that well. So, sure, I can make you think;
I just can't predict very well what you'll be thinking about. Pictures of
kittens are easier than Mark Rothko's painting: "Orange and Brown". Oh,
wait... judging from your Warhol remark, I guess that Rothko* would make
your thoughts easier to predict.
And, for all you topic police out there, this directly (and in speech of the
most plain sort, by the way) illustrates the problem with infinitely
muddled concepts like "beauty".
* Not that I'm a big Rothko fan; I like my muddles shaken, not stirred.
a brightly colored fungus that grows in bark inclusions