TED WROTE
>
>This omits the rather significant fact that the term "art",  as opposed to
>say "painting" or "writing" does imply an evaluative component - "this is
>art but it is not good" does seem self-contradictory, whereas "this is a
>painting and it is not good" does not.
>

Actually, without a working definition of what you mean when you say "art"
the statement is no more self-contradictory than me saying "this is steak,
but it is not good." A word cannot imply anything unless it has meaning. If
it has meaning, it has a definition. So your "significant fact" hinges on
what you mean by "art" which is dependent on the words DEFINITION.

example:

This repqepri is too cold, it is not good.

I myself have a cultural understanding of "repqepri" and I choose not to
share it with you. I assume that you share it anyway. Now I will make
another statement:

To say that repqepri is not good is inherently contradictory.

If you do not share my understanding of the term "repqepri," you have no
basis on which to make a judgement as to the accuracy of my statement. Only
through my repeated use of the term, and remarks that extend the context in
which you see the word "repqepri" will you gain any understanding of the
term. In other words, as I provide context, you internalize a contexturally
derived _definition_... for example, you would assume from the above
sentences that repqepri is a noun or adjective that implies something good.
You would also conclude that I had contradicted myself, but that's another
problem.

Now let us move to a larger problem, and a different definition of "repqepri."

The NBC footage made great repqepri. The commentators, the bombs, the U.S.
repqepri, and repqepri, all foofammed in their himmmzel. Foofarah poofarah,
iggy squiggy boom, nep reed Tom Brokaw, repqepri rather than "repqepri" as
we normally understand it.

Well, at this point, of course, you can't learn anything, becuase I've
chosen to describe one unfamiliar term in the context of a number of other
unfamiliar terms, and in seemingly very different ways... for example, how
can the footage be "repqepri" if "repqepri" fits just as well with
commentators and bombs, and is differentiated in the U.S. variety and a
general descriptor? What the heck is "Foofarah?" Is it a proper noun? A
verb? Both? And wait a minute, what exactly do I mean by "repqepri, but not
'repqepri' as we normally understand it?" Am I talking about the footage?
The foofamming?

At this point, you'll either start ignoring me or demand that I define a
few words. If I say that "repqepri" refers to a peculiar type of behavior
exhibited by lemmings in the springtime, and can be used to describe either
an example of strange behavior in general or a metaphorical state of
leaping off a cliff just becuase everybody else is, also, (repqepri can be
inherently possesive in context) things start to make sense.

The NBC footage made (or now, was) great lemming like behavior. The
commentators, the bombs, the U.S.'s strange behavior, and just people's
lemming like behavior in general, all foofammed in their himmmzel.

Not much more sense, but some. At least now you can safely conclude that I
am a deeply weird individual, and a grammatically challenged one at that!
Without the information, you can conclude nothing, and so learn nothing.

To say that a definition does nothing to enhance discussion is to assume
that everyone shares your cultural understanding of a term, which even you
seemingly cannot describe or indeed even demonstrate exists... THAT is
inherently  contradictory.

j. daigle





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%