Print

Print


    I have been away and now find too much reappointed material out 
there to respond outwardly for the moment. But glad Keston's very 
interesting post has gone on being supplemented, mainly from its 
origin. Any talk of "scarcity" always attracts me, and 
"disappointment reenables rarity" once again charges up that term 
 so much  mutates around. Most of the thought (which 
i haven't yet absorbed) seems to centre on aesthetic disappointment, 
whereas for me it was the captured field of compunction as 
disappointment which set things going. What are the ethics of 
disappointment etc? Must look again at what you say here, though I 
see that you find that aspect less intriguing yourself. The 
aesthetics of disappointment (where the discussion seems to have got) 
breeds sound but well exercised paradoxes, but disappointment as an 
aspect of ethics seems to bring in a genuine foreign term, not a 
question of attuning expectation, but of whether remorse can afford 
any such supplement and function as such, even though that supplement 
may also be its origin. Remorse presumably should subvert its hurt 
that sin doesn't pay, or is no higher fun, otherwise it disappoints 
itself. Perhaps disappointment refuses ever to be completely ethical 
and points to an insufficiency or scarcity of the corrective vision 
of the latter. But now we are back in the environs of a term of 
excess which readily aestheticises. Does that leave us  with a 
polarity, an aesthetics of excess as one combinable tread, and an 
ethics of scarcity as the other? 
Peter












Peter Larkin
Philosophy & Literature Librarian
University of Warwick Library
Coventry CV4 7AL UK
Tel: 01203 528151 Fax: 01203 524211
Email: [log in to unmask]


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