add essay about misleading concept of newness

1 files changed, 104 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/extra/misleading_newness.tex b/extra/misleading_newness.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d8c7a9b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/extra/misleading_newness.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+\chapter{The Supererogatory, Misleading Notion of "Newness" (1960, 1975)}
+
+\signoff{\uline{From ``Culture'' to Brend}, Addition, Chapter 4.}
+
+\vskip 2em
+
+Quite apart from Serious Culture, metaphysics[,
+Serious Cultural Neoism]; in "culture" a production is sometimes 
+said to ha "new." A production is sometimes said to be (positively)
+valuable because it is "new." There are controversies over whether 
+productions are "new;". and over what "real newness" is. There 
+are controversies over whether "newness" is good or bad. In general,
+there is the notion of "newness," not limited to "culture": things 
+are said to be "new;" things are said to be valuable because "new" 
+--- here is the vague, general, valuational notion of "newness." 
+
+A few "culture" producers, taking this existing vague
+valuational notion of "newness" for granted, try to produce "culture"
+(which is (for the present, to be appreciated now; all 
+right, but) valuable entirely because it is "new";) which is
+primarily "new," is "new," "different" \uline{as such}; without any
+thought of other value, irrespective of its other characteristics.
+In their attempt, one thing they do is the intellectualistic,
+consciously experimental rearrangement of the elements of productions
+or an activity just to obtain a "different" production.
+One can play this little game indefinitely. Of course, what has
+enabled artists to believe in rearrangement as much as they have
+is that the results do have a little curiousness, surprise value.
+The classic example is the projectors in \uline{Gulliver's Travels} who 
+were trying to develop an ointment which would remove the wool
+from sheep, and to propagate the breed of naked sheep throughout
+the kingdom. The music concert without performers, the audience
+without a concert, painting a brush with a canvas, and so forth
+to infinity. Note the similarity to the central Dadaist techniques,
+which are relevant because the Dadaist technique of satire (Dada's
+principal purpose) is to change a thing so it appears to have its
+original purpose, but can't possibly fulfill it. Then, thinking
+about "newness" without regard for other value has led by several
+paths (for ex., from taking "newness" as next in a tradition to
+identifying anything as such a next thing) to the conclusion that
+anything is new. Attempts to do "anything" naturally tend to take
+the form of doing free-floating, purposeless, trite, simple things.
+An example was my own rolling a tall across the floor, supposedly 
+in the context of no activity or purpose. Then, they try to think
+up arbitrary new purposes, new activities. An example was my 
+attempt, when I first concieved it, to develop a percussion-sounds
+ritual which would magically make a toy car roll across a desk. 
+Finally, those who are a little more sophisticated theorize that
+the appearance of newness has something to do with complexity and 
+real purposiveness, and, although still merely trying to do 
+something "new," try to make their productions \uline{appear} to have these characteristics.\marginpar{\textit{giving a quasi-aesthetic experience of surface newness}}
+
+The notions of principal interest, the most problematic 
+notions, the principal notions to be analyzed are the existing
+vague valuational notion of "newness," and the notion of "newness"
+\uline{as such} (irresoective of other characteristics). (Incidentally, 
+
+such "newness" cannot be identified with the exciting, the shocking
+as "new" sometimes seems to be used to refer to; certainly the
+most exciting, shocking things are not "new" in any sense, but
+are as old as humanity and well-known to it --- religion, obscenity,
+violence). The key point is that valuational "newness" is, "newness'
+\uline{as such} \uline{as a value} must be, valuational notions. In the
+non-valuational senses, everything can be considered "new"; but
+the connotation of the notions of principal interest here is that
+only selected things "really" deserve to be said to be "new" ---
+one speaks of "real newness." The best explication for the term
+"(really) new" here is that one applies "new" approvingly to a 
+thing \uline{one is encountering for the first time}, which one finds 
+\uline{has some major value} quite irrespective of "newness," quite
+irrespective of whether it is "new." The "newness" of interest here 
+is best explicated as not a "primary" value or characterisic of
+a thing, but rather an extra, "accidental," "secondary" characteristic
+a thing, which has some major value quite irrespective
+of "newness," can have; the characteristic of being encountered
+for the first time. My conclusion readily gives the solutions
+to all the problems about "newness." The notion of a thing having
+just "newness." "newness" \uline{as such} irrespective of its other
+characteristics or value) as a characteristic, as its value,
+is absurd, inconsistent; represents taking a "secondary" characteristic
+as a "primary" value, represents a confusion of the
+formal and the substantive. The case of "newness" \uline{as such} is like
+the case of "ability" \uline{as such} or "freedom" \uline{as such} or competition
+\uline{as such}; it represents taking a formal matter, a matter of context,
+as a substantive matter. (As usual, the mere formal matter
+isn't worth making an issue of, thinking about.) 
+
+In fact, it can be concluded that it is better to omit
+the issue of "newness" in determining whether a thing is valuable.
+The thing is "new" only if it is independently valuable, can't
+be known to be "new" before it is known to be valuable (and anyway,
+even if it is valuable, its "newness" is only a matter of when
+you happen to encounter it). And, thus raising the issue of 
+"newness" does lead to the notion of "newness" as an independent,
+primary value, and to resultant confusion. Further, "new," in
+the neutral uses I listed, can easily be eliminated, by replacing
+it with the underlined equivalents I gave for it. Thus I see no 
+case where the term is uniquely useful: the notion of "newness"
+is supererogatory. As the term \uline{is misleading}, I suggest that it
+be consigned to oblivion, at least as a term for rigorous discourse.
+\vskip 1em
+\signoff{["Newness is dropped."]}
+
+