diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'extra/misleading_newness.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | extra/misleading_newness.tex | 93 |
1 files changed, 46 insertions, 47 deletions
diff --git a/extra/misleading_newness.tex b/extra/misleading_newness.tex index d8c7a9b..8ece251 100644 --- a/extra/misleading_newness.tex +++ b/extra/misleading_newness.tex @@ -1,28 +1,28 @@ -\chapter{The Supererogatory, Misleading Notion of "Newness" (1960, 1975)} +\chapter[The Supererogatory, Misleading Notion of \enquote{Newness} (1960, 1975)][The Supererogatory, Misleading Notion of \enquote{Newness}]{The Supererogatory, Misleading Notion of \enquote{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." +Serious Cultural Neoism]; in \enquote{culture} a production is sometimes +said to ha \enquote{new.} A production is sometimes said to be (positively) +valuable because it is \enquote{new.} There are controversies over whether +productions are \enquote{new;}. and over what \enquote{real newness} is. There +are controversies over whether \enquote{newness} is good or bad. In general, +there is the notion of \enquote{newness,} not limited to \enquote{culture}: things +are said to be \enquote{new;} things are said to be valuable because \enquote{new} +--- here is the vague, general, valuational notion of \enquote{newness.} -A few "culture" producers, taking this existing vague -valuational notion of "newness" for granted, try to produce "culture" +A few \enquote{culture} producers, taking this existing vague +valuational notion of \enquote{newness} for granted, try to produce \enquote{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 +right, but) valuable entirely because it is \enquote{new};) which is +primarily \enquote{new,} is \enquote{new,} \enquote{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. +or an activity just to obtain a \enquote{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. @@ -35,10 +35,10 @@ 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 +about \enquote{newness} without regard for other value has led by several +paths (for ex., from taking \enquote{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 +anything is new. Attempts to do \enquote{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 @@ -48,57 +48,56 @@ 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}} +something \enquote{new,} try to make their productions \uline{appear} to have these characteristics, 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" +vague valuational notion of \enquote{newness,} and the notion of \enquote{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 +such \enquote{newness} cannot be identified with the exciting, the shocking +as \enquote{new} sometimes seems to be used to refer to; certainly the +most exciting, shocking things are not \enquote{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' +violence). The key point is that valuational \enquote{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 +non-valuational senses, everything can be considered \enquote{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 +only selected things \enquote{really} deserve to be said to be \enquote{new} --- +one speaks of \enquote{real newness.} The best explication for the term +\enquote{(really) new} here is that one applies \enquote{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 +\uline{has some major value} quite irrespective of \enquote{newness,} quite +irrespective of whether it is \enquote{new.} The \enquote{newness} of interest here +is best explicated as not a \enquote{primary} value or characterisic of +a thing, but rather an extra, \enquote{accidental,} \enquote{secondary} characteristic a thing, which has some major value quite irrespective -of "newness," can have; the characteristic of being encountered +of \enquote{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 +to all the problems about \enquote{newness.} The notion of a thing having +just \enquote{newness,} \enquote{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 +is absurd, inconsistent; represents taking a \enquote{secondary} characteristic +as a \enquote{primary} value, represents a confusion of the +formal and the substantive. The case of \enquote{newness} \uline{as such} is like +the case of \enquote{ability} \uline{as such} or \enquote{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 +the issue of \enquote{newness} in determining whether a thing is valuable. +The thing is \enquote{new} only if it is independently valuable, can't +be known to be \enquote{new} before it is known to be valuable (and anyway, +even if it is valuable, its \enquote{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 +\enquote{newness} does lead to the notion of \enquote{newness} as an independent, +primary value, and to resultant confusion. Further, \enquote{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" +case where the term is uniquely useful: the notion of \enquote{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."]} +\signoff{[\enquote{Newness is dropped.}]} |