From 6098d184521764cbd29b682605b0455df7f558d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: grr <grr@lo2.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:27:13 -0400
Subject: pile of work-in-progress-crud

---
 extra/misleading_newness.tex | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)

(limited to 'extra/misleading_newness.tex')

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.}]}
 
 
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

