Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!think!rutgers!caip!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ihlpf!cher
From: cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: poetry and philosophy, beauty a
Message-ID: <793@ihlpf.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Oct-86 21:28:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpf.793
Posted: Mon Oct 13 21:28:51 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 19:23:38 EDT
References: <747@ihlpf.UUCP> <117400127@inmet>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 17

> >Well, as long as the meanings of the words are explained the people
> >can communicate ideas, and figure out the root of the disagreement...
> 
> Quite true: and the  same  applies  to  aesthetic  disagreements.
> Taste can be educated. The same statement that was untrue or ugly
> before certain words were redefined, may become true  or  beautiful
> after.  E.g.,  "Antipodes walk upside down" implies at first both
> "in reverse position to us" and "reversed with respect to  gravi-

I realized that I took your "truth" to mean "something
independent of human existence". Your comparisons of
aesthetics to reasoning suggest that you had something like
"current educated opinion" in mind. I guess I was induced into barking 
up the wrong tree. Woof..
Nevertheless, this should not have an effect on the great poetry debate.
My next article is my final(?) opinion on the matter. 
		Mike Cherepov