Hopefully he means in art only, and something like "entertain" by "accept." The meaning of the passage for me is that no one will like me for arguing with them--a thing I tend to forget.
I think you're right about theoretical readings, except I wouldn't describe those as arguments. They're not propositional, they're inevitably systems, or fragments of systems, designed to replace or rival argument/logic. You have to sieze them at both ends, superimpose them on the life in front of you, rather than build to them from clean premises. And there's two necessary components to their appeal, I think: the one you describe, where you hold onto what you've worked to make any kind of sense of; and whatever you think the system promised at the outset. The second can fall away, like support rockets, when you finally get some sense of the theory. Which may be a good thing, because I'm not aware of any that does anything like what aspirants expect of it. Most are mythologies trying to talk their way into science.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-05-09 07:23 am (UTC)I think you're right about theoretical readings, except I wouldn't describe those as arguments. They're not propositional, they're inevitably systems, or fragments of systems, designed to replace or rival argument/logic. You have to sieze them at both ends, superimpose them on the life in front of you, rather than build to them from clean premises. And there's two necessary components to their appeal, I think: the one you describe, where you hold onto what you've worked to make any kind of sense of; and whatever you think the system promised at the outset. The second can fall away, like support rockets, when you finally get some sense of the theory. Which may be a good thing, because I'm not aware of any that does anything like what aspirants expect of it. Most are mythologies trying to talk their way into science.