From: le01167@portal.lasc.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel)
Subject: Re: Literature Students/Small World
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. - Rye Canyon
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 16:41:05 GMT

In article <1bl1b3INNjrf@agate.berkeley.edu>, maverick@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes...

>It's my memory that the first poster reported that her
>class helped make a second reading enjoyable, not
>that it helped her enjoy her memories of the first reading;
>if so, we're still talking about experience.  

This still points to some aspect of the book - other than
its reading - as contributing to her enjoyment (so that she
could "go back" and enjoy it).   Even if she is able on
2nd reading to enjoy the experience, this came about because
of the intellectual efforts in class.

>Your hard
>experiential / intellectual distinction is then only a
>distinction between experiences under different conditions
>-- different kinds of preparation for the reading -- a
>difference which is hardly binary.  

I don't know; preparation is intellectual, reading is
experiencial.  There may be different kinds and levels
of preparation - ok, but that comes under the intellecutal
heading nonetheless.  I still think that a work provides 
pleasure to both activities.  I think that evidence for
this dichotomy is found when people speak of a book
being written "just for entertainment" (experiencial),
or when people speak highly of a work for it's 
"artistic value" (intellectual), or when someone says
they enjoyed a symphony because of the melody (experiencial),
while someone else will praise a modern peice of music
for its "architectural" qualities (intellectual), someone
thinks a book they read was "fun" (experiencial), another
reader thinks theirs gave them "a lot to chew on"
(intellectual).  I don't mean to imply, nor have I said,
that they are totally distinct entities, but like right
and wrong, male and female, democrat and republican,
there are distinctions.

>Another reader might
>have approached the book "right", or at least fruitfully,
>on the first go -- is this reader more intellectual, or is
>the book less intellectual for him than for our first
>example?  :)
>
Fair question , but the point isn't really "on the first go" 
or not, so much as what aspects are the criteria for this
fruitfulness you speak of.  If one reader is able to 
appreciate "Lord Jim" for it's intellectual qualities at
first reading, it's the same thing as the student who
liked it better after having the intellectual part worked
out in class.  Their intellectual appreciation is the point.
It is because the student didn't enjoy the novel until
after the intellectual discussions that is evidence, to me,
that the intellectual part is essentially distinct from the
"reading experience" part.  Perhaps I should add that, in the
end, what counts, to the reader, is the total pleasure
derived from the book.  But, I'm of the opinion that we give
a work a higher rating than its real value to us (total 
pleasure derived) if we find intellectual content in it - even
if we didn't enjoy the reading experience.  I think I do too.


>Perhaps my basic disagreement with you is that I don't know
>how to distinguish my intellectual pleasures from any other
>kind.  

Oh yes you do.  We all do.  Firstly, think of when you were
a little kid and none of your pleasures were intellectual.
If you read a book, it was for the "story" (experiencial).
When you slid down a slide and went "weee" it was because
it was a pleasurable experience.  When you had your first
kiss and copped your first feel, was that intellectually
exciting for you?  Not me.  But there was pleasure by
the boat-loads.  Do you have intellectual fun playing
tennis?  And when you win, is that an intellectual thrill?
You see, we down-play this very real thing of unthinking 
mindless pleasure, to the extent that you don't think you 
can tell the difference in yourself.  This intellectual
pleasure is something else, something valuable no question,
but something else.  I just think we inflate its value
for some reason.

*Every* pleasure improves if I give my mind to it
>fully.  

So there IS already a pleasure there to be improved upon by
your intellectual effort, so it must be distinct from it.

>I was electrified the first time I saw
>the computation of the area under a segment of a parabola,
>and have never quite recovered that charge -- does this
>mean it wasn't an intellectual pleasure?
> 
>	Vance

I would say no.  Being electrified is too spontaneous to be
intellectual.

Ron