The tradition you pass down is not the tradition that endures.
The tradition you name is already broken.
all the usage in the world
Thus,
reason : passion :: rationality : satisfaction
Measure is the rationality of reason.
Pleasure is the satisfaction of passion.
Beliefs are surely mental states, i.e., the result of making up our minds about how things are. But what about desires? Should we not rather call them "cordial," i.e., of the heart, not the mind, and do they not feel rather more like "drives" than states?
Mallarmé tried do his thinking with his heart. Frege no doubt thought his feelings were mental. Poets and philosophers, both, want it all, but reduced to a single organ of their professional preference. Is it not rather this: that we think with our minds and feel with our hearts?
We are as passionate as we are rational. Our beliefs and desires do not meet in our minds. Rather, our desires drive us into cordial relations with one another, while our beliefs fix our mental position among things.
What does the artist want?
What is a work of art supposed to achieve for the artist?
Robert Graves proposed an answer: the poet is attempting to remove "a concenration which will persist uncomfortfortably" until the poem goes into "circulation".
"There is the question: what relation must one fact (such as a sentence) have to another in order to be capable of being a symbol for that other? This is a logical question, and it is the one with which Mr. Wittgenstein is concerned." (Bertrand Russell)
There is another question: what relation must one fact (such as a body) have to another in order to be receptive to the symbolism of that other? This is a question of pathos, and it is one that Mallarmé, Williams, and Olson were very much conerned about.
Caesar non supra grammaticos.
Anon.
I am a grammarian.
We will or we will not cry together.
Gertrude Stein