Sixty odd years ago, when I was a young philosopher
"coming up," as we said in those days, there was an argument circulating
among philosophers of art imported from Gestalt Psychology. Since I was then totally uninterested in the
philosophy of art [which was generally looked down upon by real philosophers,
who wrote everything with a backwards E], I cannot now recall what the
technical term for the argument was, but the idea was simple enough. Psychologists had discovered that when you
show a drawing to a subject in which a bit of a line has been left out, the subject
feels an "objective demand" to fill the missing line in. For example, you could show the subject a
circle from which a small arc was missing and the subject would pick up a
pencil and complete the circle. You get
the idea. This fact was used by some
aestheticians to demonstrate that judgments of beauty are objective, and not
just "subjectively universal," as Kant had said in the Third Critique. [Don't ask me how they got from the filled-in
circle to that conclusion. As I say, philosophy
of art was not my thing.]
I thought of that old argument this morning as I filled in
the last number of a "difficult level" on-line Sudoku puzzle and sat
back waiting for the raucous cheers of approval programmed into the game. I am a compulsive crossword and puzzle
solver. I do the NY TIMES puzzle every day of the week [Friday is the hardest,
Thursday is always quirky and imaginative, Sunday is not hard but very big and
therefore time-consuming.] Then I do
both Ken Ken puzzles [although I will in all honesty admit that sometimes I screw
up the 6x6.] When Susie and I travel, we
pre-board the airplane because Susie uses a wheelchair in airports. As soon as we are seated and my briefcase has
been shoved under the seat in front of me, I pull out the Airline magazine and
look for the puzzles. The crossword, if
it has not been defiled by a previous traveler, is my first stop. Now, the crossword puzzles in Airline
magazines are dead easy, and not really any fun at all to do. But I feel a compulsion [an "objective
demand"] to fill them in, preferably before the instruction comes to lock
the tray tables and secure seatbelts.
When I have completed a puzzle, no matter how easy, I feel a
rush of satisfaction [a secretion of endorphins?] accompanied by the faintest
sense that a voice in my head is saying "good boy." Since the filling in of a crossword puzzle or
a Sudoku matrix is a perfectly pointless accomplishment, it is difficult to see
why this should be so, but I figure the
first rule of blogging is absolute self-revelatory honesty [or a plausible simulacrum of same], so there you have
it.
Come to think of it, a good deal of life is the filling up
of empty spaces [stomach, brain, whatever], none of which ever seems to stay
filled for very long, so maybe the long arc of evolution has prepared us for crossword
puzzles. I find that somehow rather comforting. Now to tackle the TIMES puzzle, an easy one, alas, since this is only Tuesday.
5 comments:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/crosswords/kenken.html
It's fun to do them on line (the above link). You can take "notes" (typing a number inside a square with shift key down allows multiple possibilities to appear; then as you fill in definitives contradicting notes disappear; hard to describe, easier to do.) My mentor, George Boolos, would do real puzzles (i.e., the British double crostics(?) ) at speed.
George was a wonderfully quirky guy, back when I knew him.
Saturday's NYT puzzle, not Friday's, is the hardest.
I don't agree. I know it is supposeed to be, but in my experience, the Friday one is really difficult even to get started, and sometimes I fail to finish it, but I pretty nearly always finish the Saturday puzzle.
Your experience is anomalous, I assure you.
Post a Comment