[littlemanpoet]

Aiwendil: One cannot transmute a linguistic argument into a broad sociological one, much less a metaphysical one.

Regarding a metaphysical, in his Poetic Diction, Owen Barfield, close friend of both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, does precisely that. He shows how the process of distinction that has been going on for years in language (whether Greek, Latin, English or other) has had both the salutary effect of development of knowledge, and the unhappy effect of divorcing our understanding of concepts from their concrete origins. In other words, we think about metaphysics in certain ways because of what has happened to our speech patterns. The same is true of sociological, or any field of knowledge, precisely because it must make use of the language. Tolkien is known to believe that our language is less good than it used to be precisely because of this development of language. I do not do justice to Tolkien's nor Barfield's thoughts on this. I recommend a reading of Poetic Diction.

Aiwendil: The derivation of the word "amuse" simply cannot prove anything about the relation of humor to art in a broader sense.

Whereas it cannot "prove anything", the derivation is still there, and therefore that derivation is part of the history of that word. That most people are unaware of that, is precisely the disease that Tolkien saw with the language as it is now. People have forgotten where the words they use come from. It is always this way. Whereas it has been said that "myth is a disease of language", Barfield and Tolkien would more likely say that "language is a disease of myth".

The Saucepan Man: Of course, one cannot really compare different forms of art, save in very limited respects.

Quite. The very limited respect was what I had in mind.

The Saucepan Man: ...we are left with two different opinions, neither of which can, ultimately, claim to be fact.

I have been attempting to show just how much of that which is simply assumed to be fact, is no more than opinion; such as the popular understanding that opinions in themselves, by virtue of the fact that they are held and aired by someone, are valid for that person just because she or he has them. Nonsense. Opinions can be uninformed (in which case they're ignorant), unexamined (in which case they are mere prejudice), examined and still wrong (in which case they are the result of imperfect reasoning), or true as far as they go but missing useful information, or just maybe, accurate.

But that's just about opinion. Subjective versus Objective is a distinction which, like all distinctions, does just as much harm as good. Whereas the distinction has value, there is just as much value (ane maybe more) in transcending the duality. Can you look past the distinction to the unity that used to be what was known?

The Saucepan Man: ..."high quality" is judged by what standard?

By the standard of that which endures. Such as Tolkien's LotR. It is standing the test of time. So did Dickens. And Sir Walter Scott. And Shakespeare, etc.

The Saucepan Man: But there will be others who consider it to be "good art". They might even consider it to be "better art" than the works of Tolkien. You and I may disagree with them, but we cannot deny their honest and genuine reaction.

But we can understand that however honestly they hold their opinion, it could still be wrong.