Chris, I know you'll be delighted to hear I think you query below is quite
Cheerskep-like, though not so starchily expressed as his are. In effect you're
asking what Brady's notion of "fictitious" is.
Brady actually did spend some time trying to convey what he had in mind with
his notion of the key distinction between fiction and non-fiction. Given the
inherent IIMT character of all notion, I think he did a pretty good job, but I
leave it to him to decide if he wants to redescribe it for you.
In a message dated 5/2/08 10:32:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Does it make sense to call a WoA fictitious if there's no agreement at all
> about any details of the fiction?
>
> What's fictitious about a typical Kandinsky?
>
> It could be this -- it could be that -- the only thing about which everyone
> might agree is that it is itself. (just like the long pass)
>
> And what's fictitious about that?
>
> The qualities and feelings those works provoke would seem to have nothing to
> do with any specific fiction.
>
> Just as with the decorative surface patterns on many carpets and ceramics.
>
>
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> The sine qua non of a WoA is its fictitiousness, not its aesthetic
> qualities.
> Those qualities and the feelings they provoke come from the fictitious work,
> they don't precede it or inform it.
>
>
**************
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
