But if you respond to the request rather than discoursin gon it - we would soon enough know where the difference may lay and potentially adjust our own responses to those differences - Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies The Cleveland Institute of Art
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:31:20 EDT > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: "An 'aesthetic experience' MAKES the work 'art'" > >> Kate writes: >> > >> He has said that his concern is ontological. An ontology is-the formal >> representations within a domain and the relationships within the domain. I >> would >> suggest that cheerskep is insisting on defining the individuals of the >> domain >> before the domain itself has been tentatively defined. He might claim he is >> doing this because many of the individuals have different meanings to >> different >> people and he wants to make sure which one is meant-he is in some other >> larger domain using the same individuals,hovering over a vast blurry >> field,unable to believe that his companions might only require common sense >> to be >> understood.. This requirement of defining meaning is functioning as an >> evasion >> of establishing the domain-evading the question in fact,in a fuzzy cloud of >> only wanting to establish clear terms for our own sake. >> Kate Sullivan >> > Ah, such skepticism in one so young! > > I'm not bent on "establishing clear terms for their own sake". I want to > clarify to the extent possible the notions behind a speaker's key words for > this > reason: If they are fatally ambiguous, then all discussion of the alleged > topic > will be fruitless. > > I maintain you're wrong to think everyone gets your notion when you write > "understanding a thing". And I even go on to the impertinent suggestion that > you > don't have clear notion to begin with -- but we can't be sure until you > describe what it is you have in mind. > > "Common sense" will not lead a reader conjure the notion you have in mind. I > used no more than common sense to come up immediately with four different > interpretations of "understanding" -- and I guarantee I could up with several > more > easily. > > The following description you provide of your notion behind the word > 'ontology' is basically defective because it assumes as "given" many of the > very > elements that someone like me would reject: > > "An ontology is-the formal representations within a domain and the > relationships within the domain. I would suggest that cheerskep is insisting > on > defining the individuals of the domain > before the domain itself has been tentatively defined." > > Feh! Feh, I tell you! > > > > ************** > Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for > FanHouse Fantasy Football today. > > (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020) > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean.
