Yes, and that's my motto for art wherein everything seems to be something else. When the habitual meanings applied to images are suppressed or obscured or otherwise confounded by the abstract modes of representation, an abundance of new allusions come to mind. I call that the quest for meaninglessness...or the subversion of habits, opening the font of metaphor. This could be madness but artists usually have a string leading them back to the real world of one to one identities. WC
--- On Thu, 9/25/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Metaphors > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008, 7:33 PM > Ortega y Gasset: "The metaphor alone furnishes an > escape: between the real > things, it lets emerge imaaginary reefs, a crop of floating > islands." > "The metaphor disposes of an object by having it > masquerade as something > else." > Geoff C > > > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: RE: Metaphors and Categories > >Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:20:53 -0700 (PDT) > > > >Holy cow! I even like what Frances said, especially > her remarks re > >metaphor...and that means I like the rest of her > comment too because it > >leads up to the metaphor conclusion. Or, I've been > destabilized by > >Miller's brilliant comment re painting. > >WC > > > > > > > >--- On Thu, 9/25/08, Frances Kelly > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > From: Frances Kelly > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: RE: Metaphors and Categories > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008, 1:17 AM > > > Frances to Michael and Geoff... > > > (1) You may wish to read some realist writings by > > > angloamerican > > > pragmatists from Peirce to Morris and Sebeok on > the matter > > > of > > > categoric classes and semiotic signs. The classes > as > > > applied to > > > signs, like the informative lingual grammar of > verbal > > > words, deal > > > therein at least with many kinds of represented > vehicles > > > and > > > referred objects and interpreted effects. These > writings on > > > phenomenal categories also deal with semiotic > issues > > > turning on > > > objectivism and relativism and subjectivism, to > include the > > > role > > > that mental visions and notions and nominations > play in > > > that of > > > classes and signs. In regard to signs in > particular, the > > > specific > > > writings relevant to this discussion are those on > > > "types" of > > > words in minds roughly as immediate or > intermediate or > > > mediate, > > > and those on the "vehicles" of words as > formally > > > similar or > > > causally contagious or conventionally arbitrary, > and those > > > on the > > > referred "objects" of words as possible > or actual > > > or agreeable, > > > and on the logical "effects" of words > as abstract > > > or concrete or > > > discrete. Semiotics also posits a distinction > between the > > > general > > > "tones" and special member > "tokens" and > > > universal class "types" > > > of all signs. The writings that tend to define > > > "factuality" as a > > > material construct and "meaning" as a > contextual > > > construct and > > > "reality" as a mental construct is also > germane. > > > Lastly, the > > > pragmatist idea of logical "degeneracy" > in regard > > > to signs and > > > senses and minds and thoughts are uniquely > revealing. The > > > categories therefore are indeed analogous > surrogate signs > > > to > > > senses in minds, because the categories cannot be > accessed > > > generatively or directly. As with all things felt > or known > > > by > > > humans in the world, they are phenomena that can > only seem > > > to be > > > what they likely really are. All that normal > humans can do > > > is > > > make a good guess at the truth of signs, and hope > they are > > > empirically right, but then optimistically that > is what > > > humans > > > usually do so well. > > > (2) In regard to the category of "art" > as a > > > typical class, the > > > key issues to debate here in this forum is > whether that > > > group of > > > all objects called artworks is found to be of > objective > > > matter or > > > rather is made in the subjective mind. If some > classes are > > > agreed > > > found to be objective aside from mind, then it > may be found > > > that > > > "art" is one of them. The task then is > to warrant > > > and justify > > > such a claim. On the other hand, if all > categorical classes > > > of > > > generality are agreed found to be subjective > constructs > > > made only > > > inside the mind, then it must be held that > "art" > > > is one of them. > > > These issues appear as yet to remain unresolved. > > > (3) By the way, in pragmatist semiotics > > > "metaphors" along with > > > "metonyms" and "models" are > analogous > > > iconic signs of formal > > > similarity, whether the signs are nonlingual or > lingual and > > > then > > > nonverbal or verbal. Anything found or held or > deemed or > > > called a > > > "metaphor" is therefore simply a kind > of mimetic > > > sign that > > > resembles an object. Icons under pragmatism are > furthermore
