On Sep 29, 2008, at 1:17 AM, Frances Kelly wrote:
Frances to Cheerskep and others...
What are being interpreted nonetheless are objective signs, and
not subjective notions incited by those signs, because the
thinker is brought into a relation with the sign and its meaning,
and not with their own inner sense or knowledge of them, since it
is after all the sign that is held to bear meaning and not the
thinker or the mind. This approach denies virtually any place for
psychologism in the practice of logic.
Precisely why I feel that Pierce and art are miles apart. Art is void
of all Logic. Aesthetic experiences come from the illogical feeling
between the object and our minds.
The predictable and logical in art is all "Pierce". Perhaps why some
people prefer realism as truth and abstraction as false.
mando
