Frances to Boris... Boris writes... Frances, let me question some of the statements you make on similarities and differences between art and science. "Art is given uncontrolled to sense for its own sake solely alone." Is it completely uncontrolled? "Art need only appeal to primitive emotional feelings in the complete absence of even any primal knowledge." My view is absolutely opposite. "While humans likely cannot survive and thrive without the act of art, which they will engage in despite themselves, they can exist quite well without the act of science, aside from their primal intelligence and innate curiosity to know the stuff around them." Humans cannot survive and exist well without the act of science either. ...I understand the point. For me normalcy has wide range. Exceptional talent, for me, is not abnormality, but creative neurosis, often reaching borderline, or what I would call good, progress creating exceptional psychopathy of personality.
Frances vents... (1) More broadly and to include artworks and art as a typical norm, all factual objects that exist and that may be sensed are given uncontrolled to sense in that the sentient being is not free to choose what in the world they will sense. The facts of the world are dumped on us whether we like it or not. (2) In the evolution of humanity, it is agreed that intelligence must come before art or science, because the dumb brute brain of a nonhuman or "prehuman" animal cannot be filled with the symbols of languages or the forms of art or the laws of science. My earlier statement was meant to indicate the emotional felt mind after art was intelligently known. (3) The act of art is a dispositional trait intrinsically given to normal humans, and they will act on it even in spite of themselves, because they cannot arbitrarily choose to ignore it, but the can decide to ignore the act of science if they wish but often to their detriment. (4) The normal norm for an object is what ought to exist. The normal as some members have written is not a synonym for the average or usual or mediocre or bland or safe or numb, nor is it intrinsically boring or conformist or commonplace or unimaginative or neurotic. The abnormal norm is simply what ought not to exist. If for an object to be abnormal it is preferred by sensitive interpreters to refer to it as disadvantaged or handicapped or whatever for reasons of convenience or expedience or social politeness, then so be it. The typical type furthermore is simply the probable law of a norm. For an artist to be say creative is for them to be normal and conform to the norm of what ought to be in the world of art.
