I don't know enough Kant to reply in depth. I'm still trying to figure out the paradox of "purposeless purpose" as a nice idea but impossible to demonstrate since causality, especially which leads us from one association to another, is always constructive, whether metaphorical or logically sequential.
But Kant's stratifying beauty and judgment strike me as too odd to show by example. Free and adherent, formal, abstract vs. representational, are notions I have long rejected, both as an artist and as a struggling thinker. My essential slogan is that "anything can be perceived as something else" That means that all formal abstract shapes, designs, etc., do evoke some associative, continuous metaphorical "naming". Thus an artificial distinction between adherent and free beauties strikes me as irrelevant. I believe we are forced by nature to identify everything as if everything had a name, a representation. Conversely, everything has a formal construct (which we invent). If we see something that seems only formal, we immediately want to say "it looks like...." Or if we see a human figure, we qualify it formally. Free beauty is the same as adherent beauty; one instantly evokes or serves and becomes indistinguishable from the other. I'm sure it's not as simple in Kant as it is to me. I will appreciate your explanation. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, February 28, 2010 9:31:02 PM Subject: Re: "What is happening during an 'a.e.'?" I think I am distinguishing between KAnt's free and adherent beauties and you are not. You are assuming that an aesthetic experience is the same for both sorts. Can you explain why you think this? KAte Sullivan
