I work from the assumption that every object has a very personal essence in our individual minds which may vary from person to person. Similar enough to call it by the same name. I try to stay within that universal similarity, but at a point where that similarity is disturbed aesthetically, yet understood with a new meaning. mando
From: William Conger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 6:15:27 PM Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument But what if the essence is meaningless? First there is essence. Then it is assigned meaning. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 7:53:50 PM Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument Perhaps that's why i try not to stretch the essence to the point where it become meaningless. mando From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 7:55:58 AM Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument what i meant to say,is that words change at a much faster pace than nature,in form and meaning. The must have an effect on art,if so. mando ________________________________ From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, July 21, 2010 10:08:42 PM Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument words don't have identity like natural things. they change with time. mando ________________________________ From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, July 21, 2010 3:49:14 PM Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument "Words remain more abstract because they are man made. not a part of nature." Mando, You making the same mistake separating 'nature' from 'man'. Everything man made is part of nature, because man is part of nature! Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:34:40 -0700 (PDT) We start recognizing every thing we experience from birth. Yet ,it always remains an individual Experience. Words remain more abstract because they are man made. not a part of nature. Nature is experienced universally , word are not. mando ________________________________ From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 11:22:28 AM Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument And we don't learn images - interesting On 7/19/10 2:01 PM, "ARMANDO BAEZA" <[email protected]> wrote: ________________________________ From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 10:55:14 AM Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument Not so. Boris, To view one of your painting, i don't have to understand Russian or or any foreign language by me, because it is a universal image, but words are not universal. They have to be learned. mando From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 8:18:21 AM Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument To call words and human activities unnatural is a philosophical mistake. Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:59:52 -0700 (PDT) What can be sensed naturally, does not include words. Words are man made. once learned, they remain more relatively abstract in meaning than natural objects. ab ________________________________ From: William Conger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 5:09:21 PM Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument Humming is metaphorical because it stands for a bodily state. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 7:03:21 PM Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument In a message dated 7/15/10 6:32:16 PM, [email protected] writes: > On 7/15/10 5:33 PM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: > > All symbolic communication is metaphorical. > wc > You could hum a few bars... Kate Sullivan --
