Kate writes: > I think I need you to explain clearly why it is that if the only way > you can see a painting is because it has a physical existence the > physical existence has nothing to do with the meaning. How do you > propose to establish the meaning if you don't look at the painting? It > is clear that the physical existence of a book is not the same as its > meaning, but the physical existence of a lot of paint on canvas would > seem a little different. > I'm woefully aware that the hardest thing about my position to explain is that it's an error to assume that a painting, poem, play, dance or ANYTHING "has a meaning".
I don't question that, when we contemplate such things, notions arise in our minds. And I realize how often we are all inclined to call those notions "the meaning for me". But notions are mental entities.
