On 13 June 2014 02:42, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > Simply because you can give something you call a "basic accounting" of a > painting by specifying the placement of pigments on a canvas doesn't > preclude also describing it as a Monet of water lillies. You've chosen a > level and called it "basic" and then complain that it leaves something out. > I'd say it's just incomplete.
You're right, it doesn't preclude it, but neither does it demand it. The painting wouldn't be any the less what it is *physically* were it to remain uninterpreted in perpetuity. The point is that the "completion" (i.e. the interpretation of the pigments on canvas as a particular work by Monet) is a supernumerary epistemological consequence that is not required (in the strict terms of this view) to singularise or otherwise determine the physical state of affairs. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
