Korzybski's time-binding introduced the notion of the human capability to build on the knowledge of prior generations, with language as the principle tool. I haven't seen a more widely used reference than his General Semantics when tossing around the idea of how words communicate. He missed the spiritual aspects of the Logos, but then, he was a scientist.
The intention of the artist when using language can be vastly different that the interpretation of the viewer, as connotation, denotation and level of cultural uses of the word come into play. I've found that it can be no easy task for a facilitator to get a group on the same semantic level but much of that depends on the group itself. Breaking the limits of predisposed thinking may get to the crux of "what is art." On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:25:05 PM UTC-4, facilitator wrote: > > It is. But my statement is about an attribute not a "proof". There is a > deeper reasoning here. Look at it from a non religious perspective even > though we are predisposed to that thinking. > > On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:29:29 PM UTC-4, Molly wrote: >> >> confused. I thought atheism was about the existence of God. >> >> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
