Two Good Reasons

[thomas kyhn rovsing hjoernet]

On 21/02/03 22:35, "prozak at anus.com" <prozak at anus.com> wrote:

> 
>> > And when you¹re looking at the usage (whose?)
> 
> the artist's
> 
>> > of a particular instance of
>> > communication then what? How does it qualify as being ³metaphysical²? How
>> is
>> > it distinguished from other ³levels² of communication?
> 
> in that it addresses metaphysical issues
> 
An instance of communication addressing ³metaphysical issues² does not
necessarily take place at a ³metaphysical level.²
> 
>>> > > 2 - look at art's historical usage
>> > 
>> > How do you deduce a ³metaphysical level of communication² from the
>> > historical usage of art?
> 
> what does art communicate that other media do not?
> 
I wouldn¹t be able to answer that. As the category of ³art² isn¹t a stable
one neither is its communicative potentials. It seems what you mean is that
what ³art² can communicate and other media can¹t takes place at a
³metaphysical level.² If that is the case, how can you tell? What are the
distinguishing characteristics of communication taking place at a
³metaphysical level² as opposed to a ³non-metaphysical level.²

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20030221/0cf0cfb1/attachment.html>