Before one could say whether aesthetic experience is real one would need to know what it is. (Otherwise one be describing something else and calling it aesthetic experience). To do that, one would need to know what the word 'aesthetic' means. Alas, no one seems to. Or rather everyone seems to have a different idea of what it means. (A case of Cheerskep's 'fuzziness' run riot.)
DA ----- Original Message ----- From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: [spam?] Re: Taste Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:20:09 -0700 (PDT) > You need to tell us what the real is in the sense you > have in mind. I suppose that is the real as something > material or as something else, like an idea. If the > real is material then aesthetic experience must also > be material, and thus identifiable with respect to > brain processes. But no one has ever found the > "aesthetic" cells or neurons, at least not yet. My > notion is that the aesthetic experience not material > but is mysteriously produced by brain functions. No > one can say how, since no one can show how brain > process gives rise to mind and experience is a mind > event, not a merely a brain event. (Or maybe mind > does not exist and we are just biological robots, > products of brain process, ultimately > indistinguishable from machines with artificial > intelligence). But however aesthetic experience is > produced as a mind experience it arises from, let's > say, primary consciousness experience, entirely > subjective. Only some form of symbol or token or -- > as I'd prefer -- metaphor can give this experience a > reality, an ontological form , and we prove this when > we say or show or otherwise embody what are aesthetic > experiences are like. But even this is imperfect > since no metaphor can really be what it symbolizes and > yet cannot be shown to be more or less than what it > symbolizes either since what is symbolized is > permanently subjective. So my view so far is that we > can't say what aesthetic experience is. We can only > say what it is like and must admit that in doing that > we can't be sure we are being factual or truthful. In > that way it would belong with primal feelings such as > those giving rise to the metaphorical understanding of > fear, anger, and so forth. (Understanding here means > knowledge and knowledge must be of something and > something must be a fact and a fact must be really > real). > > WC > > > > > What I hope to get back to on the forum is this: Is > > the feeling we generally > > call an "aesthetic experience" as "real" and sui > > generis a secondary sensation > > as fear or anger?
