Re: 'The process of determination is not about imposing arbitrary conventional standards or dogmatic regulatory rules by some overall judicial authority, but rather is about collaboratively agreeing by a consensus of tentative opinion.'
as the interrogator said to his victim. DA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frances Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Junking the Louvre? Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:30:15 -0400 > Frances to Derek and others... > > > > My main point about the need of a relevant governing group > to make reasonable tentative determinations about works of > art or works of nonart in tech and science was that the > sole individual alone is not reliable enough to control > determinations, and must therefore succumb to the communal > collective for assurance of their conformity to the norm. > Relevance need not necessarily require "learnedness" in > say ordinary common situations, but it does require > normality. The main thrust here is normative > reasonableness. If "learnedness" however is usable in a > broad manner, rather than only in specific academic > situations, then it might be aligned with some "collateral > experience" needed about knowing the object of > determination on the part of all members in the group. > > > > The process of determination is not about imposing > arbitrary conventional standards or dogmatic regulatory > rules by some overall judicial authority, but rather is > about collaboratively agreeing by a consensus of tentative > opinion. There may be dissent among members of the group, > but the agreed determination will evolve, which is why the > determination is contingent and conditional and > provisional. The philosophic support for the probability > of determinations is fallibility. The determination > further is not a cause or origin, but rather is a limit > and ground. To determine a forecasted outcome therefore is > to agree on setting the boundaries as might be related to > the situation at issue. > > > > A communal act to determine the status of an object in a > limited ground is not necessarily an act of critical > judgment or analytic review or empirical inquiry or > scientific research, although it very well can be and > ought to be in situations warranting it. At its simplest > it need only be a means for the individual person to avoid > uncontrolled abnormality and assure controlled conformity. > The most that an individual might however be for example > is a whole single institute or nation of persons and > peoples. > > > > The issue then turns to the object and criteria of a group > determination. In the case of art and under pragmatism the > form of a work must be agreed as empowered to reflect > worthy values and to evoke warranted responses. The values > and responses in turn will determine the kind of art the > work might be. This realist approach seems to be the best > available at the present.
