What you say sounds right and fits what I also said. One reality, infinite. wc
________________________________ From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:11:47 PM Subject: Re: Ayn Rand: Romantic Manifesto : Conclusion To exist is to be real, is it not. A design that never existed before and is made, by a human. Isn't that an extension of nature in our universe, slowly evolving forward like everything else in the universe. I'm still not clear on that point . mando On Sep 15, 2009, at 5:06 PM, William Conger wrote: > No, because I define reality to be The Reality, I mean the physical universe, > whether or not we know it and whether or not our representations of it are > correct. Art, insofar as it is physical, including the people who experience > it and name it, is part of that reality, which has an infinitude of > presentations or cases. To say that art constitutes a "new reality" is > simply a figure of speech, meant to suggest it is different from older art, > or that such and such art is a new representation of reality. > wc > > > > ________________________________ > From: armando baeza <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:39:21 PM > Subject: Re: Ayn Rand: Romantic Manifesto : Conclusion > > Do you mean that Art is not a new primary reality that exists? > mando > > On Sep 15, 2009, at 3:01 PM, William Conger wrote: > >> Since reality exists as the primary premise, even for Objectivists, any >> re-creation of it necessarily derives from it. There can be only one >> reality, with an infinitude of cases. Anything else us unreality. So to >> answer your questions: No, and no. >> >> wc >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:19:43 AM >> Subject: Re: Ayn Rand: Romantic Manifesto : Conclusion >> >> "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's >> metaphysical value judgments" (Ayn Rand) >> >>> That definition fits any art at all, except it uses the term metaphysical, >> rather odd for an Objectivist. (William Conger) >> >> ............................................................................. >> ................................................................. >> >> Does it really fit *any* art at all? Aren't there some artists who are more >> interested creating a new reality, rather than re-creating what is already >> there? Haven't some of them succeeded? >> 231/fc/BLSrjnxRO9r2edGl0d43nsUC9YN7J8 >> VM2LTpTT6Ezel1058GLQRc8bhAXYk/
