But I was suggesting that some arguments remain that insist on a mind-independent form (or incipient gestalt -- the rabbit-duck example comes to mind). This opposes your view that nothing immaterial can exist outside the mind. If so, what gives rise to the idea? Some say that something material gives rise to a patterning and gestalt in the mind, is necessary to it, and thus the (a) mental construct is dependent on physical stimulus -- thus can't occur without it. If this is not the case then there is no way to test your view except by sharing some guesses and beliefs or being bullied into agreement. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 11:42:45 AM Subject: Re: "In a skeptical world, etc." In a message dated 6/6/10 12:48:09 PM, [email protected] writes: > Somehow, buried in this, is the central core of the aesthetic and what > used to be called (the mental construct of) art. > William, I celebrate your stance that 'art' does not "refer to" any mind-independent entity/category/quality. But I resist your use of 'the' in that sentence. There is no "the" mental construct of "Art". You have your notion of it, Michael has his, I have mine -- all more or less different, and all indeterminate, indefinite, multiplex and transitory.
