Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!labrea!decwrl!pyramid!thirdi!sarge
From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: The nature of knowledge
Message-ID: <164@thirdi.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Sep-87 03:13:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: thirdi.164
Posted: Thu Sep 10 03:13:43 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Sep-87 07:00:45 EDT
References: <58@thirdi.UUCP> <2401@ihlpl.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Organization: Institute for Research in Metapsychology
Lines: 49
Keywords: truth knowledge belief absolutes certainty
Summary: I guess art can be mendacious.

In article <2353@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>In article <127@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>|Some messages, such as recitations of poetry, paintings, and the like, as well
>|as various aspects of body language, songs, and the like can't really be
>|mistaken or true.  Such messages are meant to convey a certain experience
>|(i.e. a mental picture or sensation or sense of experiencing something) to the
>|receiver (sometimes the exact experience is not specified by the originator).
>
>But suppose the sender is *not* having the sensation suggested by the
>message?  I think even in the case of a mental picture it is possible to
>"fake it", to deliberately convey a picture one does not have; although the
>greater the art, the less believable this is.

I think some forms of non-verbal expression *can* be intended as assertions.
A portrait, for instance, is (or used to be) intended as an assertion about how
someone looks, and (if badly done) can be "false".  "Social action" art also
makes assertions (as does art in commercials).  These forms of art or
non-verbal expressions can be mendacious.

However, there are other forms of messages -- what you might be referring to as
"great art", or, one might say, "Fine Arts" (as opposed to commercial art),
that do not make assertions.  These works of art, it seems to me, are attempts
to evoke a feeling or experience in the audience.  They could be regarded as
"successful" or "unsuccessful", in this respect, but not as "true" or "false".

Some kinds of art (not necessarily the best kind) seem to provide a sort of
"ink blot" against which the audience can project their own impressions.  This
kind of art is not really even communication, I think, but a form of
"stimulation".  Some modern art and music falls into that category.
Personally, I'm too lazy to try to create my own impressions.  I'd rather the
artist did it for me.

So, there are the following categories of messages:

1.  Those that make statements.
2.  Those that try to evoke specific experiences.
3.  Those that stimulate and act as "inkblots" for the imagination of the
    audience.

Of these three forms of messages, only the first has truth value or (therefore)
mendaciousness.
-- 
"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."

Sarge Gerbode
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge