From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Dec 03 2004 - 04:47:04 GMT
David Harding <davidharding@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Erin wrote:
> Scott Roberts wrote:
> Unicorns are known not to exist empirically. Do you really want to
> do away
> with this distinction?
>
> DH comments:
> Actually Unicorns Are known to exist empirically. They certainly
> don't
> exist empirically objectively but i can describe to
> you(subjectively) a
> white horse with a horn out it's nose quite comfortably.
>
> ERIN: interesting question, I'm curious to where the line is
> drawn for what is accepted as empirical. Because I "experienced"
> a unicorn when I watched Blade Runner. If that is not accepted
> as an experience because it wasn't "real", then how is
> "experiencing" the Mona Lisa and other art accepted?
>
What you experienced was an inorganic artisits impresson of a Unicorn,
flashing on a television screen. Still no biological white horse with
a horn out it's nose. Through the same line of thinking, the Mona Lisa
one sees at an art gallery is an inorganic artists impression of Mona
Lisa and not the biological Mona Lisa who lived many years ago and is
now long gone.
Yes I am aware of this but I wasn't questioning what the unicorn "was", it was more about wanting to clearly know what "empirical" can be applied to... I did "experience" a unicorn regardless of what it "was" and I thought I was told that experience was what is necessary for it to be empirical. If art is being accepted as empirical because you can experience it, then I don't see why the unicorn can't be either.
Erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 03 2004 - 05:48:06 GMT