(urth) 5HC

[Lee]

>Gerry Quinn: Few would claim to have the final word on issues of

>logic or truth. Forthunately, the identification of logical 

>inconsistencies requires no such power.


I am not understanding. If a person reads a work of fiction and comes

to what they feel is a "logical" interpretation and someone else feels

that interpretation contains "logical inconsistencies", I think there

are only two ways to proceed. Either there is agreement to disagree with

an acknowledgement of equality or one person (or both) claims the 

superiority of their logical prowess over the other.


>And the placement of scare quotes about the concept of logic is never a 
>happy sight,


I'm uncertain as to the nature of what "scare quotes" might be. In this

case I use quotes to indicate the wording someone else had previously used

as well as to indicate that I question the validity of "logic" and "truth"

in understanding artwork.


What logical equation can explain why watches have a liquid quality in a

Dali painting? What truth can be found in the appearance of a blue haired

woman in the balcony of a David Lynch film?


Surely there are human ways of perceiving the world and understanding art 

other than logic? Surely the word "intuition" is not completely bereft of

all meaning?