[295] In all these cases, it's NOT only a matter of emotion but it's also a matter of receiving adimension [sic.] of reality. This reception could be covered with the word "cognitive." But I am very liberal in this respect, as we have to be liberal with respect to language today, because it is so distorted that we have almost to save every word before we can use it, from these distortions. In any case, if you tell me I am used to using the word cognitive for scientific and quasi-scientific scholarly approaches, then we cannot use it for art--- but if you say "cognitive" means discovery of reality in whatever dimension it may be, then the word can be used. So don't stick, in this respect, to the word cognitive; if you cannot liberate it from its scientific

connotation, then it cannot be used. If you can, then I think we do good to use it for ALL ways in which realities, or their dimensions, are used. That is the first point I want to make so that no criticism comes from a mere semantic problem, namely the word cognitive. This element of grasping reality in artistic forms is expressed in a special type of art which we usually call naturalistic^a. Naturalistic means trying to give, in the artistic expression---be it by words, colors and lines, dance, music---something which is nearer to the ordinary encounter with reality in our daily life, or what some philosophers have called natural worldview. Naturalism has a very interesting tension in itself. Take the naturalistic novels of the 19th century, people like Zola^b in France, or similar people following this school in presentday America. What do you find there? You find a description of realities, in nature and society and soul---soul especially in the 20th century psychological novel, for instance---which gives empirical reality. But it is not a