[colorint]

He probably means "unity of experience" in the sense that, one's experience is a unity. Look at the whole sentence:

>Its nature and import can be expressed only by art, because there is a unity of experience that can be expressed only as an experience.

This sounds like more of a phenomenological point, that there's a richness and a completeness to experience that isn't captured in data or theory, and that only something with comparable richness can begin to approach it.

[yesenadam]

Ah sorry, it was a bit random of me pasting that quote. His prose is fairly repellent. To explain a little, he uses "an experience" in a particular way in that book, not in the usual sense.

The book was a revelation to me, having read a lot of books about analytic philosophy of music and art, each analysing their own little corner of art/music, me feeling like I understood less after I finished each one. Then suddenly came this book, relating everything to life - he talks about poking a fire, firefighters, a job interview etc and how all the stuff going on in these are the building blocks of art. A section of the book is "The Live Creature" - it's remarkable how many aesthetics books neglect the human/life/planet context of art. "An experience" means something like an aesthetic whole, like the experience of reading a story, watching a movie, hearing a piece of music etc. The chapter's called I believe "Having an Experience". Anyway..after that I stopped feeling the need to read books of philosophy of art/music, as all my questions had been answered. (I'm a musician + artist)

[perl4ever]

No, I don't see it as a unity - rather as I leave an interview, there is a superposition of possibilities.

Edit: And if I don't get called when I expected to, my experience resolves into something different, perhaps, opposed to how I felt coming out of the interview.