Reply to Clark Goble Friday, May 24, 2002 11:28 AM
Hello Clark,
This reply is an acknowledgement. I will take away what you write and
consider in more depth what I think. As is very obvious I am constructing a
world view. I have an intellectual heritage, but I am creating. It is my
understanding that a world view is created not out of persuading someone
else but in the creative response each side gives to a serious challenge to
the integrity of the other side. The brain work I am starting is still at
the initial stages. I very much appreciate your responses. They are much
more important to me in your serious disagreement to me than anyone who
might swallow my thoughts into their world view.
I am clear in that I am using the concept of embodiment as the force of
creation in my world view. I am seeking to create a way of understanding
movies that is as I have already said a break with existing understanding.
I have a brief superficial response here to your thoughts.
CG:
The strongest proof for my position is pragmatic. We appear quite able to
know, via writing, the states people are in. During a discussion we find
that our initial judgments based upon body language (or "embodiment") aren't
as accurate as those that come via natural language communication. Further
we find that we are able to discern, quite well, the projected emotional
states of literary figures.
DS:
Writing is asynchronous (disembodied). Hence if I write something and you
read it next week what does my emotional state a week hence revealed in what
I wrote the previous week. Secondly what about deception? Thirdly most
writing does not reveal feeling. What is my state of feeling right now
based upon what I am writing? Fourthly I am feeling something but I don't
know what, I'm not laughing, I'm typing intently. What is my state of
feeling? I ask you the same thing. Write to me what you feel. We can then
examine in earnest your clearest possible communication of your emotions.
I will consider your main content closely and reply in a creative frame of
mind.
Thanks,
Doyle Saylor
|