reply to Clark Goble Thursday, June 6, 2002 10:53 AM

Hello Clark,

I think that writing here has limitation that prevent this conversation
going deeper.  I think from my side I must prepare a web site that explores
interactivity, and movies.  Without reference to that there is little way to
move forward in a philosophical sense between us.  A text based debate or
dialectic cannot do what a language like use of moves can do.  There is a
qualitative difference and it is time to get on with that work.  It is also
my opinion such a movement toward a filmosophy that our discussion must be
framed within;

# the global infrastructure being built for web based communications,

# the legal framework that the U.S. is trying to impose upon the world
concerning intellectual property,

# the study of language that is related to understanding what language like
use of information does,

# related fields of philosophical work that I think can start to move into a
more visual medium

# and the build up of a new culture of the common masses of people which
moves aware from the text based thinking that is the position you represent
to this list.  The fundamental nature of this clash has begun in earnest.

CG:
This gets back to what I'd discussed earlier.  We must distinguish between
not being able to do something in a particular medium of communication and
simply having a hard time communicating something in that medium.

and out of sequence in the reply...

Other comments will have to await for a later time.  However I'd emphasize
that I see the issue as merely one of strengths and weaknesses of a
particular medium for a particular communication.  Not a difference in kind.

DS:
The qualitative difference between a motion picture and text is the
interconnectivity of the human nervous system that a filmosophy would build
upon.  Text cannot be constructed in any way other than linearly, and that
destroys the information which is contained in interconnectivity.
Construction of a language like use of movies arises from the
interconnectivity of the neo cortex consciousness structure.

Building toward that functionality of movies, analogous to the axon and
dendrite structures of neurons, is a decisive step away from the primitive
text based mythological structures of the old culture.  I intend to tear the
veil away from the mythological culture that surrounds visual culture.  To
reverse the ancient cultures prohibition against the graven image:

"Holy Bible" King James Version, Exodus Chapter 20,

And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the hosue of bondage.
3 Thous shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is
in the water under the earth:

CG:
Most importantly, however, this doesn't parallel the film situation because
we are assuming that all viewers of film and readers of text have the same
basic sensory apparatus.

DS:
I do not assume any such thing about having a basic sensory apparatus.  That
is able bodyism.  No one can assume that interconnectivity is about
visuality per se.   Interconnectivity and accessibility is a right of blind
people to the global culture.  The build up of a language like use of motion
pictures is not a contradiction to blindness.  Interconnectivity is not
wholly dependent upon seeing, but rather the interconnectivity of
information.  The fact you phrase yourself this way is a demonstration of
how you have unchallenged preconceptions about what communications ought to
be.  A language like use of movies leads straight to a neural network based
culture over and beyond the sensory input devices.

CG:
I agree there are some things film can do more *easily* than text.  However
we must discuss what those are.

DS:
We cannot wordify what I am talking about here.  I am pointing at
interactivity not reading sentences of long dead poets.

CG:
Further it doesn't follow that because one
medium can do some things easily that the other mediums can't do them at
all.

DS:
Yes it does mean that filmosophy can do things via interconnectivity that
words cannot do at all.   For example a non trivial issue is memory.  Where
I write this sentence and another sentence and you your sentences and the
many thousands of words later, and millions of exchanges over the same
things, to what way can we interconnect those things?  Via Google?  The
neo-cortex consists of some 10 billion plus neurons.  Each of the many
millions of memories can be recalled as fast as I can speak the words.  How
am I to find those memories embedded in those many sentences you wrote.  You
already complain you wrote something about frames a month ago that I ought
to have read to understand your comments here.

Your system of writing cannot possibly solve the issue of memory in the
sense of interconnectiivity.  That is a fact Jack!
thanks,
Doyle Saylor