Following David's discussion of universals, David and Kaye agreed that
'The label, as an artifact of the unbridgeable gap between the individual
object and our concept of it, falsifies reality according to the rules
associated with the particular structure of the given system of meaning
generation, i.e. language. Thus thought and language can only be viewed as
incommensurable.'
But shouldn't the conclusion be that concepts (whether represented in film,
language or thought) are incommensurable with (and merely more or less
adequate to and according to whatever purposes) the things or events they
refer to.
As well as the question of linguistic universals, there is also the question
of filmic universals. The whole fascinating philosophical tradition of
universals versus particulars applies to film. Film images are the most
fascinating universals because they seem to directly capture particularity,
without the mediation of universals. But this is one of film's most dazzling
illusions. I think that it is why film is so good at fiction.
Ross
|