i'm afraid the discussion of filming a thought is getting a bit off track
. . . obviously one can think about an act, or event, or object -- and
equally obviously one can then film this act or object . . . but one is
then
not filming the thought, one is filming the object of the thought, what
the thought represents
i think the impossibility of filming thought _qua_ thought is demonstrated
pretty well by the impossibility of filming such easy to think things as
"however,"
"moreover," my favorite: "nevertheless,' or even good old "and"
perhaps more interesting is what i take to be the impossibility of filming
something so apparently visual as "beauty" -- one can certainly film a
beautiful thing, but the abstraction beauty can only be represented by
one of its instantiations, which is significantly different from the
abstraction
itself . . . which ultimately is why a word is worth a thousand pictures,
and
why the russian gang of the twenties knew that pictures themselves were
not enough but had to be massaged into a language
mike
|