>(That said, I'm not even sure if there is actually a consensus on whether
>number is pure form or whether it not really some sort of self-sufficent
>concept...the concept of three is readily imaginable without it predicating
>anything...whereas the concept of, say, a sonnet is impossible to think of
>outside the context of a poem. Anyone feel free to correct me here...)
>
Yes, Sarah, but 'sonnet' is conceivable without reference to a concrete
sonnet, in the same way a sonata is conceivable without reference to or
predication of an actual sonata; composers in both poetry and music (like
myself...), not to mention mathematicians are always thinking form; I can
hear, no, divine/think, a sonata quite apart from the sounds that reach my
ear or the symbols that meet my eye (via-a-vis a score) and makes sense of
the fact that I *can* call it, recognise and thus hear a "sonata". This is
partly the extraordinary nature of language (not just 'natural language',
also the languages of art, music, mathematics and of course, film. The
actual sonnets, sonatas and object multiplicities (for example) are then
instantiations of the forms. The form is not an instance. No?
Sonnets can still be learned out of the context of a poem. There are people
that learned to associate a style of music or writing exclusively with
specific artists or a time period instead of the specific rules to the form.
I can remeber playing a sonatas on the piano as a child. I didn't know
anything about the form, but the word was in my vocabulary. The concepts
behind the sonatas were not known to me, but I could still play it.
I think the point is language can go all sorts of directions depending on
how the
word is learned and what concepts are understood by the person using the
word.
christiaan
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|