MIke,
<< Too big a question? Too vague a question?
yes, and yes . . . second one first:
Your answer reminds me of Jerry Fodor's observation of how two positives
equal a negative:"Yeah,yeah..."
My original questions, if anyone is following this were:
"What Job should we expect a theory of meaning to accomplish; and, should we
expect one that serves ordinary language be extensible to film?
I understand, in my own naive way that someone who earns their living slaving
over a hot lecturn should not be expected to do serious philosophy in a
message list, which I guess explains why no one except Ross even attempted an
answer. However, I myself can't think of a question more central to the discussion
of Phil-Film or cinesophy. But also naively, I thought, with an entire
planet of erudition, out there - rather than being, too big and too vague a
question, it would be a slam-dunk for somebody.
So I'll offer my untutored attempt, and see if anyboody wants to take some
shots at it:
A) Any theory of meaning should explain acts of reference, intentional or
not, successful or not. It should describe the epistemology and delimit the
ontology involved.
B) In order to be extensible to film, the theory would have to explain the
pecuiliarities (to simplify a bit) of the referential character of words,
pictures and music - not just how they sum, but how they synergize - and not just
still pictures, but the very different case of motion pictures. It must
therefore address the essential characteristics of the medium itself, both mechanical
and nuerological.
I think if we had such a theory, Mike, it would have solved your 8mph
conundrum. I also think, tho it would take me more spinning around to explain, that
your example of denotation/connotation is barking up the wrong dog. Instead
of looking at the terms involved in acts of reference, we should be looking at
the occasions of reference; instead of using spatial metaphors, we should be
using temporal metaphors. But at the moment, this is just a strong suspicion
on my part.
CInema is such a young and powerful medium, it seems a shame to me that so
many serious thinkers are willing to consider that the Hollywood model of
expression is the be all and end all - devoting so much energy to trying to unwind
the logic of plot and content points, while ignoring the real semantic and
syntactic potential of the medium, and relegating the work of visual artists and
composers (as distinct from story tellers) in the medium to the bin of "art
films" that are "too difficult to watch. "
Philosphy also is difficult to do. The new is difficult, if it's really new.
Respectfully,
Dan Barnett
Exec. Prod., bePictures Inc.
San Rafael, Ca
*
*
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.
**
|