Dear Bill
Many thanks for the response! I definitely appreciate that good
things can come from heated debates (and it's good to know that people
feel passionately about things!).
However, I was not sure that I followed some of the rest of your
response. If you will forgive me, I have responded "in message"
(although further apologies for the DIVs and chevrons everywhere
(further apologies).
> Philosophy is polemical by its nature.
Why should philosophy be polemical? Surely this depends on one's
definition of philosophy. Face value: the love of knowledge is not
polemical. Inverted meaning ('sophophily'): the wisdom of loving is
not polemical. Or is it?
I think that methods of philosophy are conceivably polemical. Is that
what you mean?
However, if one might accept the romantic argument that philosophy is
interested in "truth," then the establishment of [a?] truth is surely
not polemical except for those who are interested in maintaining and
spreading untruths. In the crucible of debate, things may indeed
*need* to get heated, but, if truth exists, all concerned would leave
enriched and enlightened, 'purged' of their false beliefs, for they
would have been revealed as false and replaced by something closer to
the 'truth.' In this sense, philosophising with others can only be an
enriching experience and thus not really polemical.
(Yes, Galileo was forced to recant his pronouncements that the world
was round; but the polemic is political; the philosophical insight was
just. Rejections of Darwin are similar. Emotions - which you later
seem to suggest hold the philosopher back - make philosophy polemical;
but if there IS such a thing as 'pure' philosophy, then is it
polemical - or is the polemic only that there is no such thing as pure
philosophy?)
> Plato tried to hide this, but most=20
> readers quickly come to realize that his symposiums were staged put-ons. =
> On the other hand, cinema presents itself as passive. I sit, I receive in =
> silence, feel, therefore I am.</DIV>
I've only read three or four books from start to finish by Plato, so I
cannot claim any authority on him. I can sense (and have read
convincing arguments) that his symposia were indeed 'faked.' But that
they were staged does not, for this reader, have any connection to
whether or not philosophy is polemical. Could you explain this to me?
As for cinema being a passive experience, this surely is a subject of
much debate, with cinema being at best a combination of passivity and
activity and dependent on one's definition of self.
"I sit, I receive in silence, feel, therefore I am": this sounds like
an apt description of reading to me, as well. Is that similarly
passive? Are you passive to my text now? Was I passive to yours?
Does this passivity depend on an absence of thought on the part of the
viewer? The total and utter suspension of all mental faculties,
critical or otherwise? Where does the self reside? A Cartesian
homunculus interpreting films in our brain? The implication of the
statement is that feelings (by which I think you might include
emotions) are somehow not part of this self (we are passive to them),
but that, paradoxically, they also constitute the self ("therefore I
am"). This model of passivity as self is intriguing and I would like
to learn more of it. In addition, if we are passive to cinema (our
'self' does not 'work' when we watch films, since we are passive to
the emotions and thoughts we feel and have), and yet this passivity
ends up constituting self ("therefore I am"), this might even suggest
that self is non-self...
On another level: writers like Antonio Damasio, Daniel C Dennett,
Steven Pinker, Lakoff and Johnson, and others, seem to be suggesting
that there is no Cartesian homunculus; that the 'self' does not reside
in a special part of the brain, but that we must take the brain on
holistically to understand how it functions (i.e. it is all 'us', not
just a part of it). In other words, where passivity ends and activity
begins seems very unclear. Brain activity during film viewing would
seem to me, by its very nature (hence the word activity) to be an
active process, even if it is not 'conscious' activity originating
from the 'self.' I'd like to see what brain passivity looks like (but
would I be able to feel it, too, for, if I were brain passive, I could
not simultaneously be brain active in order to perceive it - or could
I?).
> <DIV>So because the two appear prime facie incompatible, there's a =
> lot of dispute as to how one must behave when cloning the two together.</DIV>
> In this respect, Deleuze is frequently cited as the supreme cloner =
> because of his investigations into the auto-defined supremacy of the feeling =
> subject. Well, actually lots more of the French stuff is like this in the sense =
> that their philosophies seek to hold the individual accountable for =
> sentiment. And although--according to Deleuze--this query began with a Scott
> named Hume, most of the Anglo-Saxon world still lives in the Lockean illusion of > an autonomous
> subject who's entitled to his/her emotional life as much as water, air, =
> food and shelter.
Quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
I don't see film and philosophy as being incompatible. Maybe some of
my reasons for thinking them compossible are suggested above.
I am uneasy about the use of the word cloning, though, which has moral
implications and which suggests a union beyond marriage or even
fusion; perhaps even a repetition. I have not (to the best of my
memory) come across Deleuze as a "cloner" in the literature. I am not
sure how film and philosophy clone each other.
Regardless, are you suggesting that the individual is *not*
accountable for sentiment? That somehow our emotions are created from
outside and come to reside within us?
I am certainly happy to accept that films (and other humans) encourage
us to feel in a certain way; but we must be complicit in this and thus
bear at the very least some of the responsibility in what sentiments
we feel. That said, and to borrow from Dennett, you can make yourself
small enough to exclude everything if you want - and say that the self
starts and ends with pure thought (if such a thing exists; Damasio
would suggest not, but Alain Badiou seems to present an interesting -
and not even Kantian theory - that it might).
Let us suppose that we are not entitled to our emotions (since they
form part of this Lockean illusion). Could we accept that emotions
are, therefore, Dawkinsian memes - quasi-viral phenomena that latch on
to us and make their presence felt at certain times, but which are not
'us'? This is interesting; if the mind is embodied, the implication
of this would be that our thoughts are not 'us' either (where does the
self start and end?), meaning that everything is an illusion. Could
we be heading back in the direction of that stage-manager Plato again
- and wandering into his cave?
In addition, I'm not sure I follow the last sentence; the 'although'
confuses me. Deleuze, after that Scot named Hume, proposes that we
are responsible for our emotions. But in spite of this we, after
Locke, still think we are entitled to our emotions. How do these
statements contradict each other (regardless of whether they are fair
interpretations of the thinkers whose work you are discussing)?
Furthermore, there is surely debate over who is entitled to water,
food and shelter, otherwise people would not want for such things. I
am not sure we are 'entitled' to air, either; we are in a fortunate
position to have it, though.
> <DIV>Such is the nature if this dispute. Some want simply to express =
> their
> feelings without threat of challenge, while others see such sentiments =
> as raw
> bait for discussion. I'm in the later camp.</DIV>
Good for you! Perhaps this loosely violent ("raw bait") and military
("camp") terminology furthers my suggestion that there is something
inherently competitive about online debate.
> <DIV>Moreover, my experience indicates that film people are somewhat =
> like=20
> musicians in that they want to live in the world of sensation. This is =
> fine, and=20
> to cite Deleuze again, the creation and rearrangement of sensation=20
> --art-- is one-third of what life is all about. So it goes =
> without=20
> saying that artists have a built-in tendency to resent analysis. </DIV>
By film people, I suspect you mean film creatives/filmmakers? Do we
not live in a world of sensation? Can I not feel these keyboard keys
against my fingers? This cold air? These emotions?
I am not so sure that artists resent analysis per se. I don't see how
an artist could. But analysis is not art. To a certain extent,
because art belongs in one realm and analysis in another, analysis
will always fail somehow to represent art, meaning that the two are
perhaps incompatible; philosophy and film might be a different kettle
of fish, though.
But surely anyone suffers from (the illusion of) vanity enough to feel
hurt when their sincere (if such a thing exists) expressions are met
with responses like "that is the stupidest posting I have ever read on
Film-Philosophy." This is not what I would call analysis. (Don't get
me wrong; I'm not accusing you, Bill, specifically of conducting this
kind of thing; I have read such postings on Film-Philosophy, though.
I have, in fact, read many of your postings and would say that on the
whole even your "raw bait" postings are conducted admirably and with
great etiquette - a shark with manners!).
> <DIV>One might infer, then, that the the effective cause of dispute on =
> this site=20
> directly comes from those who see "Film Philosophy" as a means of doing=20
> ...philosophy on film! But, again, "Philosophy" means just what it's =
> always=20
> meant: the application of concepts towards a subject.</DIV>
> <DIV>From this angle, far from being off-limits, personal =
> identifications and=20
> sentiment constitute basic raw material from which philosophy might =
> derive=20
> statements of meaning. </DIV>
So now we are allowing for illusion (sentiment) to form the basis of
knowledge/meaning? Does this fit with the implication of what you
posted earlier?
> <DIV>To over-generalize a bit, European film makers have not only accept =
> this percept but have in many cases become active participants; =
> while=20
> Hollywood markets itself to the contrary. And although American =
> indies fall=20
> somewhat to one side or the other, on the whole there still rests two =
> discreet=20
> paradigms. European cinema is one of interrogation, hence =
> philosophical;=20
> while Americn is all about finalities that make philosophy redundant. =
> After all,=20
> meanings are what the package is all about, right?</DIV>
But is this latter description the same as philosophy on film, which
you describe as being the remit of Film-Philosophy? If one conducts
philosophy on film, then surely this suggests the pursuit of some sort
of essence of film - in order to extrapolate truths about film as a
whole, rather than on certain types of film/films from different
places of origin? Or do you mean, philosophy on certain *types* of
film?
But what if, for example, I glean from Weekend at Bernie's that,
contra Laura Mulvey, animated objects are not necessarily alive - and
that this changes my perception of reality, space, movement and time?
In other words, whilst I accept that there is by definition some
necessary generalisation (Europeans make films that make us think;
Americans make films that make us try to forget), this also depends on
the spectator and her willingness to let the film do that. Having
passively entered the cinema, bought a ticket and taken a seat, whilst
being force-fed popcorn (which are masticated and swallowed owing to
eating robots - the mouth is, as Deleuze and Guattari would say, an
eating machine, after all), the same spectator unthinkingly looks at
colours changing on a screen (unable to recognise which colours they
are or what they represent, since this would by definition appeal to
our memory of similar objects in the past, suggesting that we actively
recognise tables as tables and Heath Ledger as Heath Ledger) for an
unknown duration of time (being passive, this spectator would not be
able to sense the passage of time) before waking up in the cinema
foyer once again (where Nanni Moretti moans to them about the fact
that no one has turned up to watch Close Up).
> <DIV>Therefore, I must conclude that your comment that the =
> debate has=20
> been a pity is simply wrong.
This would be an apt conclusion, Bill, except for the fact that I
never made that comment.
I in fact wrote: "We can lament that this debate has been a pity; that
Film-Philosophy is *really* a forum that welcomes discussion from any
and all of those who take an interest in Film and Philosophy. But,
until we forget this debate (which we will, and probably quite soon),
Film-Philosophy is like any other online/email forum - potentially
quite scary to ask for information and/or to express opinions in case
someone jumps down our throats."
By which I did not mean to make any suggestion as to my own [emotional
- and therefore illusory - and not really *mine* at all therefore]
position on the debate. I wanted it to be clear that people *are*
entitled to feel that the heated nature of the debate is/was a pity
(even if those emotional responses are illusory). But really I wanted
to think about how and why the heated nature of the debate came up -
and whether it was related to the form of the debate (an online forum;
not a staged symposium) rather than to the debate itself and/or/in
spite of the elevated qualifications or otherwise of the participants.
(Let me make clear again that I was referring really to the derogatory
remarks aimed at exposing the intellectual shortcomings of other
participants, rather than in refuting their arguments; I am in no way
suggesting that people are not allowed to disagree with each other
here. Quite the opposite!)
> Along with a bit of over-heatedness =
> many=20
> interesting points were made. Furthermore, people will learn to =
> tone down=20
> the personal stuff to the extent that they discover how easily=20
> their retorts are rebounded. Along with the requisite polemics =
> comes the=20
> inevitable risk of loss of control; but as words are only words, eternal =
> mellowness is far too high a price to pay. </DIV>
I can only, at the last, agree with you! I was indeed more interested
in what the over-heatedness told us about Film-Philosophy as a forum
of actual (and perhaps only would-be - in my case!) high end
intellectuals, rather than condemning or otherwise wishing to have
such discussions ended. I did express the notion that the fact of
debate was a good thing!
As for 'eternal mellowness': I am not sure such a thing exists; but,
if I do admit to some sentiment (an illusion!) of regret that
Film-Philosophy has recently featured some downright denigration
(deblancation?) of others' postings (third time for emphasis: I am not
necessarily including yours here), then I would say that there is a
high price for slagging people off, too - even if it is 'only' with
words (what else are people going to use on an e-forum?). [It is
these same words that help us to achieve philosophy; the fact that
philosophy is transmitted by 'only' words does not demean it...]
I would love to read a response pointing out the shortcomings of the
above. I will have to admit now that I am quite busy at the moment
and so may not respond (after your response sits starred in my inbox
in that category of 'must find some time to respond but never actually
will'). For which, therefore, please accept my apologies in advance.
To return to the theme of my first posting: I would be interested to
know if *other* people would like to read more of this e-conversation,
or whether it should continue as personal correspondance.
The reason being that the 'public' nature of these exchanges no doubt
does appeal to one's vanity (unlike a conference, where we might be
put on the spot from a tough question that uses a word we don't
understand ["But I wasn't sure that you engaged with the Lacanian
heterontology of the Spaceballs diegesis..."], but can mumble and
stutter a response, here we can plan and re-read responses - even if
often we do not; time also being a factor - "maybe I can get there
first in listing ten films featuring homunculi for X's research on a
Cartesian cinema...")...
Not that I wish to encourage censure of any sort, but feedback is
always useful and might be interesting to try to work out what range
of responses there are to the question "What is Film-Philosophy?" as
well as "How do e-forums work more generally?"
Anyway: good to chat, as it were.
With best wishes
w
*
*
Film-Philosophy 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]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|
