While I appreciate your work efforts, Ross, and doubtless this has been one of
the most intriguing and engaging threads that I have ever read on any forum
ever, I personally cannot move beyond an early qualification of yours which
clarified my own position for me.
"Just for the record - I am interested in plumbing the depths of shallow truth -
the truth a child should be able to understand the meaning of."
I have two four year olds and am endlessly trying to help them navigate the
plethora of visual stimuli that supersaturate their gorgeous little minds. Trying
to teach them what is true and what is not and what is true but not
happening in our living room or outside our house is unbelievably challenging. It
is largely due to these experiences that I appreciate why and how much we
struggle to understand and determine truth and why I feel that any claim to a
watertight universal checklist for determining and asserting truth is potentially
a dangerous thing.
"maybe we can at least say under what conditions a shot (or sentence) is
true, and if a shot is true, what follows from that."
You may be operating with only the best of intentions but I don't imagine that
you are trying to determine this set of universal conditions solely for yourself.
No doubt the endpoint of your research will be of great use to many but it is
indeed the 'what follows from that' which is of great concern.
*
*
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 online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|