your imagination is a figment of its self. trying to bottle it up and
tribally communicate it does the concept an injustice. i think the approval
you seek is self organizing. the attempt to explain it to persuade harms the
intent more than making your claim more concrete. it's a learned behavior. i
understand you and want to, what else is there? but someone who does not
understand or care to understand will never understand. it's why we are all
dying. what is your main point you want me to take away from this? art,
intent, perception.... figmentational dialysis? what is more important:
seeing it my way or your way or understanding each other and finding a
common ground that does not offend or cross lines of common sense? common
sense is more fuzzy than any logic i've ever encountered, sure, it's all
fine and dandy when you read it to yourself; but, once you start share
mode...the desirable result is relative to the climate.
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Chris Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 01:55 -0800, Angel Robert Marquez wrote
> > a signal is a signal
>
> The problem here is it assumes innate multiple redundancies which close
> down the freedom of the imaginative text and imaginative image and limit
> the double only to a foreclosed already stated future which governs also
> the image as a narrative of fore-shadowing and back-shadowing, which is
> also Gary Saul Morson's side shadowing argument against, in his reading
> of Bakhtin.
>
|