when a film is realised as intelligible, it is our own "I" continuance that is finding support and ground to affirm itself in it, and then, just after, to affirm the end of the 'film' as exterior to this "I".
Where is the 'I' during this realisation? Rooted in the body, the film or maybe somewhere inbetween. I was suggesting that the 'black screen' within non-linear narrative is functional not only as a film time/space portal, a place for realisation of memory, but also as an opportunity for realisation of the self being outside of the body. Outside the film, yet connected and outside the body, yet connected.
but such is not knowledge, it is just the experiencer's dead end
Within this space between, i wouldnt say that its a dead end for experience instead it is an area that every possibility can be realised.
"what is 'this' that know yourself as you?"
So i revert back to this question that is proposed by the blank screen. where am i? what is happening?
Just as we are sat at computer screens, surrounded by a plethera of networks, where are we? How often do you lose sense of time when browsing or using the computer? When the computer stops working properly, is your work impeded or you?
Non-linear narrative and linear narrative has this space occupied all the time, but non-linear narrative highlights this space as a consequence of a functional tool such as the blank screen.
----- Original Message -----
From: eduardomauro
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: non-linear narrative
<<The viewer doesnt ask "where am i?"
because the viewer is in a space created by
the image and the film allows the viewer the
elation of knowing ve (he/she=ve_Diaspora_
Greg Egan) is.>>
paulgoman
when a film is realised as intelligible, it is our own "I" continuance that is finding support and ground to affirm itself in it, and then, just after, to affirm the end of the 'film' as exterior to this "I".
the problem with 'knowing', or 'really knowing' (a problem that is absent in rocks and birds) is that it is in fact only a support for a consciously-persisting-self.
- does 'knowing' mean something more than the continuance of the eye and the ending of the film? or more than the continuance of the self and the ending of the 'other' (as in 'I know that he is dead')? does it mean more than just "I"?
nothing more than the continuance of doubt and the cessation of fear.
but such is not knowledge, it is just the experiencer's dead end: where will "I" go if "I" has no fear of leaving and no fear of staying to be left?
it ceases to matter, the I, as it ceases to know. (as in "what is 'this' that know yourself as you?")
* * 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. **
*
*
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.
**
