On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:29:47 +0000, michaelP <michael@SANDWICH-DE-
SIGN.CO.UK> wrote:
>mike:
>
>i quite agree with this way of putting it . . . my point was precisely
that
>three -- as a conception or idea -- does exist independently of any
content,
>but that you cannot actually "HAVE" what i'll call "three-ness" without
>having three of something or other . . . that's what i meant in saying
that
>"three" can only be "articulated" with reference to a specific content
>even while existing independently of that content
>
>my repeated use of quotation marks above suggests how slippery is
>the terminology we're forced to adopt in pursuing this, but i think
>i and michaelP agree that it's not quite accurate to say that form
>and content are radically inseparable and ultimately the same ting
>. . . they're not
>
>mike
>
>Mike, the form of 'three', threeness, if you like, is not itself a
threesome
>like the three fishes, or three sonatas; but threeness in-forms all
>threesomes to be the threesomes that they are; just as the thriller-form
>informs all thriller films, but is itself not a thriller; this is the
>problem set by the platonic Socrates, i.e., Plato's Socrates; and equally
>set by the platonic Parmenides, Plato's Parmenides (where Plato's Socrates
>is informed and reformed by Plato's Parmenides). Plato never writes in his
>own name, rather displays for us the struggle and conversation within the
>soul that philosophy (of film or otherwise) is. So, to ask, in this
manner,
>what threeness or thriller-ness is, is to engage in philosophy; but to
>confuse threeness with ab-straction from threesomes (three fishes, three
>thrillers) is not to engage essentially philosophically but rather in an
>empiricist/scientific-theoretical manner. How threeness and threesomes
>'relate' is a continuing (and endless) philosophical struggle; to assume
it
>solved, dissolved, is the abandonment of philosophy (however 'useful' for
>getting on with business as usual). So, what is a thriller?
>
>regards
>
>michaelP
>
>
>
>
>
>michaelP <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent by: Film-Philosophy Salon <[log in to unmask]>
>
>12/13/2004 10:10 AM
>Please respond to Film-Philosophy Salon
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> cc: (bcc: Michael Frank/Faculty/Bentley)
> Subject: Re: Film/ Emotional Cues
>
>
>Mike articulated this:
>
>we cannot articulate a form
>without filling it with content
>
>not sure that's the case, Frank: how about the number 3? A cardinal or
>ordinal number, for example, is just about pure form without content (in
the
>sense that we can conceive of 3 without specifying it as, say, 3 apples,
or
>the third person from the left; thus lies the very power of the
mathemata);
>perhaps the whole of (good, not just 'deep' opinionating about/through)
>philosophy (and mathematics and music and...) obtains its legitimacy and
>authority in precisely examining and thinking form without content, even
the
>form of forms, the way of ways, be-ing of beings...?
>
>regards
>
>michaelP
"Mike, the form of 'three', threeness, if you like, is not itself a
threesome like the three fishes, or three sonatas; but threeness in-forms
all threesomes to be the threesomes that they are;"
Michael P,
But isn't thinking of the 'form of three' the same as thinking of a system
of classification => threesome? Can the concept of three exist without the
potential of filling this 'form'? If this is so, the form is equal to the
potential of content, the possible range of 'threesome' being only limited
by the number of objects in existence and divisible. Mathematics is the
manipulation of content-potential (think of the endless construction of
word problems in mathematics and the constant association of mathematics
with the practical applications of mathematics-thus filling the form).
Pure number theory is the continual postponement of this potential--to the
point of abstraction. So isn't the form an empty, amorphous vessel for
content--thus defined by content, indivisible from it? Form emptied of
content is itself content...
JohnAW
*
*
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.
**
|