Quine's example has to do with indeterminacy of demonstrative reference.
If someone points at a rabbit and says "gagavai" can an outside
interpreter tell whether it means rabbit, rabbit-parts,
rabbit-time-slice, etc. My loose analogy is that pointing a camera at
something and presenting the image is just as, perhaps even more,
indeterminate. But often the intention of the photographer comes out in
context, which is why I claim that intentional meaning is generated
pragmatically.
The dream would be to have a precise meaning for every word and precise
syntactical rules, which is why philosophy of language generally is
hedged with provisos that ambiguity, etc. are ignored for the purpose of
the theory, the idea being to start with the simple cases and then hit
the complexity. Also why such theories tend to translate natural
language into formal languages. Pragmatics involves what's needed to
generate by context specific meaning beyond semantical meaning and
grammatical rules. An optimist might say that pragmatics is only needed
for disambiguation, figures of speech, and the like; others would hold
that pragmatics penetrates more deeply into meaning. In his language
game period Wittgenstein would have opted out of this whole approach.
My sense is that you generally lose much richness when you translate
visual images into words; heaven forbid that they be translated into
formal logic.
Speed-written so I here more than usual stand to be corrected.
j
On 10/25/10 12:23 PM, Dan Barnett wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> ----------MB_8CD42781F399CD0_1B78_1B8A_webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> John, Could you clarify where you were going with your reference to Quine? =
> I think the idea of ontological relativity is central to this question of i=
> magery in language and imagery in cinema, but I'm not really following you =
> here.
> This question takes on a whole new dimension in the world of digital, but i=
> t was confusing enough before.
>
>
> Also I'm having a bit of trouble mapping peoples use of terms. Pragmatics? =
> Context? Language games? All of these are circling the same notion, but sha=
> de differently perhaps? The problem with a forum like this is that, one can=
> 't ask for immediate clarification.
>
>
> Also in terms of mapping, there are terms like connotation/denotation when =
> applied to image use that can be illuminating or confusing depending on the=
> style of conversation we are involved in.
>
>
> So far most of the conversation has revolved around literal/narrative usage=
> s, whereas for me the more interesting (but probably more difficult to acce=
> ss) questions relate to the poetic uses of imagery. Thinking here of narrat=
> ive flow vs. montage.
>
>
> There was an exercise I used to undertake in filmmaking classes where A wou=
> ld make a film explicitly as a letter to B, Then B would reply using shots =
> from A's letter mixed with his own, etc. Certain shots tended to have more =
> currency than others, as the letters were shown to the rest of the class an=
> d would be taken up (with variation) by more people. Of course this exercis=
> e would be way more practical in digital video,and I think could provide a =
> model for how a more recognizably syntactic film language could develop.
>
>
> BTW, I think the truth function of diagrams is obviously way more suspect.
>
>
> db
>
>
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy
> 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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
> *
> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> **
>
> ----------MB_8CD42781F399CD0_1B78_1B8A_webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
>
> <font color=3D'black' size=3D'2' face=3D'Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif'>John=
> , Could you clarify where you were going with your reference to Quine? I th=
> ink the idea of ontological relativity is central to this question of image=
> ry in language and imagery in cinema, but I'm not really following you here=
> .
> <div>This question takes on a whole new dimension in the world of digital, =
> but it was confusing enough before.</div>
>
> <div><br>
> </div>
>
> <div>Also I'm having a bit of trouble mapping peoples use of terms. Pragmat=
> ics? Context? Language games? All of these are circling the same notion, bu=
> t shade differently perhaps? The problem with a forum like this is that, on=
> e can't ask for immediate clarification.</div>
>
> <div><br>
> </div>
>
> <div>Also in terms of mapping, there are terms like connotation/denotation =
> when applied to image use that can be illuminating or confusing depending o=
> n the style of conversation we are involved in.</div>
>
> <div><br>
> </div>
>
> <div>So far most of the conversation has revolved around literal/narrative =
> usages, whereas for me the more interesting (but probably more difficult to=
> access) questions relate to the poetic uses of imagery. Thinking here of n=
> arrative flow vs. montage.</div>
>
> <div><br>
> </div>
>
> <div>There was an exercise I used to undertake in filmmaking classes where =
> A would make a film explicitly as a letter to B, Then B would reply using s=
> hots from A's letter mixed with his own, etc. Certain shots tended to have =
> more currency than others, as the letters were shown to the rest of the cla=
> ss and would be taken up (with variation) by more people. Of course this ex=
> ercise would be way more practical in digital video,and I think could provi=
> de a model for how a more recognizably syntactic film language could develo=
> p.</div>
>
> <div><br>
> </div>
>
> <div>BTW, I think the truth function of diagrams is obviously way more susp=
> ect.</div>
>
> <div><br>
> </div>
>
> <div>db</div>
>
> <div><br>
> </div>
> </font>
> *
> *
> 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]
> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
> *
> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> **
> ----------MB_8CD42781F399CD0_1B78_1B8A_webmail-d046.sysops.aol.com--
>
*
*
Film-Philosophy
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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|
