The Da Vinci Code

"John A. Stovall" wrote in message
...
At issue is does language reference anything but language. Isn't
language a closed semeiotics system? Remember your discourse only
referents other symbols in the language system.



This is interesting (though of course wildly off topic). If you and I stand
before a red car and I say "the red car in front of us belongs to me",
doesn't that language reference the car, rather than another reference to
the car? (I am assuming that all of those words mean the same thing to both
of us, but that seems an OK assumption since if you took a poll, I think
100% of English speakers would agree on those simple words.) I am largely
ignorant of this subject, hence I am curious for clarification, not arguing
with you.

- Todd T.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...


If that were the case then interaction with the external world
would be impossible. Science would be impossible. Forgetting language
systems for a moment, and just sticking with words - dredging it up from
somewhere - many words are defined ostensively solely by reference to
features of the external world. Colours being the most obvious example.
Holding a conversation while standing in front of large bright red
Barnett Newman canvas, my mention of red doesn't need to refer to
anything other than what's standing there, two feet in front of me.

Now does it.




I just discovered your use of a red object in this example, _after_ posting
a question using a red object as an example. I realize that that is an odd
coincidence, but I want to preempt the idea that I copied and reposted your
very thought. I should read to the end of a thread before I post.

- Todd T.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Todd T" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...


If that were the case then interaction with the external world
would be impossible. Science would be impossible. Forgetting language
systems for a moment, and just sticking with words - dredging it up
from
somewhere - many words are defined ostensively solely by reference to
features of the external world. Colours being the most obvious
example.
Holding a conversation while standing in front of large bright red
Barnett Newman canvas, my mention of red doesn't need to refer to
anything other than what's standing there, two feet in front of me.

Now does it.




I just discovered your use of a red object in this example, _after_
posting a question using a red object as an example. I realize that
that is an odd coincidence, but I want to preempt the idea that I
copied and reposted your very thought. I should read to the end
of a thread before I post.

- Todd T.



...

No problem.

I end up smelling of roses in any case.

Anyway my example was classier, the Barnett Newman painting
You could have mentioned Ferrari....but didn't.


michael adams
vroom vroom

...


Quite so. I refer to these texts and learn to my sorrow that I am not the
aesthete I thought.
- Todd T.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Todd T" wrote in message
...



Leaving aside the accuracy of our historical understanding of
Leonardo, I feel that the main point is that in fiction we can
play with that understanding in absolutely any way and it can still
be legitimate. It can be well or poorly done, as far as reader
acceptance or understanding goes, but from art's point of view,
there's no hands-off-the-real-figure's-image rule. If for some
reason I want to write a story that features a Leonardo who cannot
paint a barn, let alone a canvas, and sits in the corner eating a
pickle sandwich while his nephew creates masterpieces that later
will be attributed to Unca Leo, I may do so. I might in fact create
great art with just such nonsense. To hold otherwise, it seems to
me, is akin to holding the view that only representational art is
acceptable.

No. The point about your Leonardo story is that it rests on the readers
already knowing that Leonardo is credited with having painted those
masterpieces. Your story (a)gains all its impetus from your shocking the
reader overturning by overturning that assumption. In effect your're
writing Counterfactual Art History.

However if instaed you'd written about a totally ficional Rennaisance
painter called Pauli Della Walnutus (b) who eat pickle sandwiches while
his nephew painted masterpieces which were subsequently attributed to
him the reader would say "so Pauli Della Walnutus didn't paint them -
so what? "

You seem to be saying that a) and b) are essentially the same. When
clearly they're not.


michael adams

...




I agree that they're not equivalent. What I meant to claim by the Leonardo
example is that it is not incumbent on the writer to get his facts right
about the historical personage, that indeed there may be a real reason not
to do so. However, I see that in the case of THE DA VINCI CODE the general
feeling is that the divergences from commonly accepted history are
attributable to blunders or laziness and not artistic technique. In that
case, my view is that this is a badly done case, but that still there is no
automatic invalidity to non-historical representations of historical figures
or places.

- Todd T.

"Todd T" wrote

I agree that they're not equivalent. What I meant to claim by the
Leonardo
example is that it is not incumbent on the writer to get his facts right
about the historical personage, that indeed there may be a real reason not
to do so. However, I see that in the case of THE DA VINCI CODE the
general
feeling is that the divergences from commonly accepted history are
attributable to blunders or laziness and not artistic technique. In that
case, my view is that this is a badly done case, but that still there is
no
automatic invalidity to non-historical representations of historical
figures
or places.

Hey Poindexter, it's a ****ing FICTION STORY, meant solely to entertain (and
make a few bucks)!
It's been on the best seller list for god only knows how long.
Apart from that, it's a fun read.
Try reading the book instead of exchanging pseudo-intellectual repartee with
that dolt adumbs.

"Bob F." wrote in message
...
"Todd T" wrote

I agree that they're not equivalent. What I meant to claim by the
Leonardo
example is that it is not incumbent on the writer to get his facts right
about the historical personage, that indeed there may be a real reason
not
to do so. However, I see that in the case of THE DA VINCI CODE the
general
feeling is that the divergences from commonly accepted history are
attributable to blunders or laziness and not artistic technique. In
that
case, my view is that this is a badly done case, but that still there is
no
automatic invalidity to non-historical representations of historical
figures
or places.

Hey Poindexter, it's a ****ing FICTION STORY, meant solely to entertain
(and
make a few bucks)!
It's been on the best seller list for god only knows how long.
Apart from that, it's a fun read.
Try reading the book instead of exchanging pseudo-intellectual repartee
with
that dolt adumbs.



Even pseudo-intellectual beats anti-intellectual. I guess that utterly
missing the point falls right in line with your professed preference.

- Todd T.

Even pseudo-intellectual beats anti-intellectual. I guess that utterly
missing the point falls right in line with your professed preference.

That's the best rejoinder you could come up with?!?!?
Pathetic.

"Bob F." wrote in message
...
Even pseudo-intellectual beats anti-intellectual. I guess that utterly
missing the point falls right in line with your professed preference.

That's the best rejoinder you could come up with?!?!?
Pathetic.



??

I'm not trying to win a prize.

I will ask, though, what kind of bookish person says things like
"Poindexter", for cripe's sake.

- Todd T.

"Todd T" wrote

I'm not trying to win a prize.

But you did - the boob prize for being adumbs' pseudo-intellectual,
sycophantic toady!

I will ask, though, what kind of bookish person says things like
"Poindexter", for cripe's sake.

What kind of testicularly challenged half-wit says things like "for cripe's
sake"?

"Bob F." wrote in message
...
"Todd T" wrote

I'm not trying to win a prize.

But you did - the boob prize for being adumbs' pseudo-intellectual,
sycophantic toady!

Actually, I argued with him. If that makes me a sycophantic toady, so be
it. You appear to be trying to start a fight for no reason. Here's a
four-syllable word for that: hooliganism.


I will ask, though, what kind of bookish person says things like
"Poindexter", for cripe's sake.

What kind of testicularly challenged half-wit says things like "for
cripe's
sake"?



"Testicularly challenged"? Aren't you needed over at the professional
wrestling newsgroup? Assaults out of nowhere on people you have no business
with might be cheered there.

- Todd T.