If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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"? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wacky prices on 'The Da Vinci Code' | Tom L-M | Books | 7 | September 18th 04 06:14 PM |
Book club edition of Da Vinci Code | Linda Walton | Books | 9 | June 2nd 04 07:28 AM |
do not forward OFF this group that Xlist | dahoov2 | Autographs | 4 | March 9th 04 03:45 AM |
NSM prestive es160 operator code? | Mark | Juke Boxes | 0 | September 11th 03 04:53 PM |
CPK Dolls & Misc Items--- FS | Sue from NY | General | 0 | August 28th 03 05:53 PM |