Turner and Modernism
Bernard Victor
endless messages regarding the worth or not of Picasso and Matisse
painting skills, and their importance as the fathers of 'modern' art.
Surely if anybody can be termed the father of 'modern' art it is
Turner, who's paintings were one of the big influences on the growth
of 'impressionism' and all the other 'modern' painting schools that
have grown from it.
Another reason for the development of 'modern' painting was the
invention of the camera. Once photography had established itself ,
painters were no longer required by their patrons to put out exact
reproductions of their subjects but could experiment and paint what
they felt and not just what they saw. The days of the dinosaurs of art
like Bouguearu were numbered.
I'd like to read some of the regular contributor's views on some other
well regarded artists, such as Turner, Monet, Pissarro, Boudin,
Cezanne, Dufy,Bonnard and also the more recent and contemporary
artists such as the Scottish Colourists, Bernard Buffet, ,
Hockney,Parick Caulfield, Ken Howard, Lucien Freud, Girgio Morandi
etc.
I personally, prefer the more realist painters, but I feel I can
appreciate some of the abstract painters, particularly Mondrian and
Ben Nicholson.
christian tangoe
<bvi...@HotPOP.com> wrote:
>As a new subscriber to this newsgroups, I am amused by the seeming
>endless messages regarding the worth or not of Picasso and Matisse
>painting skills, and their importance as the fathers of 'modern' art.
>Surely if anybody can be termed the father of 'modern' art it is
>Turner, who's paintings were one of the big influences on the growth
>of 'impressionism' and all the other 'modern' painting schools that
>have grown from it.
>
Yeah, I´m not really amused, I´m really pissed with the lack of
intelligent level in this group. It seems that there are at least some
of the very frequent users who will sabotage just ANY kind of attempt
to have a serious discussion by sending it off-thread or denying
simple scientific rules.
A discussion like "objective observations" is getting really stupid
right from the start. Something can be objective - yet not objective
at once, which in science is called approiated objectivity. All
scientific measurements deals with such restrictions. If one does not
obey simple basic-scienctific rules when discussing this, it ends
in...bullshit.
Moreover, this group is sometimes hit by a "sarcastic just give
anything a turn down..."
>Another reason for the development of 'modern' painting was the
>invention of the camera. Once photography had established itself ,
>painters were no longer required by their patrons to put out exact
>reproductions of their subjects but could experiment and paint what
>they felt and not just what they saw. The days of the dinosaurs of art
>like Bouguearu were numbered.
You are hitting a very essential.
Of course. The invention of Photography "changed" painting in very few
years. The intention of "just documenting the world" now suddely were
quite changed. One could arhue, that only the coulors were left to
explore, and that painting thus turned away from realism and into play
with colours. (this being a rather populistic and first-draw
statement)
>
>I'd like to read some of the regular contributor's views on some other
>well regarded artists, such as Turner, Monet, Pissarro, Boudin,
>Cezanne, Dufy,Bonnard and also the more recent and contemporary
>artists such as the Scottish Colourists, Bernard Buffet, ,
>Hockney,Parick Caulfield, Ken Howard, Lucien Freud, Girgio Morandi
>etc.
>
Yes. but lets not forget Andy Warhol and Robert rauschenberg, who is
not in favor of the majority in this group.
Christian
Mani Deli
<bvi...@HotPOP.com> wrote:
>Another reason for the development of 'modern' painting was the
>invention of the camera.
Art school baloney!
> Once photography had established itself ,
>painters were no longer required by their patrons to put out exact
>reproductions of their subjects
Most portraits are not "exact ----." People are still demanding
painted portraits.
> but could experiment and paint what
>they felt and not just what they saw.
This was always the case.
>The days of the dinosaurs of art
>like Bouguearu were numbered.
I sure you are still counting.
>I'd like to read some of the regular contributor's views on some other
>well regarded artists, such as Turner, Monet, Pissarro, Boudin,
>Cezanne, Dufy,Bonnard and also the more recent and contemporary
>artists such as the Scottish Colourists, Bernard Buffet, ,
>Hockney,Parick Caulfield, Ken Howard, Lucien Freud, Girgio Morandi
>etc.
All have been mentioned here look at back postings.
>I personally, prefer the more realist painters, but I feel I can
>appreciate some of the abstract painters, particularly Mondrian and
>Ben Nicholson.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
christian tangoe
wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:36:41 +0100, Bernard Victor
><bvi...@HotPOP.com> wrote:
>
>>Another reason for the development of 'modern' painting was the
>>invention of the camera.
>
>Art school baloney!
Most likely so. Arts schools says a lot of bullshit and a lot of wise
stuff to. You really have to be a genious not to get spoiled going
there. I never did.
But it is still a fact, that a lot of artists started actually working
from the photo.
What is indeed true is, that a new medium was born to replicate the
"reality", and that it in many ways had a big impact.
>> Once photography had established itself ,
>>painters were no longer required by their patrons to put out exact
>>reproductions of their subjects
>
>Most portraits are not "exact ----." People are still demanding
>painted portraits.
>
Yes, but he point is, that focus shifted to other qualities than the
pure "look-a-like"-quality. (maybe for bad, but that is a fdifferent
story)
Christian
christian tangoe
>x-no-archive: yes
>> Yeah, I´m not really amused, I´m really pissed with the lack of
>> intelligent level in this group
>
>You speak well of yourself.
Yes, but there are many kinds of and levels of intelligence. A
variety of such - and a variety of viewsa are presented at Usenet. Now
usenet, in order to be usefull kindly ask participants to not get lost
in the threads or sabotage serious discussions.
I´m surprised thoug, that you answered on behalf of an observation I
made not of any individual but of the level of discussion !
>
>> Of course. The invention of Photography "changed" painting in very few
>> years. The intention of "just documenting the world" now suddenly were
>> quite changed. One could argue, that only the colours were left to
>> explore, and that painting thus turned away from realism and into play
>> with colours. (this being a rather populistic and first-draw
>> statement)
>
>
>Photography may well have influenced certain painters around the time
>of it's invention.
>"Just documenting the world"?
>Do you mean painters like Carravaggio?
>Or Joseph Wright of Derby?
No. You misinterpret. What I mean is, that since the pure intention of
"just documenting the world" which WAS equal to "painting figurative"
or "photografic" (we would say today) now could be done BY MEANS of
photo, why bother ? Why try to compete ? Why not focus on other
qualities ?
It is probably an "art-scool-balloony-theory" if you ask Deli, but if
you go back and look at art before and AFTER photo became widespread
you see a dramatic change. What we call abstract and whatever is
mostly produced after the invention of photografy.
I´m aware though, that there CAN be other explanations for this.
The sociaty was changing drastcially too in that period.
Now the whole point here is not "if one style is better". The point
is, to exchange viewpoints of art. If ist just a "taste-commite" we
are after, I suggest we split RAF into
art.fine.skills
art.fine.abstractart
art.fine.popart
and so on....
Is that really how narrowminded we are ????
Christian Tangoe
Lauri Levanto
Bernard Victor wrote:
>
> Surely if anybody can be termed the father of 'modern' art it is
> Turner, who's paintings were one of the big influences on the growth
> of 'impressionism' and all the other 'modern' painting schools that
> have grown from it.
>
For the current discussion, Turner is a hard spot because he could draw
but sometimes did not want to. This does not fit into the "Art school
baloney " propaganda.
In a wider perspective, I have wondered why art history books say so
little about Turner'ds influence.
Is it only because he was not French and had no influence on French art?
-lauri
Erik A. Mattila
It's more because Turner didn't have that much influence. I think the
show held at the Tate earlier this year - "Constable to Delacroix:
British Art and the French Romantics" - had generated quite a bit of
debate about this "influnence." Turner may have had some impact on
French painting, but Turner himself was influenced by Gericault in
significant ways, so the influence may have been a France to Britain
direction in the long run, and the influence on modern art might be
natively French, rather than crossing the channel with Turner. If fact,
Delacroix is often cited as the major influence (even though it becomes
an "chicken and egg" argument after a while.)
Théodore Géricault seems to be emeging, slowly, as the major influence
in both France and Britain. His influence on Delacroix is well know,
but I think this new show at the Tate also shows his influence on
Turner. While Géicault uses Moors and Arabs as his subject matter in
the "Raft of Medusa" Turner uses female convicts in his "Disaster at
Sea." The political subtext would seem superficial at first glance, but
in fact the "champion the underdog" theme of Romanticism is being put in
place. Both painter's are anticipating the Barbizons, of course.
Constable also comes out in an interesting way. I think you can say
with some certainty that Constable was the inventor of the commonplace
in landscape - (as opposed to depicting the striking vista). He also
used atmospheric perspective, which his French "Academic" critics, who
thought each tree should be painted with the same excruciating detail
regardless of picture space (and human vision) took as evidence of "no
skill - no art". LOL
Anyway, I think Turner was less of an influence than he appears by just
looking at his paintings and comparing that look with later "Modern
Art." That doesn't diminish his work, of course. I think you need to
look to Delacroix, who inheritied much of the same ideas from Gericault
as Turner did, and had a more direct influence on French painting.
Erik
>
à-la-votre
>Anyway, I think Turner was less of an influence than he appears by just
>looking at his paintings and comparing that look with later "Modern
>Art." That doesn't diminish his work, of course. I think you need to
>look to Delacroix, who inheritied much of the same ideas from Gericault
>as Turner did, and had a more direct influence on French painting.
>
>Erik
Not too long ago I saw a 'traveling exhibition' of
works that compared the American artist Thos. Moran
to Turner. I failed to see much similarity, but the
organizers of the exhibit felt the comparison merited
attention. What I don't recall is whether Moran
himself credited Turner as his primary influence.
à-la-votre
>What I don't recall is whether Moran
>himself credited Turner as his primary influence.
I was DEFINITELY having a 'senior moment' when
I wrote that. Oh my! I'll have to begin refreshing
my memory more than ten minutes before I write
a reply in the future. Of course Moran STUDIED
Turner when Moran was first starting out as an
artist. Even traveled to England as a youth to
see Turner's works first hand.
In the meantime, for anyone interested in a
compare and contrast of Turner vs Moran, here
is but one web site dealing with that:
http://ellensplace.net/moran.html
Seagull Manager
"christian tangoe" <ma...@tangoe.dk> wrote in message
news:91hbgv4onivm1tibj...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 19:24:48 +0100, "Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote:
> No. You misinterpret. What I mean is, that since the pure intention of
> "just documenting the world" which WAS equal to "painting figurative"
> or "photografic" (we would say today) now could be done BY MEANS of
> photo, why bother ? Why try to compete ? Why not focus on other
> qualities ?
"Just documenting the world" was not a major role of painting before the
invention of photography. Or maybe you can tell me where you last saw a
person with bird's wings.
> It is probably an "art-scool-balloony-theory" if you ask Deli, but if
> you go back and look at art before and AFTER photo became widespread
> you see a dramatic change.
Yes, it got more realistic.
Perhaps you can tell me how the fact that Realism as a movement in art
arrived in 1848, nine years after the invention of photography, fits in with
your theory?
> What we call abstract and whatever is
> mostly produced after the invention of photografy.
The first abstract painting was made almost a whole century after the
invention of photography.
Care to explain the gap?
Seagull Manager
Where do the Preraphaelites fit into your theory that painters stopped
focusing on "look-a-like" after photography came along, given that some of
them used photography as a means to make their paintings hyperrealistic?
Seagull Manager
"Bernard Victor" <bvi...@HotPOP.com> wrote in message
news:bga8gv88b3nqnc2nd...@4ax.com...
> Surely if anybody can be termed the father of 'modern' art it is
> Turner, who's paintings were one of the big influences on the growth
> of 'impressionism' and all the other 'modern' painting schools that
> have grown from it.
Constable was more important as an influence on the Impressionists than
Turner. If you're going to call Turner the "father" of modern art, why not
El Greco, who is sometimes called a precursor of Expressionism?
> Another reason for the development of 'modern' painting was the
> invention of the camera. Once photography had established itself ,
> painters were no longer required by their patrons to put out exact
> reproductions of their subjects but could experiment and paint what
> they felt and not just what they saw.
"Another commonly held misconception is that painting skills declined when
photography was invented... in fact, the reverse was the case: the invention
of photography acted as a stimulus to artists, not a deterrent, by
encouraging them to develop their techniques in new directions, even, in
some cases, to paint pictures that, in their rendition of vivid detail,
outclassed photography itself... The idea that photography could be a bad
influence on painting did not emerge until over a century after photography
had been invented; and then it was used as a peg on which to hang an
excuse."
Julian Spalding - The Eclipse of Art, p. 28.
This is something I've been saying for years, but mostly my words seem to
fall on deaf ears. Maybe the authority of someone who has directed major
museums, and is a mover and shaker in the artworld (among other
achievements, founder of the Glasgow Museum of Modern Art), besides being a
respected and outspoken art critic will be a bit more convincing.
Or, to put it another way:
Why, after the invention of the Daguerreotype in 1839 did painting become
MORE realistic, not less so?
Why did the Realism of Courbet emerge in 1948, nearly a decade after the
invention of the photograph?
Why did the Impressionists use photographs as inspiration for many of their
snapshot-like compositions?
Why did the Impressionists specialize in trying to capture photo-like
effects of light?
Why did highly unrealistic styles of painting not emerge in Europe until at
least the late 1880s?
Why were nearly all the famous photographers of mid-nineteenth century art
trained by a famous painter (Paul Delaroche) in his studio?
Why did many famous 19th century painters in Europe and America supplement
their sketchbook studies with photographs?
When did it become possible for photographs to compete with oil painting
with respect to size, colour, durability, inventability (1840, 1890, 1940,
1990, not yet)?
> The days of the dinosaurs of art
> like Bouguearu were numbered.
Bouguereau was a schoolboy when photography was invented, so how come he was
even able to *begin* on the career that made him a "dinosaur"?
Marc Sabatella
wrote:
> "Just documenting the world" was not a major role of painting before
the
> invention of photography. Or maybe you can tell me where you last saw
a
> person with bird's wings.
Not a major role for fantasy paintings, to be sure. But it played a
major role in the paintings by the Dutch masters and many, many others,
pretty much ever since the discovery of linear perspective.
> > It is probably an "art-scool-balloony-theory" if you ask Deli, but
if
> > you go back and look at art before and AFTER photo became widespread
> > you see a dramatic change.
>
> Yes, it got more realistic.
Some did. Some got less.
> Perhaps you can tell me how the fact that Realism as a movement in art
> arrived in 1848, nine years after the invention of photography, fits
in with
> your theory?
The term "Realism" as we use it today might only start applying in the
19th century, but clearly, the goal of a huge amount of art was realism
in more common sense for centuries before that.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Marc Sabatella
<seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>:
> > Not a major role for fantasy paintings, to be sure. But it played a
> > major role in the paintings by the Dutch masters and many, many
others,
> > pretty much ever since the discovery of linear perspective.
>
> What, precisely, do you mean by "fantasy paintings"? If you admit that
"just
> documenting the world" does not play a major role in paintings that
include
> fantastic elements such as angels, putti, people sitting on clouds,
dragons,
> satyrs, centaurs, dead saints looking very much alive while sporting
their
> fatal wounds, and so on
I think you've defined what I mean by "fantasy paintings" well enough.
> you exclude most major masterpieces of the
> Renaissance and Baroque. If you also include fantastic landscapes,
fantastic
> architecture, people in impossible poses, or subtly distorted figures,
> improbable light sources, and subtle impossibilities such as flower
> arrangements that defy gravity and contain flowers that could not be
in
> bloom at the same time, then you exclude even more, including chunks
of
> Dutch realism.
I have no idea what you mean by "fantastic landscapes" or "fantastic
architecture", but I can tell you I did not mean to exclude the subtle
departures from reality you listed afterwards.
Maybe we've looked at different art, but I've seen a *ton* of it
produced before the camera that was essentially realistic by what any
average person would mean by this.
> But there's more: you say the discovery of linear perspective is the
start
> of paintings that aim to "just document the world", I say not.
I don't think it is the start of paintings that *aim* to document the
world - clearly, people have been doing this a *long* time. But
perspective is when they started doing so in a convincing, "realistic"
manner. And yes, while some artists employed these techniques to
portray fantasy scenes, many artists used it to portray reality - or at
least contrivances of reality.
> Even Dutch realism was involved in
> inventing anecdote, possibly with a moral or satirical message, and
very
> often containing a large dose of allegory.
I don't see the relevance of this.
> Simply recording reality not only played a relatively minor role in
painting
> prior to the invention of photography, and had a correspondingly minor
> social status.
This depends on how you want to nit-pick about "simply recording
reality". I don't see the relevance of excluding still lifes,
interiors, portraits, or landscapes just because they may have also had
some sort of allegorical meaning. That is not what most people mean
when they speak of paintings being either realistic or not. Still
lifes, interiors, portraits, and landscapes painted in a realistic style
were common, accepted, and respected.
It is true enough that realistic paintings did not cease after the
invention of photography, and indeed, more realism became possible. But
it is equally that the possibility of having a photograph of a scene
gave extra incentive to *some* artists to portray things in a
non-realistic manner who otherwise might not have.
> > > Yes, it got more realistic.
> >
> > Some did. Some got less.
>
> Who painted less realistically in the mid-19th century, relative to
> equivalent artists during the decades before the Daguerreotype?
I didn't say it happened immediately. Then again, photography was not
immediately a technology for the masses, either. I am talking about
folks like the impressionists, Turner, Cezanne (yes, him again), and
those who came after.
> > The term "Realism" as we use it today might only start applying in
the
> > 19th century, but clearly, the goal of a huge amount of art was
realism
> > in more common sense for centuries before that.
>
> Vividness and beauty generally rank higher than realism in the
rankings of
> artistic aims, pretty much throughout the history of art
True enough, but I don't see the relevance of this. That is equally
true of photography.
keith o'connor
over colour - modern painters stress colour over form. The choice is
determined by cultural influences on the individual. Each individual tends
to define his or her cultural programming as the correct one.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Bernard Victor" <bvi...@HotPOP.com> wrote in message
news:bga8gv88b3nqnc2nd...@4ax.com...
Seagull Manager
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:ERjOa.28$os2...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> I have no idea what you mean by "fantastic landscapes" or "fantastic
> architecture", but I can tell you I did not mean to exclude the subtle
> departures from reality you listed afterwards.
I do plan to exclude them from the set of cases of "just documenting the
world".
> Maybe we've looked at different art, but I've seen a *ton* of it
> produced before the camera that was essentially realistic by what any
> average person would mean by this.
I'm quite happy to agree that there's "a ton" of realistic art that predates
the Daguerreotype, though we must have seen different art indeed, because
there's a ton more that depicts fantastic scenes. And my condition for
allowing a ton of predaguerreotypical realism is recognition that there's a
fairly pervasive tendency to enhance, edit, add to, and alter the reality
depicted. With that caveat, there's a lot of art from the Caravaggio onwards
that counts as realistic, and some from the Renaissance. All of it counts as
realistic when compared to Pollock, of course, but our standard for
comparison in the present discussion is the camera.
In the post you replied to, however, I was not discussing the meanings of
"realism" in art, but responding the remark by tangoe that "just documenting
the world" is a redundant activity. Since "just documenting the world" was
not the primary aim of most artists, even those we quite reasonably call
realists (as I think I have shown), the remark is a non-sequitur.
> I don't think it is the start of paintings that *aim* to document the
> world - clearly, people have been doing this a *long* time. But
> perspective is when they started doing so in a convincing, "realistic"
> manner.
To quibble, the discovery of linear perspective was only one of many
discoveries whose application made pictures more convincing to the eye.
Shadows are another, and they make possibly as much, if not more,
difference.
> And yes, while some artists employed these techniques to
> portray fantasy scenes, many artists used it to portray reality - or at
> least contrivances of reality.
I balk at your use of the word "some". You seem to be trying to downplay a
major part of the Western art tradition. There aren't a lot of cathedrals
decorated with street scenes and still-lifes, nor are the ceilings of many
palaces embellished with mundane landscapes, nor do Europe's older and
grander municipal buildings eschew allegories in favour of animal pictures
to fill their imposing halls.
> > Simply recording reality not only played a relatively minor role in
> painting
> > prior to the invention of photography, and had a correspondingly minor
> > social status.
>
> This depends on how you want to nit-pick about "simply recording
> reality".
I don't want to nit-pick about "simply recording reality". I have taken what
was written as it appeared.
> I don't see the relevance of excluding still lifes,
> interiors, portraits, or landscapes just because they may have also had
> some sort of allegorical meaning.
When they are not simple records of reality, they exclude themselves.
> That is not what most people mean
> when they speak of paintings being either realistic or not. Still
> lifes, interiors, portraits, and landscapes painted in a realistic style
> were common, accepted, and respected.
Until the 19th century, they had a distinctly lower status than grand genre
and petit genre, with portraiture's status being higher than that of
landscapes, animal paintings and still-lifes.
> It is true enough that realistic paintings did not cease after the
> invention of photography, and indeed, more realism became possible. But
> it is equally that the possibility of having a photograph of a scene
> gave extra incentive to *some* artists to portray things in a
> non-realistic manner who otherwise might not have.
>
> > > > Yes, it got more realistic.
> > >
> > > Some did. Some got less.
> >
> > Who painted less realistically in the mid-19th century, relative to
> > equivalent artists during the decades before the Daguerreotype?
>
> I didn't say it happened immediately.
> I am talking about
> folks like the impressionists, Turner, Cezanne (yes, him again), and
> those who came after.
No, it certainly didn't happen immediately. In fact, it didn't happen for
several decades. Twentyfour years at least, if you count the Impressionists,
though forty or fifty years (to the Nabis) is a more convincing timetable,
since what the Impressionists sought to do was capture photographic effects
of light. Turner's love of "vagueness" *predates* the invention of
photography, and Cezanne was just a guy who couldn't draw. But what about
the dominant styles and leading artists of the mid 19th century? (Remember,
the Impressionists were just a small group whose impact until the 1880s was
slight.) Those leading artists are in general, if there's a difference, more
realistic in their manner than the generation who worked before the
invention of photography. Compare, for instance, the classicism of
Alma-Tadema to that of David, and who, before photography, paints social
life with the realism of Tissot? I think I've already mentioned the
hyperreallism of the pre-Raphaelites.
> Then again, photography was not
> immediately a technology for the masses, either.
It was however immediately a technology for academic artists. Paul Delaroche
was one of the first people to see a Daguerreotype (he's the guy who we are
told said, "From this day, painting is dead!"), and became an enthusiastic
photographer, as well as training up practically a whole generation of
French photographers in his own studio. He was also one of the most eminent
painters of his day, and his interest in photography, far from killing off
his own painting activity, spurred it on.
>
> > > The term "Realism" as we use it today might only start applying in
> the
> > > 19th century, but clearly, the goal of a huge amount of art was
> realism
> > > in more common sense for centuries before that.
> >
> > Vividness and beauty generally rank higher than realism in the
> rankings of
> > artistic aims, pretty much throughout the history of art
>
> True enough, but I don't see the relevance of this. That is equally
> true of photography.
Obviously, it would be, since photography is inescapably already a record of
reality. How can photographers claim to be artists if all they do is what
the camera does automatically when they press the button? If they have such
artistic pretensions, they are therefore driven to imitate painting's
non-representational goals. We see this very obviously in the work of 19th
century "pictorialist" photographers, and we see the proof that photography
was no serious rival of painting in that very work.
It was only in the 20th century, after the defeat of imagination, when
storytellling and allegory had been effectively expunged from painting, that
it became possible credibly to claim that photography was painting's rival.
Marc Sabatella
<seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>:
> I do plan to exclude them from the set of cases of "just documenting
the
> world".
OK. We are talking about different things, then. You seem to be
considering only a small subset of that which most people would consider
to be reality-based paintings. Let's look at the whole set, then, since
you obviously know what I mean, and I have no clue what you mean.
> I'm quite happy to agree that there's "a ton" of realistic art that
predates
> the Daguerreotype, though we must have seen different art indeed,
because
> there's a ton more that depicts fantastic scenes.
There is undoubtedly a ton of both types. The question is whether or
not fantasy scenes so overwhelm reality scenes that one can say reality
does not play a major role in art. I think you can answer tyhis "yes"
only if you apply the filter you alluded to above on reality scenes, and
only count a small subset of those that others would consider reality
based.
> And my condition for
> allowing a ton of predaguerreotypical realism is recognition that
there's a
> fairly pervasive tendency to enhance, edit, add to, and alter the
reality
> depicted.
Certainly - although often, no more so than can be done through staging
and lighting.
> In the post you replied to, however, I was not discussing the meanings
of
> "realism" in art, but responding the remark by tangoe that "just
documenting
> the world" is a redundant activity. Since "just documenting the world"
was
> not the primary aim of most artists, even those we quite reasonably
call
> realists (as I think I have shown), the remark is a non-sequitur.
It isn't a non-sequitur at all. One can simply reword "just documenting
the world" in whatever way you would need it reworded to mean what
everyone else already assumed this to mean: art in which a fairly
realistic portrayal of the real world was a significant aspect of the
painting. It is true that painting in this fashion is not completely
replaced by photography, but still, this represented a significant
change. Whether or not it matters to you, I can tell you for sure it
matters to me, and a lot of other artists. If the camera did not exist,
I would almost certainly be more interested in realism than I am.
> > And yes, while some artists employed these techniques to
> > portray fantasy scenes, many artists used it to portray reality - or
at
> > least contrivances of reality.
>
> I balk at your use of the word "some". You seem to be trying to
downplay a
> major part of the Western art tradition.
Not as much as you are when you say that reality played a minor role.
"Some" doesn't mean a small minority; it means less than all. Wheter
the split is 50/50, 60/40, or 70/30, it sure isn't 95/5.
> There aren't a lot of cathedrals
> decorated with street scenes and still-lifes, nor are the ceilings of
many
> palaces embellished with mundane landscapes, nor do Europe's older and
> grander municipal buildings eschew allegories in favour of animal
pictures
> to fill their imposing halls.
Indeed. Yet, there are only so many of these places; much art was
created for other purposes.
> > I don't see the relevance of excluding still lifes,
> > interiors, portraits, or landscapes just because they may have also
had
> > some sort of allegorical meaning.
>
> When they are not simple records of reality, they exclude themselves.
Only if you take the words to mean something other than what obviously
were intended to mean.
> > I didn't say it happened immediately.
> > I am talking about
> > folks like the impressionists, Turner, Cezanne (yes, him again), and
> > those who came after.
>
> No, it certainly didn't happen immediately. In fact, it didn't happen
for
> several decades.
Sounds about right.
> But what about
> the dominant styles and leading artists of the mid 19th century?
(Remember,
> the Impressionists were just a small group whose impact until the
1880s was
> slight.) Those leading artists are in general, if there's a
difference, more
> realistic in their manner than the generation who worked before the
> invention of photography.
Again, no question - some artists painted more realistically with the
camera to aid them. Others eventually got tired of this emphasis, and
the Impressionists are a good example - while in some sense they sought
to capture a sense of light "photographically", it is clear enough they
didn't mean mean that in the literal sense you seem to be taking
everything else in.
> Obviously, it would be, since photography is inescapably already a
record of
> reality. How can photographers claim to be artists if all they do is
what
> the camera does automatically when they press the button? If they have
such
> artistic pretensions, they are therefore driven to imitate painting's
> non-representational goals.
Precisely why these goals are irrelevant to the discussion.
> It was only in the 20th century, after the defeat of imagination
That's quite the phrase there - again, I have no idea what you mean.
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> Not as much as you are when you say that reality played a minor role.
> "Some" doesn't mean a small minority; it means less than all. Wheter
> the split is 50/50, 60/40, or 70/30, it sure isn't 95/5.
>
Are you from California??
Some is less than 50%. A "couple" is 2. A "few" is .30!! A, is one. Half is
1/2. And most is more than half!!!
Erik A. Mattila
Nonsense. "Some" only means "an unspecified number." It could be 80%
or 20% of the total of "something." This is as true in California as it
is in New South Wales. Don't believe me? Look it up.
Erik
>
Seagull Manager
> OK. We are talking about different things, then.
Yes, we are. You count "just documenting the world" as anything that
contains realistic details, including much that is fantastic, whereas I
count it as just documenting the world, which seems to me to exclude the
pictures that use realistic details to make imagined things seem vivid and
compelling (as fiction writers do), while deliberately deviating from the
appearance of reality in some respects, in order to put forward ideas,
convey emotions, or conform to an ideal of beauty. So, to me, the Italian
Renaissance until Caravaggio is overwhelmingly NOT just documenting the
world, whereas to you it perhaps overwhelmingly IS.
You seem to be
> considering only a small subset of that which most people would consider
> to be reality-based paintings.
What's a "reality-based" painting? I am not familiar with the term. Are
Boris Vallejo's paintings "reality-based"?
> There is undoubtedly a ton of both types. The question is whether or
> not fantasy scenes so overwhelm reality scenes that one can say reality
> does not play a major role in art.
Reality plays a major role in art, but reality merely "playing a role" does
not amount to realism, nor does it amount to documentation.
> It isn't a non-sequitur at all. One can simply reword "just documenting
> the world" in whatever way you would need it reworded to mean what
> everyone else already assumed this to mean: art in which a fairly
> realistic portrayal of the real world was a significant aspect of the
> painting.
What's wrong with not rewording the phrase, and taking it to mean what it
does, indeed, appear to mean, instead of something else entirely?
> It is true that painting in this fashion is not completely
> replaced by photography, but still, this represented a significant
> change. Whether or not it matters to you, I can tell you for sure it
> matters to me, and a lot of other artists. If the camera did not exist,
> I would almost certainly be more interested in realism than I am.
If you had the attitudes of Paul Delaroche, or Thomas Eakins, or even Edgar
Degas, you would be interested in realism, but you would be interested in
exploiting technology such as photography to aid your observation of that
reality, and its incorporation into your art, and to discover new subjects
and themes. But you do not have that attitude, you have a different attitude
entirely - an attitude that I suggest was not caused fundamentally by the
invention of the camera, but by currents of ideas quite unrelated to that
event.
> > I balk at your use of the word "some". You seem to be trying to
> downplay a
> > major part of the Western art tradition.
>
> Not as much as you are when you say that reality played a minor role.
> "Some" doesn't mean a small minority; it means less than all. Wheter
> the split is 50/50, 60/40, or 70/30, it sure isn't 95/5.
You know very well that while logicians may use "some" to mean less than
all, common parlance takes "some" to have connotations of a minority.
> > No, it certainly didn't happen immediately. In fact, it didn't happen
> for
> > several decades.
>
> Sounds about right.
And the reason for the big time lag is that the cause was something else.
The connection between the invention of photography and the emergence of
abstract (and semiabstract) art is largely spurious. There's no link, beyond
the tenuous and circumlocutious.
> Again, no question - some artists painted more realistically with the
> camera to aid them. Others eventually got tired of this emphasis, and
> the Impressionists are a good example - while in some sense they sought
> to capture a sense of light "photographically", it is clear enough they
> didn't mean mean that in the literal sense you seem to be taking
> everything else in.
Impressionism was a branch or off-shoot of realism. They meant to capture
light "photographically" because they believed in naturalism. They
contrasted their own work with that of eminent academicians by saying that
although those academicians had achieved a line and a perfect finish, the
colour and light were unnatural in their studio paintings. Painting plein
air was done in order to achieve a greater realism. Of course, tight drawing
and high finish were sacrificed, but realism (wrt light effects, as well as
subject matter) was still the aim. (Renoir returned to academic themes and a
smooth paint surface in the latter part of his career, but that's
by-the-by.)
>
> > Obviously, it would be, since photography is inescapably already a
> record of
> > reality. How can photographers claim to be artists if all they do is
> what
> > the camera does automatically when they press the button? If they have
> such
> > artistic pretensions, they are therefore driven to imitate painting's
> > non-representational goals.
>
> Precisely why these goals are irrelevant to the discussion.
It would be if photography hadn't changed its plans at the same time as art
became abstract. Stieglitz is credited with instigating the shift from
pictorialism to documentary realism at the same time as abstractionism was
beginning to make itself felt in painting. It was only after a few decades
of this pattern (abstract or semiabstract painting against documentary
photograph), and the burial of Victorian taste, that it was possible to
forget that painting could outdo photography in realism, as the
pre-Raphaelites and others had shown several decades before. Then, and only
then did the argument emerge that painters should not try to do what
photography will inevitably do better.
> > It was only in the 20th century, after the defeat of imagination
>
> That's quite the phrase there - again, I have no idea what you mean.
It means that the rhetoric of modernism abolished those practices that
enabled painters to communicate the objects of their imagination to viewers,
analogous to what happens in literature. Allegory, storytelling and so on,
where condemned initially by realists as "bourgeois", and later by formalist
critics as "literary". According to the latter, visual artists weren't
supposed to use them, because they were the exclusive property of writers.
For some stupid reason, visual artists complied with this browbeating
nonsense. Imagination was defeated, and all that was left was mute form.
Flying_Naked_People
> > Are you from California??
> >
> > Some is less than 50%. A "couple" is 2. A "few" is .30!! A, is one. Half
is
> > 1/2. And most is more than half!!!
>
> Nonsense. "Some" only means "an unspecified number."
Generally accepted as a value less than half. Otherwise, it would be called
half! Or "more"! Or "most"!
> It could be 80%
> or 20% of the total of "something."
Do you realize you just called 80% (** which is almost** 100%), "some"???
Oh, I know... it's "subjective" math. Straight outta Compton!
Mani Deli
<ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>It's the battle between form and colour.
It not.
>Traditional painters stress form
>over colour - modern painters stress colour over form.
Good artists can create form. Most moderns can not. Color without form
is decorative art. Painting is expressing form in color.
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <3F0A1BEA...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
>>>Are you from California??
>>>
>>>Some is less than 50%. A "couple" is 2. A "few" is .30!! A, is one. Half
>>
> is
>
>>>1/2. And most is more than half!!!
>>
>>Nonsense. "Some" only means "an unspecified number."
>
>
> Generally accepted as a value less than half. Otherwise, it would be called
> half! Or "more"! Or "most"!
It's pretty clear that when someone uses the passive voice, they are
making whoppers. So +who+ accepts this definition? Certainly not the
dictionary crowd.
some
(click to hear the word) (sm)
adj.
1. Being an unspecified number or quantity: Some people came into
the room. Would you like some sugar?
2. Being a portion or an unspecified number or quantity of a whole
or group: He likes some modern scupture but not all.
3. Being a considerable number or quantity: She has been directing
films for some years now.
4. Unknown or unspecified by name: Some man called.
5. Logic Being part and perhaps all of a class.
6. Informal Remarkable: She is some skier.
pron.
1. An indefinite or unspecified number or portion: We took some of
the books to the auction. See Usage Note at every.
2. An indefinite additional quantity: did the assigned work and then
some.
adv.
1. Approximately; about: Some 40 people attended the rally.
2. Informal Somewhat: some tired.
You might have half a point with sense #3, but not really.
>
>
>>It could be 80%
>>or 20% of the total of "something."
>
>
> Do you realize you just called 80% (** which is almost** 100%), "some"???
Sure I realize that. Like sense #5, above: "Being part and perhaps all
of a class."
>
> Oh, I know... it's "subjective" math. Straight outta Compton!
It's not even math, Einstein. It's a literacy problem. Words just
don't mean what you want them to mean, unless you are schizophrenic,
that is. And yes, I learned that from my old High School Teacher at
Manuel Dominguez High School in...would you believe it...Compton. You
gotta problem with that?
Flying_Naked_People
> > Generally accepted as a value less than half. Otherwise, it would be
called
> > half! Or "more"! Or "most"!
>
> It's pretty clear that when someone uses the passive voice, they are
> making whoppers.
That's a "whopper" of an illogical leap. What has grammar got to do with
Burger King?!
> 1. Being an unspecified number or quantity: Some people came into
> the room. Would you like some sugar?
Yes, and according to you, that could be 80% of the contents in the sugar
bowl. "Have a little tea with your sugar Sir?"
> > Do you realize you just called 80% (** which is almost** 100%), "some"???
>
> Sure I realize that. Like sense #5, above: "Being part and perhaps all
> of a class."
Nah. Let me put it to you this way: You just called 80%, which is *most* of
something... "some". So tell me then, what's the difference between "most" and
"some"?
Sense #5 is wrong.
> Words just
> don't mean what you want them to mean, unless you are schizophrenic,
> that is.
Schizophrenia has nothing to do with choosing word meanings. What in the
*world* are you talking about?
> And yes, I learned that from my old High School Teacher at
> Manuel Dominguez High School in...would you believe it...Compton. You
> gotta problem with that?
LoLoL. I just pulled that name out of a rap song - I *swear* I had no idea!
<tee hee>
WHATEver-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r!
Erik A. Mattila
Flying_Naked_People wrote:
>>And yes, I learned that from my old High School Teacher at
>>Manuel Dominguez High School in...would you believe it...Compton. You
>>gotta problem with that?
>
>
> LoLoL. I just pulled that name out of a rap song - I *swear* I had no idea!
> <tee hee> WHATEver-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r!
Sure, sure. We know you're sidekick and you had your mental telegraph on.
But btw, schizophrenia has a lot to do with wirds. You know, "thought"
is done with wirds. Haven't you ever noticed?
Erik
>
Flying_Naked_People
> But btw, schizophrenia has a lot to do with wirds. You know, "thought"
> is done with wirds. Haven't you ever noticed?
>
> Erik
>
Thoughts can be sounds, words, pictures, etc.
I was under the impression that schizo's hear... voices... (Oh God, I gotta
sinkin' feeling.)
Mmmm... let's not go there.
Then again, to defend myself against future ridicule, or, in case you're
interested about these <whince> voices, Check This Out (totally off topic):
A NASA report by Kenneth J. Oscar for the US Army states:
"When people are illuminated with properly modulated low power microwaves the
sensation is reported as a buzzing, clicking, or hissing which seems to
originate (regardless of the persons position in the field) within or just
behind the head. The phenomena occurs at average power densities as low as
microwatts per square centimeter with carrier frequencies from 0.4 to 3.0 Ghz.
By proper choice of pulse characteristics, --> intelligible speech <-- may
be created."
http://www.geocities.com/free_united_states/index.html#linkto2_1
Ever hear this crap while trying to fall asleep? I do.
Seagull Manager
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>
wrote in message news:beda3g$qjr$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
> news:EYnOa.55$Oz2...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> > OK. We are talking about different things, then.
>
> Yes, we are. You count "just documenting the world" as anything that
> contains realistic details, including much that is fantastic
...or, at least, fictive.
Seagull Manager
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3F0A1BEA...@oco.net...
>
> Nonsense. "Some" only means "an unspecified number." It could be 80%
> or 20% of the total of "something." This is as true in California as it
> is in New South Wales. Don't believe me? Look it up.
The precise meaning of "some" varies a lot according to context. Consider
the following:
A: Most Japanese youths are very fashion conscious.
B: Some are.
B is not agreeing with A. B is, in fact, *disagreeing* with A, saying
implicitly that "most" is not an appropriate qualifier for the predicate
(and nor is "all"). This is a nuance of meaning that every proficient
speaker of English recognizes, but it is beyond any dictionary's remit to
describe all such nuances in the meanings of words.
Now, let's apply it to my discussion with Marc Sabatella:
Me: A lot of art, pre-photography, is fantastic, rather than realistic.
Marc: Some is.
So, not "a lot", then, but "some". Implication: a little.
Seagull Manager
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>
wrote in message news:bee6ul$v6$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> A: Most Japanese youths are very fashion conscious.
> B: Some are.
Incidentally, this rhetorical technique doesn't work the other way around:
A: A few Japanese youths are very fashion conscious.
B: Some are.
B seems to be agreeing with A, and is surely not trying to suggest that a
lot are. That's because, when "some" refers to a quantity more precise than
"less than all", it means "a few" or "a little".
Erik A. Mattila
So you are arguing against your own argument, i.e. that "some" has a
"precise meaning." I agree with your attack on yourself and you are
right and wrong.
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
"Rhetorical argument?" What's the form? Or are you using "rhetorical"
rhetorically...say, as "irony"?
Erik
>
>
>
à-la-votre
says...
]
>Ever hear this crap while trying to fall asleep? I do.
Just couldn't resist stepping in here.
My problem is keeping FROM falling asleep
when I am listening - or looking...and
once asleep, I tend to sleep right through
even the worst thunderstorms...
OTOH, Erik raises a 'thoughtful' point
when he says thoughts rely on words.
I have to wonder then what kind of thoughts
Hellen Keller had, or anyone who is born
stone-deaf. And in Keller's case, not only
deaf but blind and dumb! And then one can
extrapolate this to wondering what people
born blind actually 'see' as they feel
their way through life. And yes, I know there
are plenty of sources for answering my
questions - now if I can just keep from
falling asleep long enough to do the research...
Paul Mesken
Voisins) wrote:
I don't know if they've appeared on tape of DVD but the series "The
Mind Traveller" from Oliver Sacks is more than worth a look. One is
about the so called "Usher Syndrome", the people suffering from it are
born deaf (which isn't so bad according to the ones he interviewed).
They use sign language (language is an instrument heaving order in
thought, any language) but when they grow older they develop tunnel
vision which ends in complete blindness. The sufferers, when still
young, travel around to get as much interesting "visual footage" as
possible because they know that when they lose vision then all they
have left are their memories of it. However, when blind, they still
use sign language. Their tactile sense has grown so accurate that they
can "read" it by gently holding the wrists of the one using it.
Here's a link to the fellow who was followed by Sacks, suffering from
Usher Syndrome, he's a cook :-)
http://www.rosetta.co.uk/cajun.htm
Flying_Naked_People
Voisins) says...
> OTOH, Erik raises a 'thoughtful' point
> when he says thoughts rely on words.
> I have to wonder then what kind of thoughts
> Hellen Keller had, or anyone who is born
> stone-deaf. And in Keller's case, not only
> deaf but blind and dumb! And then one can
> extrapolate this to wondering what people
> born blind actually 'see' as they feel
> their way through life. And yes, I know there
> are plenty of sources for answering my
> questions - now if I can just keep from
> falling asleep long enough to do the research...
>
I *heard* that the blind actually see in their dreams, or astral travel. Hard
to believe.
Seagull Manager
>
> So you are arguing against your own argument, i.e. that "some" has a
> "precise meaning." I agree with your attack on yourself and you are
> right and wrong.
Not at all. In a sentence like "some X are Y", "some" will be treated by
logicians as meaning "not none and not all", but in ordinary parlance, it
will usually, depending on context, mean "not none and not all and not
most", and it will often be tantamount to "a few", or a little more than a
few (but less than many).
Seagull Manager
<à-la-votre @dontemailme.com (Bonjour Voisins)> wrote in message
news:3f0ac0de$1...@news.zianet.com...
> when he says thoughts rely on words.
Thought is not dependent on words. Words aid thought, but are not necessary
to it. Writers, and others who live by verbiage tend to think thought is
entirely linguistic, because whenever they think seriuosly, they think about
words.
Erik A. Mattila
But why blow hot air out of your ass? No logician would deduce "not
most" from "some." Look at a dictionary. Sheesh.
eam
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
Wasn't it you who argued so vigourously a while back that "Logos" means
"Thought?" Why are you changing your mind now? (if, indeed, it was you
who made that silly argument.)
eam
>
>
>
Flying_Naked_People
> But why blow hot air out of your ass? No logician would deduce "not
> most" from "some." Look at a dictionary. Sheesh.
>
> eam
>
Most means the greatest in number. Some is *not* a synonym of "most".
Therefore, "some" is "not most," nor are they the same.
In fact, the opposite of "some" is "all" or "none"!!
How could "some" be close to "all" when they are antonyms?!
Mani Deli
wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:25:34 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:36:41 +0100, Bernard Victor
>><bvi...@HotPOP.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Another was the
>>>invention of the camera is a reason for the development of 'modern' painting.
>>
>>Art school baloney!
>
>Most likely so. Arts schools says a lot of bullshit and a lot of wise
>stuff to. You really have to be a genious not to get spoiled going
>there. I never did.
>
>But it is still a fact, that a lot of artists started actually working
>from the photo.
It is indeed an important aid. My point is that it is not a reason for
the development of 'modern' painting.
>
>What is indeed true is, that a new medium was born to replicate the
>"reality", and that it in many ways had a big impact.
>
---long before modern painting
Mani Deli
Seagull, why are you wasting effort on this jerk?
Marc Sabatella
<seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>:
> Now, let's apply it to my discussion with Marc Sabatella:
>
> Me: A lot of art, pre-photography, is fantastic, rather than
realistic.
> Marc: Some is.
That was not in fact the context. Here is the paragraphs to which I was
responding:
>But there's more: you say the discovery of linear perspective is the
start
>of paintings that aim to "just document the world", I say not. If you
look
>at what the early explorers of linear perspective did with their
>discoveries, you'll find that they used it to make their allegories and
>pictures of imaginary scenes more vivid. Even Dutch realism was
involved in
>inventing anecdote, possibly with a moral or satirical message, and
very
>often containing a large dose of allegory.
There is no acknowledgement here that *any* art that employed
perspective was attempting to portray reality. I was merely attempting
to correct that misrepresentation. I don't care what the percentage
breakdown is; it is simply true that a lot of art exists that portrays
obviously fantastic scenes, and a lot that portrays more realistic
scenes. To deny either fact is to deny the truth.
Marc Sabatella
> > Nonsense. "Some" only means "an unspecified number."
>
> Generally accepted as a value less than half. Otherwise, it would be
called
> half! Or "more"! Or "most"!
No, it means *unspecified*. My dictionary says further "being of a
certain unspecified (but often considerable) number". I don't *know*
the actual percentage, and neither
does anyone else on this thread, so it is preposterous to presume we
should use more specific language. If you know a better word to
describe an unspecified but considerable number that we don't in fact
know, feel free to substitute it here. But "most" definitley means more
than half, and we have no proof that this applies, so that term is not
applicable here.
Marc Sabatella
<seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>:
> Yes, we are. You count "just documenting the world" as anything that
> contains realistic details, including much that is fantastic
I am doing no such thing. If it is "fantastic" in the ordinary
non-superlative sense of the word, I don't consider it "just documenting
the world" at all. This distinction seems clear and obvious to me, and
I don't understand why it is causing such confusion.
> So, to me, the Italian
> Renaissance until Caravaggio is overwhelmingly NOT just documenting
the
> world, whereas to you it perhaps overwhelmingly IS.
Fine. Then we are merely quibbling terminology. Again, substitute
whatever terms you want to mean what the rest of us mean by this, and
the point stands - a lot of art did this pre-photography.
> What's a "reality-based" painting? I am not familiar with the term.
Both terms are found in any standard dictionary.
> Are
> Boris Vallejo's paintings "reality-based"?
I seem to recall this artist painting elves, dragons, and so forth. If
so, then I would say no.
> What's wrong with not rewording the phrase, and taking it to mean what
it
> does, indeed, appear to mean, instead of something else entirely?
It only appears that have that particular meaning to you. I am not
interested in arguing about wording, but about the actual point being
made. You seem to be evading the real issue.
> If you had the attitudes of Paul Delaroche, or Thomas Eakins, or even
Edgar
> Degas, you would be interested in realism, but you would be interested
in
> exploiting technology such as photography to aid your observation of
that
> reality, and its incorporation into your art, and to discover new
subjects
> and themes. But you do not have that attitude, you have a different
attitude
> entirely - an attitude that I suggest was not caused fundamentally by
the
> invention of the camera, but by currents of ideas quite unrelated to
that
> event.
It is true I have a different attitude. But I do not see how you can
possibly claim that the invention of the camera is not a significant
factor. You can't read my mind.
> And the reason for the big time lag is that the cause was something
else.
The lack of mass communication in the modern sense had no role, I'm
sure.
> Impressionism was a branch or off-shoot of realism. They meant to
capture
> light "photographically" because they believed in naturalism. They
> contrasted their own work with that of eminent academicians by saying
that
> although those academicians had achieved a line and a perfect finish,
the
> colour and light were unnatural in their studio paintings. Painting
plein
> air was done in order to achieve a greater realism.
Like I said, you can force any words you like into this context, but it
is quite clear to everyone else that what the Impressionists sought and
achieved was not realism in the ordinary sense. That is the entire
point of the distinction being made here - realism in the sense of
accuracy of detail is what the camera had a role in deemphasizing for
some artists.
> Imagination was defeated, and all that was left was mute form.
For someone who insists on interpreting other people's clear and plain
English words in your own way, you have a curious of also insisting that
others not do the same - or rather, that they not interpret your words
using plain English. To anyone else, what you described was not the
"defeat" or "imagination", but the decrease in popularity in certain
circles of a particular subset of possible uses of imagination in
painting. This isn't even close to the same as being the "defeat of
imagination", and the difference is orders of magnitude greater than the
subtle distinction you are trying to make between artists who paint the
world exactly as it appears and those who occassionally move a tree a
little to the left for the sake of composition or put a slightly
sienna-colored cast on the scene.
Erik A. Mattila
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:06:41 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Seagull Manager wrote:
>>
>>>"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3F0AB104...@oco.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>So you are arguing against your own argument, i.e. that "some" has a
>>>>"precise meaning." I agree with your attack on yourself and you are
>>>>right and wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not at all. In a sentence like "some X are Y", "some" will be treated by
>>>logicians as meaning "not none and not all", but in ordinary parlance, it
>>>will usually, depending on context, mean "not none and not all and not
>>>most", and it will often be tantamount to "a few", or a little more than a
>>>few (but less than many).
>>
>>But why blow hot air out of your ass? No logician would deduce "not
>>most" from "some." Look at a dictionary. Sheesh.
>>
>>eam
>
>
> Seagull, why are you wasting effort on this jerk?
Probably for the same reason you are, butt-breath.
eam
Erik A. Mattila
Sorry, it does not compute (which explains how the dictionary disagrees
with your rather creative reading.)
In logic, these terms we are using are "quantity concepts" and can be
written as expressions.
Look at the relationships here:
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-33552/logik/pvfol/more-many_tab2.htm
This will show you why your statements are not true, and why you are
dead wrong with this argument.
Erik
Flying_Naked_People
> > Most means the greatest in number. Some is *not* a synonym of "most".
> > Therefore, "some" is "not most," nor are they the same.
>
> >
> > In fact, the opposite of "some" is "all" or "none"!!
> >
> > How could "some" be close to "all" when they are antonyms?!
>
> Sorry, it does not compute (which explains how the dictionary disagrees
> with your rather creative reading.)
>
> In logic, these terms we are using are "quantity concepts" and can be
> written as expressions.
>
> Look at the relationships here:
> http://home.swipnet.se/~w-33552/logik/pvfol/more-many_tab2.htm
>
> This will show you why your statements are not true, and why you are
> dead wrong with this argument.
>
> Erik
"That" does nothing more than repeat what you have been saying. It does
nothing to explain why, when, where, or how "some" can be 80% of something
(your example).
You will notice that "most" and/or "few" have their own formulas. Shouldn't
this little fact be sufficient enough to indicate a difference between "most",
"few", and "some"?? You claim that "some" could be either "most" or "few",
when by virtue of this goofy chart you've shown me, the latter 2 qualities
have their own separate attributes. In other words:
N(A)>0 (some) is NOT the same as a>=N(A)>0 (few). If it were, then this would
be true: N(A)>0 = a>=N(A)>0
N(A)>0 (some) is NOT the same as N(A) > N(~A) (most). If it were, then this
would be true: N(A)>0 = N(A)>N(~A)
As you can see, the formulas are different on both sides. That means they are
not the same!!
You can therefore NOT (logically) regard "some" as the same as "few" or
"most".
At the very least, you could claim that "some" lies somewhere between "few"
and "most" by the nature of their formulas.
The *correct* definition of "some" in this system should have been:
a>N(A)>0....or....a>R(A)>0....or....a>N(B&A)>0
Aside from that, I could have sworn you originally claimed this was a
"language" problem - not a math problem. Are you now going to claim logistics
is not mathematical?
Flying_Naked_People
would
> be true: N(A)>0 = a>=N(A)>0
>
> N(A)>0 (some) is NOT the same as N(A) > N(~A) (most). If it were, then this
> would be true: N(A)>0 = N(A)>N(~A)
>
>
Better yet, or, to prove YOUR claim and show that "some" ***can be*** "a few",
or "most", turn the above inequalities into equalities!!!
Erik A. Mattila
I don't think they are the same - I think that is your argument, or
rather, your strawman. "same" is a unique quantifier, as are "few"
"most" "all" "none" and so on. If they were the same, they would be
synonyms. They aren't.
"Some" can be "most" in the case when N>50%. "Most" can be "some" in
the case when N>50%. "Some" cannot be "most" in the case where N<50%.
"Most" is illogical in the case where N>50%
So you see, the two terms do not mean the same thing, as your strawman
would have it.
> N(A)>0 (some) is NOT the same as N(A) > N(~A) (most). If it were, then this
> would be true: N(A)>0 = N(A)>N(~A)
Well, the "~" is a little tricky - it means "sometimes" and we know that
"sometimes" is when N>50%.
> As you can see, the formulas are different on both sides. That means they are
> not the same!!
>
> You can therefore NOT (logically) regard "some" as the same as "few" or
> "most".
As I show above, I'm not making this claim. When I say that "some" can
be 80%, it is not saying that "some"="most". You are just
misapprehending the idea. "Some" never equals "most" when N<50%. So
the statement ""Some" can be either 20% or 80% of the total" is
perfectly true, and it conforms with the dictionary definition of the
term as well as it's logical syntactical definition.
> At the very least, you could claim that "some" lies somewhere between "few"
> and "most" by the nature of their formulas.
Hogwash. It's very clear, and alarmingly simple. "Some" is N(A)>0.
Why are you having to much trouble grasping that. It's not a difficult
concept.
> The *correct* definition of "some" in this system should have been:
>
> a>N(A)>0....or....a>R(A)>0....or....a>N(B&A)>0
Explain that. In this context, the small "a" only designates a
particular constant that may determine the relationship between the
number and the term. How are you defining "a"?
> Aside from that, I could have sworn you originally claimed this was a
> "language" problem - not a math problem. Are you now going to claim logistics
> is not mathematical?
"Logic" isn't "mathematical." What we're talking about here is syntax,
which is grammar. Math has a grammar also, but it is not the same as
Logic's. Oh, here were back to the old "Logos" debate. Do you think
there's a relationship between "Logic" and "word?"
Erik
>
Erik A. Mattila
Why? I have already proved that N(A)>O. "Some" only has to satisfy
that test. And it really isn't my claim - I'm iterating convention.
You are the one who is attempting to challenge convention. I don't know
why, but this is what you are doing. Perhaps you're claiming artistic
privelege - to shape language any way you see fit. It's a good art
project, actually.
Erik
>
Flying_Naked_People
> > N(A)>0 (some) is NOT the same as a>=N(A)>0 (few). If it were, then this
would
> > be true: N(A)>0 = a>=N(A)>0
>
> I don't think they are the same
That's because they are NOT the same. What I've been saying all along! You are
the one who insisted that "some" can be the same as "most" or "few".
> - I think that is your argument, or
> rather, your strawman. "same" is a unique quantifier, as are "few"
> "most" "all" "none" and so on. If they were the same, they would be
> synonyms. They aren't.
So why did you insist that "some" can be "most" or "few"?
> "Some" can be "most" in the case when N>50%.
Perhaps you meant to write, "Some" ***becomes*** "most" in the case when
N>50%.
> "Most" can be "some" in
> the case when N>50%.
Not. "Most" remains "most" when N>50%.
> "Most" is illogical in the case where N>50%
I think you're getting sleepy. Lol.
> So you see, the two terms do not mean the same thing, as your strawman
> would have it.
That's funny - I've been saying that all along. Is there an echo in here?
> > You can therefore NOT (logically) regard "some" as the same as "few" or
> > "most".
>
> As I show above, I'm not making this claim.
This silly debate started when you *did* make that claim.
> When I say that "some" can
> be 80%, it is not saying that "some"="most".
What in Heaven does 80% mean to you?
> You are just
> misapprehending the idea. "Some" never equals "most" when N<50%. So
> the statement ""Some" can be either 20% or 80% of the total" is
> perfectly true, and it conforms with the dictionary definition of the
> term as well as it's logical syntactical definition.
Iy yi yi!
> > At the very least, you could claim that "some" lies somewhere between
"few"
> > and "most" by the nature of their formulas.
>
> Hogwash. It's very clear, and alarmingly simple. "Some" is N(A)>0.
> Why are you having to much trouble grasping that. It's not a difficult
> concept.
>
> > The *correct* definition of "some" in this system should have been:
> >
> > a>N(A)>0....or....a>R(A)>0....or....a>N(B&A)>0
>
> Explain that. In this context, the small "a" only designates a
> particular constant that may determine the relationship between the
> number and the term. How are you defining "a"?
"a" is a freakin' number greater than zero. That would be "some" number to
you!
> > Aside from that, I could have sworn you originally claimed this was a
> > "language" problem - not a math problem. Are you now going to claim
logistics
> > is not mathematical?
>
> "Logic" isn't "mathematical." What we're talking about here is syntax,
> which is grammar.
Look, we are talking about values. Not grammar. If you wanna talk about words,
then give me the sum of (run + click).
> Math has a grammar also, but it is not the same as
> Logic's. Oh, here were back to the old "Logos" debate. Do you think
> there's a relationship between "Logic" and "word?"
That's not my argument. But no, (to me) logic is math. Adding. Subtracting. In
fact, *everything* is math. M+A+T+H
Flying_Naked_People
> > Better yet, or, to prove YOUR claim and show that "some" ***can be*** "a
few",
> > or "most", turn the above inequalities into equalities!!!
>
> Why? I have already proved that N(A)>O. "Some" only has to satisfy
> that test. And it really isn't my claim - I'm iterating convention.
> You are the one who is attempting to challenge convention. I don't know
> why, but this is what you are doing. Perhaps you're claiming artistic
> privelege - to shape language any way you see fit. It's a good art
> project, actually.
I am challenging subjective thinking, wishy-washy dictionary definitions, and
kook math.
> Erik
>
> >
>
Seagull Manager
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:ORMOa.1604$fa3...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> > Are
> > Boris Vallejo's paintings "reality-based"?
>
> I seem to recall this artist painting elves, dragons, and so forth. If
> so, then I would say no.
Elves are no less reality-based than clouds that people can sit on, and
dragons are no less reality-based than putti and angels. If Boris Vallejo's
art is not reality-based, then nor is most art of the Italian Renaissance.
> > What's wrong with not rewording the phrase, and taking it to mean what
> it
> > does, indeed, appear to mean, instead of something else entirely?
>
> It only appears that have that particular meaning to you.
And - scanning down this thread - to who else, apart from your good self,
does it have a different meaning?
> It is true I have a different attitude. But I do not see how you can
> possibly claim that the invention of the camera is not a significant
> factor. You can't read my mind.
I can't read your mind, but I know enough about the history of art, art
education and art criticism to know that it is highly likely that you came
across the idea through the same grapevine that most artists come across
that idea, and the roots of that idea lie in the twentieth century, not the
nineteenth.
> > And the reason for the big time lag is that the cause was something
> else.
>
> The lack of mass communication in the modern sense had no role, I'm
> sure.
Why would that have any bearing on things? How long do you suppose ideas
took to spread in the artworld of the 19th century? Even without radio and
TV (and when were these ever very important to the artworld?), everyone
remotely interested in art would have had the opportunity to read about
and/or discuss any dramatic developments within a year or two, or five at a
stretch.
As we have already seen, the first artists to get hold of cameras (Delaroche
and those around him) used them to make their work more realistic, and this
continued to be common for at least another generation or two. There *must*
have been a change of mind somewhere along the line.
> Like I said, you can force any words you like into this context, but it
> is quite clear to everyone else that what the Impressionists sought and
> achieved was not realism in the ordinary sense.
Yes it was. In fact, before "Impressionism" caught on as a label, the label
"of the realist school" was attached to some of their work by critics.
> That is the entire
> point of the distinction being made here - realism in the sense of
> accuracy of detail is what the camera had a role in deemphasizing for
> some artists.
No. The sketchy appearance and brushy texture of Impressionist paintings was
initially due largely to their being carried out en plein air using the new
technology of tube paints (which were much thicker than traditional
hand-made paints normally were, making a smooth facture harder to achieve),
with a time limit set by daylight. They were also influenced by the
realists, who paid less attention to achieving a smooth facture than did the
more neoclassical groups; Cezanne was influenced by Delacroix, another
brushy painter.
But detail is only one aspect of realism. The studio-based academic artists,
whether they tended towards Romanticism or Neoclassicism, tended not to
reproduce natural light effects, and, as we have mentioned, it was common to
give paintings an all-over brownness that was a deliberate and quite
dramatic deviation from reality - that, combined with a tendency to idealize
or exaggerate and, among neoclassicists, to geometricize, adds up to
something at least as unrealistic as Impressionistic fuzziness, when it
comes down to it.
>
> > Imagination was defeated, and all that was left was mute form.
>
> For someone who insists on interpreting other people's clear and plain
> English words in your own way, you have a curious of also insisting that
> others not do the same - or rather, that they not interpret your words
> using plain English. To anyone else, what you described was not the
> "defeat" or "imagination", but the decrease in popularity in certain
> circles of a particular subset of possible uses of imagination in
> painting. This isn't even close to the same as being the "defeat of
> imagination", and the difference is orders of magnitude greater than the
> subtle distinction you are trying to make between artists who paint the
> world exactly as it appears and those who occassionally move a tree a
> little to the left for the sake of composition or put a slightly
> sienna-colored cast on the scene.
It was a defeat in the sense that figurative, imaginative art was for a
period during the mid-20th century effectively abolished from the salons and
temples of high art. Even Plain Old Realism was abolished for a time.
Erik A. Mattila
Well, I guess I have to just consider that you're just stupid, Nerdgerl.
Kind of drastic, but I'm beginning to see there's no other
explanation. Lol.
Seagull Manager
>
> No logician would deduce "not
> most" from "some." Look at a dictionary. Sheesh.
I never said they would. I agree with Deli. You ARE a jerk.
Seagull Manager
>
> Wasn't it you who argued so vigourously a while back that "Logos" means
> "Thought?" Why are you changing your mind now? (if, indeed, it was you
> who made that silly argument.)
No, I said that Logos means, among many other things, "thought", and that
"thought" is central to the web of meanings that the word has (which include
"reckoning" and "calculation" as well as "word" and "study"), and the
precise meaning of the word depends a lot on context.
Not that that has any bearing on what you were replying to here.
It would be absurd to argue from the fact that Logos means "word" and
"thought" to the conclusion that "thought" and "word" are the same thing,
although it has to be admitted that that is the kind of illogical thinking
that seems to typify the operation your mind.
Seagull Manager
>
> "Logic" isn't "mathematical."
Logic is widely thought of, and taught as, a branch of mathematics related
to set theory.
> What we're talking about here is syntax,
> which is grammar.
The study of the meaning of words is known as "semantics".
> Math has a grammar also, but it is not the same as Logic's.
Let's see: formal notations, axioms, proofs - logic has all of these. That's
HUGELY different from mathematics, I guess.
> Oh, here were back to the old "Logos" debate. Do you think
> there's a relationship between "Logic" and "word?"
There's a relationship between "logic" and "thought". Aristotle's writing on
logic (compiled in the Organon) is an attempt to explain how human beings
reason, and to distinguish sound reasoning from unsound.
Oliver Gili
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>
wrote in message news:becp5o$90o$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
-snip snipity snip snip-
>
> It was only in the 20th century, after the defeat of imagination, when
> storytellling and allegory had been effectively expunged from painting,
that
> it became possible credibly to claim that photography was painting's
rival.
>
>
You seem to ignore the advent of Cinema, which has satiated societies desire
for the realistic fantasy.... and which is being slowly replaced by computer
games...
Oliver
Chris
"Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote in message
news:vgnrkem...@corp.supernews.com...
> That's not my argument. But no, (to me) logic is math. Adding.
Subtracting. In
> fact, *everything* is math. M+A+T+H
>
Spoken like a true illiterate - in math and logic. Stick to programming,
it's actually a useful metier.
Chris
Flying_Naked_People
> Well, I guess I have to just consider that you're just stupid, Nerdgerl.
> Kind of drastic, but I'm beginning to see there's no other
> explanation. Lol.
>
No, that's what people do when they lose. It was predictable. What *part* of
the argument that you chose to call names, is where I'm fuzzy.
Was it when I exposed your flawed thinking in stating "some" can be "few" or
"many"? Even though you denied doing so later in the arguement - only later -
to state it as true again?
Was it when you admitted that "most" is N>50%, yet turned around and said
"most" could NOT be N>80%?
Was it when *you* wrote "Most" is illogical in the case when N>50%.
Was it when I wrote 3 formulas for "some" that you didn't understand?
Or was it when you decided that these formulas had nothing to do with math,
despite the fact that they clearly imply "less than/more than" values?
With people like you at NASA - calling "some" any number greater than zero -
it's no wonder the shuttle blew up!
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> Subtracting. In
> > fact, *everything* is math. M+A+T+H
> >
>
> Spoken like a true illiterate - in math and logic. Stick to programming,
> it's actually a useful metier.
What a moron you are. Been questioned for all those dead people you draw yet?
> Chris
>
Chris
Ok, show us how everything is math. You puffed up the claim, can you put
some bones to it? Or is there an "inflationary" tendency in your math claims
too ? :)
Chris
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> Ok, show us how everything is math. You puffed up the claim, can you put
> some bones to it? Or is there an "inflationary" tendency in your math claims
> too ? :)
Sorry, but the words of "Heppy Jesus" indicates that communicating to you with
wisdom, is a sin. So, if you don't already know how everything is math, you
will burn in hell with your satanic friend, Cezanne.
> Chris
>
Marc Sabatella
> You will notice that "most" and/or "few" have their own formulas.
Shouldn't
> this little fact be sufficient enough to indicate a difference between
"most",
> "few", and "some"?? You claim that "some" could be either "most" or
"few",
> when by virtue of this goofy chart you've shown me, the latter 2
qualities
> have their own separate attributes.
That is indeed precisely what it means to say that "some" is an
*unspecified* number - could in some cases turn out to actually be most,
but in others not.
> At the very least, you could claim that "some" lies somewhere between
"few"
> and "most" by the nature of their formulas.
It doesn't. It could possibly include both. Just as "art" includes
both painting and sculpture. Art is simply a more general term. Just
as "some" is a more general term than "most".
Marc Sabatella
> That's because they are NOT the same. What I've been saying all along!
You are
> the one who insisted that "some" can be the same as "most" or "few".
Not "the same as" in the sense of, "having the same definition as", but
same as in, in some situations, either word applies. In other
situations, only one might apply. There are many situations in which
"some" applies but not "most", but by definition, no situations in which
"most" does but not some.
Marc Sabatella
<seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>:
> Elves are no less reality-based than clouds that people can sit on,
and
> dragons are no less reality-based than putti and angels.
Of course. And hence I don't consider these reality-based in this
context either.
> If Boris Vallejo's
> art is not reality-based, then nor is most art of the Italian
Renaissance.
Most art that makes it into the museums and offical art history texts.
I'm not sure this can be proven of art of that period in general, but if
so, then so be it.
> And - scanning down this thread - to who else, apart from your good
self,
> does it have a different meaning?
The person who coined it (not me), and presumably everyone else who has
not expressed any difficulty understanding what was meant.
> I can't read your mind, but I know enough about the history of art,
art
> education and art criticism to know that it is highly likely that you
came
> across the idea through the same grapevine that most artists come
across
> that idea, and the roots of that idea lie in the twentieth century,
not the
> nineteenth.
You have yet to prove any such thing.
> As we have already seen, the first artists to get hold of cameras
(Delaroche
> and those around him) used them to make their work more realistic, and
this
> continued to be common for at least another generation or two. There
*must*
> have been a change of mind somewhere along the line.
Yes - about the time it took for people to get tired of this approach.
> > Like I said, you can force any words you like into this context, but
it
> > is quite clear to everyone else that what the Impressionists sought
and
> > achieved was not realism in the ordinary sense.
>
> Yes it was.
In the sense you mean the term. Not in the sense it means to me, or the
average layman.
> In fact, before "Impressionism" caught on as a label, the label
> "of the realist school" was attached to some of their work by critics.
I said the *ordinary* sense, not the specific art history
Realist-with-a-capital-R sense.
> No. The sketchy appearance and brushy texture of Impressionist
paintings was
> initially due largely to their being carried out en plein air using
the new
> technology of tube paints (which were much thicker than traditional
> hand-made paints normally were, making a smooth facture harder to
achieve),
> with a time limit set by daylight.
That's the physical explanation. But what factors went into thinking as
to how acceptable doing this would be?
> It was a defeat in the sense that...
Right - many more qualitifiers need to be added in order for your
statement to make even the slightesat amount of sense. In other words,
you didn't say what you meant. No biggie - I now know what you mean.
It just seems ironic that someone who would take such literary license
that needs paragraphs of explanation would have a problem with someone
else's slightly less than completely specific phrase whose meaning was
clear enough right from the beginning.
Chris
Sounds like fun!! I got kicked out of Sunday School (a Congregationalist one
at that) in 2nd grade for telling the Bishop of Washington that I didn't
want to go to Heaven. It sounded way too boring...
Anyway, glad to see you backed down from your rather untenable position.
It's hard to stand up for yourself when there's no supporting structure,
isn't it? (That's why people have bones..)
Chris
Oliver Gili
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:5h0ngvkbgt6mu6sam...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:06:41 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>So you are arguing against your own argument, i.e. that "some" has a
> >>>"precise meaning." I agree with your attack on yourself and you are
> >>>right and wrong.
> >>
> >>
> >> Not at all. In a sentence like "some X are Y", "some" will be treated
by
> >> logicians as meaning "not none and not all", but in ordinary parlance,
it
> >> will usually, depending on context, mean "not none and not all and not
> >> most", and it will often be tantamount to "a few", or a little more
than a
> >> few (but less than many).
> >
> >most" from "some." Look at a dictionary. Sheesh.
> >
>
> Seagull, why are you wasting effort on this jerk?
>
tsk! can I refer you to the Aesops fable about the wind and the sun trying
to get the man to take his coat off, well it would seem that your methods of
persuasion/arguement are borrowed from the wind, and Eric's from the sun...
Oliver
Oliver
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> Anyway, glad to see you backed down from your rather untenable position.
> It's hard to stand up for yourself when there's no supporting structure,
> isn't it? (That's why people have bones..)
That's quite a quotable quote from the conceit of the foolish, Chris. But you
go on and continue to draw the bones poking through the skin of the rotting
corpses you call models. Sicko.
> Chris
>
Erik A. Mattila
And what about the other question: "Why blow hot air out of your ass?" Lol.
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
You have a comprehension problem, among other thinking disorders. I
said "we think in words." Now you are constructing a strawman by
claiming that I am saying "word" and "thought" are the same. Are you
being tutored by Nerdgerl, who has constructed her strawman by claiming
that I believe the "some" and "most" mean the same thing, because I
pointed out that the meaning of "some" can be 20% or 80%.
Do you get it? I'm trying to dumb it down for you. "We think in words"
does not say "think = words." The village idiot would agree, why
don't you?
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3F0BDF54...@oco.net...
>
>>"Logic" isn't "mathematical."
>
>
> Logic is widely thought of, and taught as, a branch of mathematics related
> to set theory.
The passive voice again - the great cover for ignernce. Who thinks
this? Alfred North Whitehead may have, but Kurt Gödel may not concur.
But look, I'll dumb it down for you again; "Thinking may include
counting, but "thinking" isn't "counting." Get it?
>>What we're talking about here is syntax,
>>which is grammar.
>
> The study of the meaning of words is known as "semantics".
I'm beginning to see the structural form of your dementia, S&M. You do
this quite often (as I've pointed out in your frequent "strawmen"
episodes.) So you should pay attention to this, as it will help you out
of your habit of childish, silly arguments.
"Syntax" is what "semantics" considers when it is dealing with the
formal relations of signs to one another.
Think about it: I wrote "were talking about syntax here" and your
response is "the study of the meaning of words is knows as "semantics."
Do you not see an exacerbated confusion of the part and the whole?
Formally, it is the same as saying that "You think that "think" and
"word" mean the same thing because you said "You think in words."" Now
this is free therapy for you, I hope you can appreciate it. I mean, if
you broke this habit of conflating the part and the whole, your
arguments would only improve.
>>Math has a grammar also, but it is not the same as Logic's.
> Let's see: formal notations, axioms, proofs - logic has all of these. That's
> HUGELY different from mathematics, I guess.
Actually, I wouldn't defend my statement here. It's weak, and not all
that important anyway.
>>Oh, here were back to the old "Logos" debate. Do you think
>>there's a relationship between "Logic" and "word?"
>
> There's a relationship between "logic" and "thought". Aristotle's writing on
> logic (compiled in the Organon) is an attempt to explain how human beings
> reason, and to distinguish sound reasoning from unsound.
Which doesn't tell us at all if we think with words or not. But it's
nice to see you referencing your comments, as disjunct your references
are to the topic of debate.
eam
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
Flying_Naked_People wrote:
> In article <3F0BF716...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
>>Well, I guess I have to just consider that you're just stupid, Nerdgerl.
>> Kind of drastic, but I'm beginning to see there's no other
>>explanation. Lol.
>>
>
>
> No, that's what people do when they lose. It was predictable. What *part* of
> the argument that you chose to call names, is where I'm fuzzy.
How do you figure? Considering you "stupid" isn't name calling. I'm
just grasping at straws, as you know. I can't understand why you can't
understand that "some" can be any number greater than zero. The
dictionary sez so. The logic tables sez so. I guess I could dig up a
hunnerd other points and authorities, and you wouldn't agree. So
"stupid"? Well...? What are my other options?
Erik
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> > news:3F0BDF54...@oco.net...
> >
> >>"Logic" isn't "mathematical."
> >
> >
> > Logic is widely thought of, and taught as, a branch of mathematics
related
> > to set theory.
>
> The passive voice again - the great cover for ignernce.
If it ever is, it isn't in this case. In this case, AS USUAL the ignorance
(and arrogance) is yours.
Let's see some of the evidence:
The DMOZ open directory project places Logic under Math in its heirarchy:
http://dmoz.org/Science/Math/Logic_and_Foundations/
So does the Google directory:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Math/Logic_and_Foundations/
UCLA teaches Logic in its Math department (as well as under philosophy):
http://www.math.ucla.edu/grad_programs/faculty/research_areas/logic.html
(actually, MOST universities teach logic as part of mathematics.)
Textbooks on "Discrete Mathematics" teach formal logic and set theory, for
example:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0071198814/toc/
ref=br_dp_toc/026-7527259-2201224
Logic just happens to be a branch of mathematics that has applications in
philosophy and computer science.
Flying_Naked_People
> How do you figure? Considering you "stupid" isn't name calling. I'm
> just grasping at straws, as you know. I can't understand why you can't
> understand that "some" can be any number greater than zero. The
> dictionary sez so. The logic tables sez so. I guess I could dig up a
> hunnerd other points and authorities, and you wouldn't agree. So
> "stupid"? Well...? What are my other options?
ONE is a number greater than zero. If you give me 25 dollars for a purchase,
and expect "some" change, you'd best be satisfied with that single bill!
Stupid
> Erik
>
Erik A. Mattila
I see you're covering your ass with "...happens to be a banch of
mathematics" but that's not the issue. The issue is the statement
"logic is mathematics." I've already tried to help you out with your
dementia problem - the part is not the whole. Would you say that
"philosophy is mathematics"? Would you say that "logic is philosophy."
People write "Logic +and+ "mathematics" for a particular reason. You
understand what "and" means, don't you?
So, if you're studying argumentation and debate, and you lean about
"truth tables," are you training to be a mathematician? Are you even
using maths at all?
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Well, good. That's a step in the right direction.
Erik
>
>
>>Erik
>>
>
>
Lauri Levanto
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
...
> Do you get it? I'm trying to dumb it down for you. "We think in words"
> does not say "think = words." The village idiot would agree, why
> don't you?
>
> Erik
>
We often think with words. Sometimes, however, I have problems
to find out the right word. The thought thus preceeds the words.
Thinking in words, makes the thoughts more clear.
Arguing in semantics, muddles the pool until thoughts are no
longer reckognisable.
-lauri
Erik A. Mattila
But how are you defining "thought," Lauri? If you mean all the spark
events of the ganglia that lie behind a thought event, I'd have to agree
with you. I'm more or less defining it as in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
- where "thought" would be the rationalization of the activity of the
brain. So I wouldn't say "words make thinking clear.: I would say
"words make thinking." Is non-verbal thought possible? I think so, but
here's the rub. As Ernst Cassirer argued over his several volumns of
"The Philosophy of Symbolic Form," Art, music, mythology, math and so
on are all forms that operate like language - with rules and grammars,
intrinsic logic and truth values and inherent assumptions that may or
not be true in nature.
But I'm disappointed you didn't address the topic of my post, which is
that saying "we think in words" is not the same as saying that "think"
equals "words." "We sculpt in stone" is not saying that "sculpt" is the
same as "stone." That's not semantics. It's simple literacy.
Erik
>
>
>
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
>
> I see you're covering your ass with "...happens to be a banch of
> mathematics" but that's not the issue.
I'm not "covering my ass". The statement that I made that you challenged is
that "Actually, logic is widely thought of as a branch of mathematics". You
called me ignorant for making such a statement, but in your arrogant haste
to insult me, you were in fact revealing your own ignorance.
> So, if you're studying argumentation and debate, and you lean about
> "truth tables," are you training to be a mathematician? Are you even
> using maths at all?
You are not training to be a mathematician, but you are applying
mathematics. So, no to the first question, and yes to the second.
Mathematics is more than just number.
Seagull Manager
>
> But how are you defining "thought," Lauri? If you mean all the spark
> events of the ganglia that lie behind a thought event, I'd have to agree
> with you. I'm more or less defining it as in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is just that, a *hypothesis*. It is not a proven
theory. Strictly, it is a set of similar hypotheses about the relationship
between language and thought, each of which is called a "version" of the
hypothisis. The hypothesis generally does not define thought in the way you
say above, but some versions of it specify a very close coupling between
language and thought. The extreme would be to say that you can't think what
you can't say, and such strong versions of the hypothesis were popular once,
but most linguists have come to consider them rather implausible. Instead,
they subscribe to a much-watered down version of the hypothesis, "moderate
Whorfism", which implicitly admits that thought and language are quite
distinct phenomena, though they influence each other.
> - where "thought" would be the rationalization of the activity of the
> brain. So I wouldn't say "words make thinking clear.: I would say
> "words make thinking."
They don't. The brain makes thought - and it often makes a running verbal
commentary at the same time. Said commentary may be meaningless babble, full
of indexicals: "Hmm, if this goes there, and that goes there, and that,
let's see, there, or there? There! Excellent!"
The mere existence of indexicals (here, there, this, that, etc.) is
suggestive that thought is likely to be more than, or other than, mere
internal speech. Indexicals can potentially refer to anything, but in each
individual use, they refer to a particular thing that is thought of, but not
necessarily (and usually not) named. How can that be?
Another thing to reflect upon: if "words make thinking", and young children
don't have the words to describe the rules of grammar of their first
language, how do they figure out those rules as they learn to speak?
More: The "tip-of-the-tongue" phenomenon. How can one find oneself
struggling for the name, or even an adequate verbal description for
something of which one is thinking, if it is not possible to think of that
thing without words?
> Is non-verbal thought possible? I think so, but
> here's the rub. As Ernst Cassirer argued over his several volumns of
> "The Philosophy of Symbolic Form," Art, music, mythology, math and so
> on are all forms that operate like language - with rules and grammars,
> intrinsic logic and truth values and inherent assumptions that may or
> not be true in nature.
If everything that has rules is a language, then thought might reasonably be
called a language, but leaving aside that one is stretching the meaning of
"language" dangerously thin, it does not imply that the "language of
thought" (whatever that may be) is the same as the language that we use in
speech and writing.
> But I'm disappointed you didn't address the topic of my post, which is
> that saying "we think in words" is not the same as saying that "think"
> equals "words." "We sculpt in stone" is not saying that "sculpt" is the
> same as "stone." That's not semantics. It's simple literacy.
Simple literacy, eh? In that case, show me the text where I said you said
that "'think' equals 'words'". You just love to fling insults about without
first ensuring that you have a sound basis for doing so. You seem to think
it is funny.
Seagull Manager
"Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:beh3n6$ek2$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Good point - up to a point. Some kinds of paintings, such as those huge
battle scenes that were popular in the 19th century were, I think, the
cinema of their day. But people who go to the cinema continue to enjoy still
images. Sometimes they buy cinema stills to hang on their wall. Also,
painters whose images tell - or suggest - stories are hugely popular
(judging by sales of reproductions). So, while cinema feeds the desire for
visual narrative, it doesn't entirely satiate it.
Erik A. Mattila
It is funny...for example, I'm talking to Lauri here, whose opinion I
respect very much. So you jump in and claim that I insulted you.
That's hilarious. Do you usually to to such great lengths to feel
insulted? It's like zig-zagging down the road in hopes that a car will
run over you.
But anyway, you wrote: > It would be absurd to argue from the fact that Logos means "word" and
> "thought" to the conclusion that "thought" and "word" are the same thing,
> although it has to be admitted that that is the kind of illogical thinking
> that seems to typify the operation your mind.
Now since you cleverly presented us with your example of an absurdity,
adding that it is the kind of thinking that typifies my thought, I would
conclude that you are holding me responsible for the absurd notion that
you presented, right? As illogical as my thinking may be, I've never
said that word and thought are the same thing. So you are building
another strawman. And being a slime-ball, you are trying to oooze and
squeem out of it. My, my...you gotta admit - this +is+ very funny.
And as usual, you argue against yourself. While you said that it would
be absurd to make the argument, I would think that you would agree that
it's a simple literacy problem to not make it. But apparently you
don't, evidenced by your reaction: "Simple literacy, eh?" So which is
it? Absurdity or agreeing with me that it's a simple literacy problem?
You know I'm correct.
eam
>
>
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> >
> > Simple literacy, eh? In that case, show me the text where I said you
said
> > that "'think' equals 'words'". You just love to fling insults about
without
> > first ensuring that you have a sound basis for doing so. You seem to
think
> > it is funny.
>
> It is funny...for example, I'm talking to Lauri here, whose opinion I
> respect very much. So you jump in and claim that I insulted you.
Lauri jumped in on your response to me (as is quite the norm on usenet), and
I'm at least equally entitled to jump in on your response to his response to
your response to my post, thank you very much.
Anyway, strictly speaking, I claimed that you love to fling insults about,
not that you insulted me, specifically. But let's see where this takes us:
> That's hilarious. Do you usually to to such great lengths to feel
> insulted?
I don't FEEL insulted; I FEEL that I'm communicating with a jerk who likes
calling people he disagrees with "stupid", "ignorant", etc. It is impossible
to feel insulted by a person who uses those words indiscriminately, as you
do. Each time you've accused me of ignorance about a fact, I've shown you to
be wrong about that very fact.
As to whether you intended to insult me or not, I'll refer you to your
earlier post in the thread, in response to mine, in which you wrote:
>>>> You have a comprehension problem, among other thinking disorders. I
>>>> said "we think in words." Now you are constructing a strawman by
>>>> claiming that I am saying "word" and "thought" are the same...
>>>> ...Do you get it? I'm trying to dumb it down for you. "We think in
words"
>>>> does not say "think = words."
In that context, the paragraph which you wrote in your next post (replying
to Lauri's post) is interesting:
>>> But I'm disappointed you didn't address the topic of my post, which is
>>> that saying "we think in words" is not the same as saying that "think"
>>> equals "words." "We sculpt in stone" is not saying that "sculpt" is the
>>> same as "stone." That's not semantics. It's simple literacy.
Now, some would say that it was aimed at me, since I am the only person you
have accused of saying that you equate thought and words, and you had at the
same time also accused me of having "a comprehension problem".
However, the suggestion that someone might be lacking in "simple literacy"
bounces back to you, as we shall soon see.
> But anyway, you wrote:
> > It would be absurd to argue from the fact that Logos means "word" and
> > "thought" to the conclusion that "thought" and "word" are the same
thing,
> > although it has to be admitted that that is the kind of illogical
thinking
> > that seems to typify the operation your mind.
I did, indeed.
> Now since you cleverly presented us with your example of an absurdity,
> adding that it is the kind of thinking that typifies my thought, I would
> conclude that you are holding me responsible for the absurd notion that
> you presented, right?
I am suggesting you are in possession of a mind that has a weak grasp of
logic.
> As illogical as my thinking may be, I've never
> said that word and thought are the same thing. So you are building
> another strawman. And being a slime-ball, you are trying to oooze and
> squeem out of it. My, my...you gotta admit - this +is+ very funny.
YOU are the individual who wrote
>>>> Wasn't it you who argued so vigourously a while back that "Logos" means
>>>> "Thought?" Why are you changing your mind now? (if, indeed, it was you
>>>> who made that silly argument.)
in response to my comment that "words aid thought, but are not necessary to
it".
In so doing, you implied that my beliefs about the meaning of a Greek word
must have consequences for my beliefs about the nature of thought. It ought
to be obvious that I can believe anything I like about the what a particular
word may mean, without those beliefs having any consequences for what I
believe about the nature of thought. Thus, you made a quite spectacular
logical leap in failing to see that the two sets of beliefs are unrelated.
This amazing logical leap is what motivated me to suggest that a particular
absurd notion regarding the nature of thought would fit the typical cast of
your mind.
> And as usual, you argue against yourself.
If I do, then so does Lauri. Some of my points against the actual opinion
that you put forward, that "we think in words", is are echoed by Lauri,
thus:
>>> We often think with words. Sometimes, however, I have problems
to find out the right word. The thought thus preceeds the words.
That echoes my mention of the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon.
>>> Thinking in words, makes the thoughts more clear.
That echoes my remark that "words aid thought, but are not necessary to it".
But you respect Lauri's opinion, not mine. Well, hell.
> While you said that it would
> be absurd to make the argument, I would think that you would agree that
> it's a simple literacy problem to not make it.
I said, if you recall, that 'It would be absurd to argue from the fact that
Logos means "word" and
"thought" to the conclusion that "thought" and "word" are the same thing.'
This is not the same argument that you said was a matter of simple literacy,
though it is similar. The argument that you called a matter of simple
literacy is the one you falsely accused me of making (namely, that "we think
in words" implies that "think"
equals "words", or that "word" and "thought" are the same). That said, the
similarity between the argument you falsely accused me of making and the
argument that you did make is interesting.
You implied that it would be inconsistent for me to believe that the Greek
word "logos" means "thought", and at the same time believe that thought can
be independent of words. Such illogicality is not a matter of literacy, but
of failing to apply a proper distinction between things and the names that
attach to them.
However, if you choose to diagnose your own problem as simple illiteracy, I
can live with it.
> But apparently you
> don't, evidenced by your reaction: "Simple literacy, eh?" So which is
> it? Absurdity or agreeing with me that it's a simple literacy problem?
> You know I'm correct.
I know you're wrong.
Chris
"Lauri Levanto" <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
news:3F0D0639...@netti.fi...
Or perhaps the words just make the thought more transferable (particularly
to someone else). When I work on a painting, I manipulate the image in my
mind; when I play piano, I tend to 'see" the image of the music (though not
as written music) in my mind, as well as hear it internally; when I do
math - particularly long derivations - there's very words in my mind, it's
mostly an internal visualization thing. The word "integrate" for example,
sparks very different internal sensations if I'm dealing with something
boring like software, or something interesting like solving a problem.
Erik touched on it discussing some philosopher & how all these human
activities are rather like language, I'll have to go back and dig up the
post (but there's so much noise these days from Bruce & FNP that it's a
little hard to find the interesting stuff...)., and I can see that. I speak
French (not well) and Russian (badly), and when I operate in those languages
it "feels" quite different than speaking in English; and it's a similar
difference when I paint or do other things.
Cheers;
Chris
à-la-votre
>Do you get it? I'm trying to dumb it down for you. "We think in words"
> does not say "think = words." The village idiot would agree, why
>don't you?
>
>Erik
I don't think I've related this story here
before, and if I did, it's been an eon.
When I lived in Mobile, AL 'way back when,'
I learned the story of a married older couple who I'd
seen walking arm and arm around town on
occasion. They were both obviously blind.
I first noticed them when one of them bumped
their head on a low-hanging sign on a store.
They were intent on using their white canes
to feel where they were going, but didn't
'sense' the sign hanging so low. And they
LAUGHED about it - that's what really made me
sit up and take notice. I don't think I'd have
been laughing - and some of us might have even
taken out our anger by letting the store owner
know what we thought about the sign's positioning.
Now here is what I want you to think about.
These two were BORN deaf, dumb and blind!!
They subsequently met at an enclave for people
with disabilities, fell in love (one presumes),
and married. They lived alone at the time I
heard their story, totally self-sufficient,
and had worked out ways of communicating
with the 'normal' people they had to deal with
on a daily basis. Think for a moment about
the implications of this 'coupling.' It's
beyond MY ability to comprehend how they did it,
live like 'normal' people, that is.
And think about this - how did they learn
to laugh at life in the first place???
Chris
Erik,
Reading this post it struck me where the failure to communicate (which seems
to be the basis of this thread) is - on one side there's a real problem
coping with generalization and abstraction. FWIW, it's a genuine problem
with many (not all) programmers (I work with them every day), so it's not
surprising...Anyway, the mind (using the term loosely) that insists that
because "one" could be "some" then "some" is necessarily "one" is not a mind
one would expect to generalize art beyond simple and photographically based
representation. You and FNP/S&M simply inhabit very different worlds -
theirs is boxed and ordered, reminding me of the suppers my kid used to eat,
where different foods weren't allowed to touch on the plate. Yours, OTOH,
appears to be a rather delightful curry. Or the dog's breakfast, leave that
to the food critics :)
Chris
Marc Sabatella
> So, if you don't already know how everything is math
I have a degree in mathematics, and I know that *not* everything is
math.
Some things are, though.
> you
> will burn in hell with your satanic friend, Cezanne.
A good example - there is no sound mathematical or logical reason for
such a comment. Yet is was made anyhow. Proof that not all is math!
Marc Sabatella
> ONE is a number greater than zero. If you give me 25 dollars for a
purchase,
> and expect "some" change, you'd best be satisfied with that single
bill!
Only if a single bill is actually the correct change. However,
regardless of whether that single bill is the correct change or not, I
would be satisfied if you called that "some" change, because it is.
Might not be the right amount of change, but it is some. That is indeed
perfectly consistent with the definition of "some". Likewise if you
gave 24 bills in change.
Flying_Naked_People
ma...@outsideshore.com says...
> Subject: Re: Turner and Modernism
> From: "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>
> > So, if you don't already know how everything is math
>
> I have a degree in mathematics, and I know that *not* everything is
> math.
>
> Some things are, though.
I don't have a degree in mathematics, and I now that everything *is* math.
> > you
> > will burn in hell with your satanic friend, Cezanne.
>
> A good example - there is no sound mathematical or logical reason for
> such a comment.
Prove there was no reason for that comment.
> Yet is was made anyhow. Proof that not all is math!
>
Flying_Naked_People
ma...@outsideshore.com says...
> Subject: Re: Turner and Modernism
> From: "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>
> purchase,
> > and expect "some" change, you'd best be satisfied with that single
> bill!
>
> Only if a single bill is actually the correct change.
No. He will get a single bill. Because that is what he "expected" and that is
what he called "good".
> However,
> regardless of whether that single bill is the correct change or not, I
> would be satisfied if you called that "some" change, because it is.
> Might not be the right amount of change, but it is some. That is indeed
> perfectly consistent with the definition of "some". Likewise if you
> gave 24 bills in change.
>
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> Reading this post it struck me where the failure to communicate (which seems
> to be the basis of this thread) is - on one side there's a real problem
> coping with generalization and abstraction. FWIW, it's a genuine problem
> with many (not all) programmers (I work with them every day), so it's not
> surprising...
What qualifies the exact and the precise as a problem? I'll bet those dead
astronauts would have preferred "the exact and the precise".
> Anyway, the mind (using the term loosely) that insists that
> because "one" could be "some" then "some" is necessarily "one" is not a mind
> one would expect to generalize art beyond simple and photographically based
> representation.
If it's so simple, why can't you do it?
> You and FNP/S&M simply inhabit very different worlds -
> theirs is boxed and ordered
Do you know what a "world" is? I live on the same world as Bruce, Erik, and...
yeeew. My lifestyle is anything but boxed an ordered. I see flying naked
people for Christ's sake!! Bruce travels and samples cultures around the
world!! What the hell are you talking about?
You and others like you have a serious problem with reality so much that you
make up shit - and actually believe this makes you intellectually superior.
What a crock! Nothing more than a self-defense mechanism!
Erik A. Mattila
So if you're so aloof, why are you obsessing on this? Tsk. tsk.
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
Chris wrote:
> Erik,
> Reading this post it struck me where the failure to communicate (which seems
> to be the basis of this thread) is - on one side there's a real problem
> coping with generalization and abstraction. FWIW, it's a genuine problem
> with many (not all) programmers (I work with them every day), so it's not
> surprising...Anyway, the mind (using the term loosely) that insists that
> because "one" could be "some" then "some" is necessarily "one" is not a mind
> one would expect to generalize art beyond simple and photographically based
> representation. You and FNP/S&M simply inhabit very different worlds -
> theirs is boxed and ordered, reminding me of the suppers my kid used to eat,
> where different foods weren't allowed to touch on the plate. Yours, OTOH,
> appears to be a rather delightful curry. Or the dog's breakfast, leave that
> to the food critics :)
>
> Chris
That's kind of funny, actually. I feel like I'm the one in the box. My
position is that "some" means what is stated in any dictionary of the
English language. My opposition seems to be saying "dictionaries don't
matter" and "some" means "whatever I want it to mean."
So my position seems to be the narrower, at least from my perspective.
Erik
>
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <vRePa.8799$ru2.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>, n...@this.address
> says...
>
>>Reading this post it struck me where the failure to communicate (which seems
>>to be the basis of this thread) is - on one side there's a real problem
>>coping with generalization and abstraction. FWIW, it's a genuine problem
>>with many (not all) programmers (I work with them every day), so it's not
>>surprising...
>
>
> What qualifies the exact and the precise as a problem? I'll bet those dead
> astronauts would have preferred "the exact and the precise".
>
>
>>Anyway, the mind (using the term loosely) that insists that
>>because "one" could be "some" then "some" is necessarily "one" is not a mind
>>one would expect to generalize art beyond simple and photographically based
>>representation.
>
>
> If it's so simple, why can't you do it?
>
>
>>You and FNP/S&M simply inhabit very different worlds -
>>theirs is boxed and ordered
>
>
> Do you know what a "world" is? I live on the same world as Bruce, Erik, and...
> yeeew. My lifestyle is anything but boxed an ordered. I see flying naked
> people for Christ's sake!! Bruce travels and samples cultures around the
> world!! What the hell are you talking about?
>
> You and others like you have a serious problem with reality so much that you
> make up shit - and actually believe this makes you intellectually superior.
> What a crock! Nothing more than a self-defense mechanism!
But you see, refering to a dictionary to determine the meaning of a word
is the opposite of "making-up shit." To claim that the dictionary has
no bearing is, in fact, "making-up shit." But I can't imagine your
feeling "intellectually superior" for doing it.
Erik
Flying_Naked_People
> But you see, refering to a dictionary to determine the meaning of a word
> is the opposite of "making-up shit." To claim that the dictionary has
> no bearing is, in fact, "making-up shit." But I can't imagine your
> feeling "intellectually superior" for doing it.
Actually, my darling, I was referring to you and Chris's efforts to re-write
Cezanne's life, with your "Well, I don't know..." and "Well he probably..."
or, "It's likely that he...".
Now, that's "some" made-up shit!
And about words in the dictionary? Meanings always change as astronauts fry in
space.
> Erik
>
Erik A. Mattila
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
>
>>Lauri Levanto wrote:
>>
>>>"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do you get it? I'm trying to dumb it down for you. "We think in words"
>>>> does not say "think = words." The village idiot would agree, why
>>>>don't you?
>>>>
>>>>Erik
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>We often think with words. Sometimes, however, I have problems
>>>to find out the right word. The thought thus preceeds the words.
>>>
>>>Thinking in words, makes the thoughts more clear.
>>>Arguing in semantics, muddles the pool until thoughts are no
>>>longer reckognisable.
>>>
>>>-lauri
>>
>>But how are you defining "thought," Lauri? If you mean all the spark
>>events of the ganglia that lie behind a thought event, I'd have to agree
>>with you. I'm more or less defining it as in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
>>- where "thought" would be the rationalization of the activity of the
>>brain. So I wouldn't say "words make thinking clear.: I would say
>>"words make thinking."
>
>
> the story you tell to yourself.
>
>
>>Is non-verbal thought possible? I think so, but
>>here's the rub. As Ernst Cassirer argued over his several volumns of
>>"The Philosophy of Symbolic Form," Art, music, mythology, math and so
>>on are all forms that operate like language - with rules and grammars,
>>intrinsic logic and truth values and inherent assumptions that may or
>>not be true in nature.
>>
>
>
> of communicating thoughts. No doubt communication needs encoding-decoding,
> that is vocabulary,grammar and syntax.
>
> If you doubt what I'm writing, with what words do you doubt?
No, I'm not doubting what you wrote - just about how you are defining
"thinking." I've found over the years that you are much better at
understanding "thought" than I am, or at least in expressing it.
Here's my position: and I get this mainly from the linguist Julia
Kresteva. At the moment that the child associates the sign with the
meaning, the ego comes into existence. Before that, all is one - there
is no differenciation between the world and the individual. In other
words, the "other" comes into being - all that that is "not me" in the
world.
Obviously there's a lot going on inside the child's head before this
event. I'm just restricting the concept of "thinking" to what happens
afterwards.
Let me ask you, for example, how would you describe the cognitive
process of the Zen Master in deep meditation? One of the ordeals, as I
understand it, is years of training on how to get past the words - how
to turn off "thinking" in favor of "being."
>
>
>
>>But I'm disappointed you didn't address the topic of my post, which is
>>that saying "we think in words" is not the same as saying that "think"
>>equals "words." "We sculpt in stone" is not saying that "sculpt" is the
>>same as "stone." That's not semantics. It's simple literacy.
>>
>>Erik
>>That's a point: Words are static, frozen into dictionaries. Thinking is a
>>process.
> Sculpt is not the same as stone. Even the result of sculpting, like the text
> resulting from
> thinking, emerges after most of the original has been succesfully chipped
> away.
Well, I agree. In the same way, "words" are not "thought." But as
stone is used in sculpting, words are used in thought. (that almost
sounds like something Lao Tsu would say.)
Erik
>
> -lauri
>
>
Lauri Levanto
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> Here's my position: and I get this mainly from the linguist Julia
> Kresteva. At the moment that the child associates the sign with the
> meaning, the ego comes into existence. Before that, all is one - there
> is no differenciation between the world and the individual. In other
> words, the "other" comes into being - all that that is "not me" in the
> world.
>
Kristeva is still pending on my reading list, I can't comment her.
There may be reasons to call everything signs.
Without knowing those reasons, I suppose a child must reckognise
"the other" before assigning a sign for it.
Maybe that's only a chicken and egg problem.
> Let me ask you, for example, how would you describe the cognitive
> process of the Zen Master in deep meditation? One of the ordeals, as I
> understand it, is years of training on how to get past the words - how
> to turn off "thinking" in favor of "being."
My Zen guru, Robert Pirsig, speaks of immediate experience of values.
> >>That's a point: Words are static, frozen into dictionaries. Thinking is a
> >>process.
>
You experience her as lovely
Cognitive process then can start to pick apart that experience.
Her hair is blond and long, the eyes a vivid, etc.
If you go the other way round, construct her from words,
all you end up is a blow-up Barbara.
* * *
Sorry Erik,
you deserve a better answer, but I need some time to think about it.
-lauri
>
>
> Erik
>
Marc Sabatella
> I don't have a degree in mathematics, and I now that everything *is*
math.
So, you don't actually know much about math, but you feel qualified to
state what it is and isn't.
> Prove there was no reason for that comment.
Prove there was. It certianly appeared a nonsequitur.
Marc Sabatella
> No. He will get a single bill. Because that is what he "expected" and
that is
> what he called "good".
If he expected one dollar, that must have been the correct change. had
the correct change been something different, he would have expected a
different amount. Do you have a point?