I see a problem with this sort of thing, because the same word in different contexts has different meanings. So when you remove phrases from their contexts and say look, here's a contradiction, when it's really not a contradiction at all, because of the difference in context, that's being disrespectful to the author. — Metaphysician Undercover
So any time that you remove a part of a narrative from its context, you cannot assign any meaning to that piece, because all its meaning is derived from its position in the narrative. — Metaphysician Undercover
then all of a sudden the person will start to do things right outside of one's character, seeming to undergo a significant change in character. From my perspective, I would say the person would never do something like that, the act is out of character for that person, so I see it as unrealistic, and I'm pissed off that they tricked me into thinking that the person was otherwise. — Metaphysician Undercover
And with good editing they can even do this with "reality" shows. They show numerous, very particular types of actions, by the person, to make you think you understand the person's character. But they've actually created a false representation with crafty editing. — Metaphysician Undercover
There are many ways to be correct because correctness is determined in relation to the end, if the end is achieved. — Metaphysician Undercover
I know it's confusing, but I thought I explained it well enough to dispel the confusion. When I'm reading I don't see them as words. But when I reflect on what is written, or talk about it in any way, not reading it, I see them as words. I only see them as words when I'm not reading it. When I'm reading it, I'm not thinking 'that's a word, that's a word, that's a word' etc., because I am too busy reading. And reading does not consist of seeing things as words, it's a matter of deriving meaning, not a matter of judging things as words. I cannot do both at the same time, read the material, and also count the words. — Metaphysician Undercover
Unless there is some attempt to try and understand what the artist is doing, how can you call this a type of "help"? Take a politician's speech for example, you'd say, look at the cool patterns in the way this guy uses "make America great again", in relation to some other phrases used by that politician, but how is that supposed to be helpful? — Metaphysician Undercover
Isn't this something completely different though, something called logic? — Metaphysician Undercover
How does it help in interpreting political and pseudoscientific talk? — Raymond
When I'm reading, I don't see the things I am reading as words. So I do not see "physics" as a word, when I come across that word in a piece of writing. I talk about it now as a word, but when I'm reading I see each particular word as the word it is, and read it as that particular word — Metaphysician Undercover
This is the difference between your conception of "medium" and mine. The motif, you see as part of the medium, a physical manifestation, I see it as something created by the artist. — Metaphysician Undercover
The medium used by the musician is sound, and there is distinct aspects of that medium, rhythm and pitch for example. Notice that aural narrative, referring to the act of telling a story with words, uses the same fundamental medium, sound, but it doesn't have refined (or defined) rhythm and pitch. Because different forms of artistic expression might use the same fundamental medium, and also one form of artistic expression might be presented through a number of different media, I think it's best to maintain a distinction between "medium" and "art form". — Metaphysician Undercover
But motifs are not medium specific. There are visual motifs as much as there are sound motifs. — Metaphysician Undercover
It appears like you want to talk about particular motifs as if they a part of the medium — Metaphysician Undercover
But don't you think that being "guided" takes away from the experience? — Metaphysician Undercover
Is comparing narratives acceptable and useful in reconstructionism? — Metaphysician Undercover
So the gap between passive and active is only really closed in the experience itself, where the presence of the unknown causes a real need for an active sort of affection. — Metaphysician Undercover
But if you cut it loose from being a conveyor of meaning, then what use is there in art at all? — Raymond
I'm trying to gasp exactly what you mean by "medium-specific narrative" — Metaphysician Undercover
Is comparing narratives acceptable and useful in reconstructionism? — Metaphysician Undercover
I really do not think that this gap can be closed in this way. I think it is a gap fundamental to the way that the human mind works, and we ought not even try to close it. — Metaphysician Undercover
The artist did something completely contrary to intuition, something seemingly impossible, suddenly transcending the story. — Metaphysician Undercover
but was this meant by the writer of the word PHYSICS? — Raymond
The notion of freedom is looked at from the oppressed. Freedom is only meaningful if there is something to be freed of. If there is freedom for every one, like the figure on the rope, freedom is not something to desire for anymore. That's why the painting is called "A look at freedom". — Raymond
Then you can look at a painting as a painting too, if you look at a word as a word. But what does it mean? Is every painting devoid of meaning? — Raymond
How can the objective view on the painting reveal that what it's trying to convey? I can give you an objective description of the letters in the word "PHYSICS", first letter, a small vertical with a semi-circle attached right above, second one two parallel verticals with a small horizontal in the middle, etc. but what does the word mean? And even the objective description needs an agreement about what's an objective feature. — Raymond
Is the notion of freedom an objective feature of the painting? — Raymond
Well, if peas are supposed to be good for me, I might want to develop a taste for peas, therefore follow the technique. But how is something like metal music good for me, so why would I want to develop the taste if I didn't already have it? — Metaphysician Undercover
And if I already had the taste for it, that taste would be based in something personal, so how would the reconstruction do anything but subtract from my enjoyment of it, through distraction? — Metaphysician Undercover
I wouldn't agree with your interpretation of metal music. Drums are essential to all rock music, setting the intricacies of the rhythm. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why concentrate on the guitar, when it all sounds the same from one piece to the next? — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem I find is that in many cases the whole narrative might be arbitrary, imaginary, fictional, simply made up. Like in my analogy of a photograph, or still painting, there is absolutely no objective narrative in that medium, because there is no temporal extension, regardless of whether it's a snap shot of an action scene, as a narrative requires temporal extension. So whatever narrative which one comes up with, it would be imaginary, fictional or made up. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is why I suggested that reconstructionism might be better suited to some forms of art than others. — Metaphysician Undercover
But then I don't understand the point, because to be true you'd just want to copy the original as close as possible, — Metaphysician Undercover
What type of art do you consider is more suited to reconstruction? One with temporal extension, and a real narrative, or one without temporal extension, therefore no inherent narrative? — Metaphysician Undercover
What's the real view? Is the creator of the work important? Is it important what they wanted to say? What if it's an image of gods or a mathematical expression? Or an image trying to convey the meaning of freedom or suffering? What if we look at the Quernica picture by Picasso? Should we take the war or his family into consideration, or just the painting "as it is"? — Raymond
What's the real view? Is the creator of the work important? Is it important what they wanted to say? What if it's an image of gods or a mathematical expression? Or an image trying to convey the meaning of freedom or suffering? What if we look at the Quernica picture by Picasso? Should we take the war or his family into consideration, or just the painting "as it is"? — Raymond
It would be like study notes where the author of the Notes just arbitrarily decided which parts of the work to focus on. — Metaphysician Undercover
The point was that the content isn't necessarily explicit. So if you take what appears to be explicit content, when the true content is implicit, then you have a false start. You are not really starting with the content at all. Are you familiar with Wittgenstein's rabbit-duck? Suppose you see an explicit duck, in a scenario like this, and you state "duck" as the content. Someone else might call the same content "rabbit". If you do not see it as both a duck and a rabbit, as that is what is intended by the author, and describe it as both, you have not correctly represented the content. So when the content is open to interpretation, i.e. there is nothing explicit, it is all implicit, how do you know that you are describing it correctly? Maybe your technique is only good for certain types of work? — Metaphysician Undercover
To me, this sems to contradict what you said, that the value of the reconstruction is as a helper. If you just pick and choose from the content, to decide how you want to represent it, how can this help anyone else? Any other person might just pick and choose in one's own way, so why would they want to be influenced by someone else, who might actually ruin one's own experience of the piece. It would be like study notes where the author of the Notes just arbitrarily decided which parts of the work to focus on. That would not be a help. — Metaphysician Undercover
* People tend to NOT listen making these kinds of observations, don't care about patterns and correlations, etc. They're distracted by other factors, including emotion, aesthetics, immediate sensations
* It's hard to apply the same discipline of observation over a whole song. The reconstruction, as a whole, helps to conceptualize a wide narrative resulting from correlating many observations distributed throughout the song. — thaumasnot
Somehow this discussion looks like a discussion I read on this forum.Look here.
There is spoken of a manifesto, like you speak about it. And in the same way, more or less, a conceptual reconstruction of science and its foundation is made. I don't say you have to read it, but the similarity is remarkable. — Raymond
Can you accept this division for me, between what is shown right there, explicit, in the content (the piece) and what is left to the imagination, or implied? And would you agree that the artist's mode of operation is often to stimulate the imagination, this being fundamental to the aesthetic experience? — Metaphysician Undercover
So if you propose to start with what is explicit, and build on that, how do you get beyond this problem of determining what is explicit? — Metaphysician Undercover
You think all people share the same instinctive narrative? — Raymond
A JP like mess is sufficient for pleasure...A sufficient, but not necessary condition. Two orthogonal lines do just as well. Unless you don't view a JP-like mess as sufficient for pleasure... — Raymond
How would that look like for the two lines? — Raymond
What are the objectives everyone sees? How do you tell someone who doesn't see the painting? Or should he see it during the narrative? Do you offer generally applicable instructions to conceptually reconstruct? I haven't read the whole theorem you offered yet, but is that the aim? A kind of objective theory of everything in the realm of products of art? With the aim to intensify pleasure? — Raymond
The medium specific narrative. The kind of paint used? What underground is used? Objective properties? — Raymond
-Two black lines, one vertically, Man, one antivertically, Woman.
-Woman and Man shake the boundaries. The house containing them ain't big enough for the both of them.
-Man and Woman push each other into the corner, mutually orthogonal.
-Convexity is absent. — Raymond
I\m trying to grasp what the point to this style of interpretation is. It's a complex system without any real value scheme. Doesn't that leave it worthless? See if you can answer this question for me. What is the overarching goal behind this reconstruction system? Is the goal to produce good quality interpretations, as reconstructions, or is the goal to produce a complex formal system of interpretation? — Metaphysician Undercover
Take a look at it this way for example. There is a relationship between any particular reconstruction and the original piece which is chosen. Is that a relationship of value? — Metaphysician Undercover
So I don't think you should represent this style of interpretation as any more objective than any other style. It is a different style, but there appears to be nothing in your principles which would make it objective. — Metaphysician Undercover
Works are reconstructed in objective, constructive terms — thaumasnot
What’s objective is the quoted content and the correlations. — thaumasnot
The painting is conceptually reconstructed — Raymond
Yes, I know what the words mean, but not in the context they are being used. I don't know their significance, why we should be paying attention to them. — T Clark
After that effort, I still don't understand the purpose or methods of your system. — T Clark
Is it worthy of an independent discussion? — Outlander
Maybe pm one of the mods? — john27
But who determines what parts of the piece are mosaic parts? — Raymond
The work that is conceptually reconstructed has to be looked at in an a priori defined manner. Somehow, your theory reminds me of the scientific approach to reality, where empiricism plays a role. — Raymond
I will try to come up with a narrative for a painting. The narrative, by definition, has to be spoken or written or spoken. Or can we give a visual narrative of music, and a sound narrative of a painting? — Raymond
What you mean by medium specific narrative? — Raymond
What pieces of sound are objective properties? — Raymond