Expression

frank

Magritte said that a painting of a weeping face does not express grief. To believe so, he thought, would be as naive as believing that a cake expresses what the baker was thinking when she created it.

So art is not a window into the soul of the artist, though it may create the occasion for the viewer to become aware of her own soul, though said soul may itself be a creation of the work of art in the same way ripples in a pond are creations of the dropping pebble.

I'll posit that what Magritte said wouldn't make any sense if we didn't understand what it means for a person to express his or her thoughts. But how does that work?

Here's a scheme: with some degree of intention, a Bob speaks or writes in order to express his thoughts. Jim recognizes Bob's frame of reference and looks through Bob's eyes, so to speak. Jim aligns his own frame of reference with Bob's and then just applies some conventions. In the process, he gathers some idea of what Bob's is trying to express. He can check with Bob to make sure his interpretation is correct.

I've noticed from time to time that some posters on this forum misunderstand that the contemporary meaning of "proposition" is not Bob's speech. It's that thing that Jim grasped after aligning himself with Bob's frame of reference.

What's the propositionless version of Bob and Jim's story? Is it similar to what Magritte was saying?

Thoughts @Terrapin Station ?

frank

IOW, understanding the expression of another requires some spontaneous anthropology.

Brett

I've noticed from time to time that some posters on this forum misunderstand that the contemporary meaning of "proposition" is not Bob's speech. It's that thing that Jim grasped after aligning himself with Bob's frame of reference. — frank

This seems to me to be similar to the idea that a painting isn’t complete and have meaning until it has an observer: the painting being Bob and the observer being Jim.

Brett

I'll posit that what Magritte said wouldn't make any sense if we didn't understand what it means for a person to express his or her thoughts. But how does that work? — frank

I have to rewrite this as “Magritte statement makes sense because we understand what it means for a person to express his thoughts.”

This is the contemporary meaning of ‘proposition’.

You’re asking for the ‘propositionless’ version of this. Is that correct? does the ‘propositionless’ version mean its not necessary to understand what it means for a person to express his thoughts to believe the painting expresses grief?

frank

You’re asking for the ‘propositionless’ version of this. Is that correct — Brett

Propositionless communication is what I was thinking of.

Brett

↪frank

Which is that, as an example, a painting of a weeping women does express grief. That the ‘proposition’ is not necessary?

frank

Which is that, as an example, a painting of a weeping women does express grief. That the ‘proposition’ is not necessary? — Brett

Imagine that you know Magritte, and you have reason to believe he's trying to tell you something using paint as his vehicle of communication. How would you go about interpreting the painting? What would be necessary for interpretation?

Brett

A young child looking at a painting of a women grieving might easily assume the woman could be laughing.

Deleted User

Propositionless communication is what I was thinking of. — frank

I suppose some looks from my wife are propositionless but they convey meaning. I now know something I did not before the look. Because the look is not referring to something, but is part of that something. Let's say her anger at what her mother just said. (this may be missing the whole point of the thread, but hey...)

Deleted User

I've noticed from time to time that some posters on this forum misunderstand that the contemporary meaning of "proposition" is not Bob's speech. It's that thing that Jim grasped after aligning himself with Bob's frame of reference. — frank

Language elicits experiences. At least that's one way of looking at language. I think in a way you are in the areas of Reddy's conduit metaphor for language, which goes into hidden folk theories of language where it is a conduit, a container for knowledge rather than something that can, but does not necessarily, elicit certain thoughts in the other person.

https://msu.edu/~orourk51/800-Phil/Handouts/Readings/Linguistics/Reddy-TheConduitMetaphor-1979.pdf

frank

I suppose some looks from my wife are propositionless — Coben

Sure. Exclamations, commands, etc. are propositionless. To have completely propositionless communication, we need to get rid of truth-apt statements.

One solution is behaviorism.

Language elicits experiences. At least that's one way of looking at language. I think in a way you are in the areas of Reddy's conduit metaphor for language, which goes into hidden folk theories of language where it is a conduit, a container for knowledge rather than something that can, but does not necessarily, elicit certain thoughts in the other person. — Coben

I hadn't heard of that. A proposition is an abstract object, though. It has no location.

Terrapin Station

Magritte said that a painting of a weeping face does not express grief. — frank

Isn't the idea here that art, perhaps to count as art in the first place, amounts to not taking things in their literal, everyday, mundane senses?

tim wood

What's the propositionless version of Bob and Jim's story? Is it similar to what Magritte was saying? — frank

IOW, understanding the expression of another requires some spontaneous anthropology. — frank

Sounds like empathy. Anthropology is a big word; would you accept "feeling" as a substitute?

Bob speaks or writes in order to express his thoughts. — frank

"Thoughts" is problematic - for me.

frank

Sounds like empathy. Anthropology is a big word; would you accept "feeling" as a substitute? — tim wood

We're intellectual, emotional, and bodily. Feeling is important, but can't cover all.

Thoughts" is problematic - for me. — tim wood

Why?

frank

Isn't the idea here that art, perhaps to count as art in the first place, amounts to not taking things in their literal, everyday, mundane senses? — Terrapin Station

Magritte rejected art as communication. Since art has long been a form of communication, his view is a model of behaviorism, which rejects communication as communication.

Deleteduserrc

Sometimes, too, art is just about the act of creation itself, and its effects on the audience/viewer are of secondary concern. Think of playing with toys and inventing worlds as a kid, even though no one was recording. Or also think of being a kid and finding another kid who had a way of doing make believe that totally sucked you in.

But then I feel art probably doesn't have an essence, so there's also a message-conveying way of looking at it and also a behavior-eliciting way and also a perception-inducing way and a patronage-securing way and a self-marketing way and a smuggling-reflexivity-into-the-gallery way and a virtuosic way and a self-differnentiating-to-secure-identity way etc.

tim wood

We're intellectual, emotional, and bodily. Feeling is important, but can't cover all.

Thoughts" is problematic - for me.
— tim wood — frank

Above, Bob

speaks or writes in order to express his thoughts. — frank

I'm taking thinking as being propositional. If that's all it is, then I don't suppose there is any propositionless version. I do buy propositionless emotional and bodily experience. Thus so far. Is there more you want to develop out of this?

Number2018

↪frank

Magritte said that a painting of a weeping face does not express grief. To believe so, he thought, would be as naive as believing that a cake expresses what the baker was thinking when she created it. — frank

We should not understand his words literally.
Magritte’s entire project was about the deconstruction of the ordinary, conventional perceptions and the building of a new frame of reference, where visible, ostensible, and sayable would function differently.

Deleted User

I hadn't heard of that. A proposition is an abstract object, though. It has no location. — frank

the conduit metaphor is a folkmetaphor for language, so it's not literal.

Things like 'I put my ideas in words and sent off the letter. He read the letter but he didn't get my ideas from it.'

https://msu.edu/~orourk51/800-Phil/Handouts/Readings/Linguistics/Reddy-TheConduitMetaphor-1979.pdf

Reddy's point is that this metaphor is problematic and other metaphors for language might be better. Not so we speak/write more accurately, but because the way we think metaphorically about language makes us less useful and knowledgable, when using it. That we are actually confused about what language does and is.

frank

Sometimes, too, art is just about the act of creation itself, and its effects on the audience/viewer are of secondary concern. Think of playing with toys and inventing worlds as a kid, even though no one was recording. Or also think of being a kid and finding another kid who had a way of doing make believe that totally sucked you in.

But then I feel art probably doesn't have an essence, so there's also a message-conveying way of looking at it and also a behavior-eliciting way and also a perception-inducing way and a patronage-securing way and a self-marketing way and a smuggling-reflexivity-into-the-gallery way and a virtuosic way and a self-differnentiating-to-secure-identity way etc. — csalisbury

More on smuggling reflexivity into the gallery?

frank

I'm taking thinking as being propositional. — tim wood

Is it? Do you mean thinking is a sequence of propositions?

frank

We should not understand his words literally.
Magritte’s entire project was about the deconstruction of the ordinary, conventional perceptions and the building of a new frame of reference, where visible, ostensible, and sayable would function differently. — Number2018

You may be right, but he said he painted because life seemed to require that he do something. Maybe he was joking.

frank

the conduit metaphor is a folkmetaphor for language, so it's not literal. — Coben

Ok, but I spoke of aligning frames of reference as a model, not sending something down a tunnel.

tim wood

I'm taking thinking as being propositional.
— tim wood
Is it? Do you mean thinking is a sequence of propositions? — frank

Imo there are emotional experiences and bodily experiences. Imo these are different from intellectual experiences, that I here call thinking. Off hand I cannot think of any thinking I can do that is not propositional - maybe some guidance?

So, to have a propositionless propositional experience seems contradictory.

Deleteduserrc

More on smuggling reflexivity into the gallery? — frank

Like Duchamp's fountain and all the stuff the came after, esp conceptual art. Art that's less about the artwork itself than how it makes you think about art. (imo this whole trend has metastasized now, but at the time I'm sure it was fresh)

Banno

Magritte said that a painting of a weeping face does not express grief. — frank

Words.

To express is to press it out. SO Magritte may be right.

Perhaps the face shows grief.

frank

Words.

To express is to press it out. SO Magritte may be right.

Perhaps the face shows grief. — Banno

To show means to make known. Is that the meaning you were thinking of? Or what?

frank

↪Banno

A steeple points to the sky, but isn't showing anything.

More than pointing goes into showing. We first assess the pointer for her frame of reference.

Banno

@frank, when you look at the face what do you see, without having to press it out?

frank

when you look at the face what do you see, without having to press it out? — Banno

I don't understand.

Banno

↪frank

Here before you is a person in pain. Do you deduce that they are in pain by some form of induction from their behaviour? Or do you see that they are in pain? Is their pain expressed, or is it shown?

Expression

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions