[MD] Another parallel

[John Carl]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi John
>
> It appears to me that words are images too. They convey a symbolic reality
> steeped in imagery.



Think about the vast difference in processing between seeing a picture of
Richard M. Nixon sitting at his desk and reading the words "Richard M.
Nixon, sitting at his desk."  They say the picture is worth a thousand words
and it might even be more efficient than that, depending upon how much
detail I want to go into.  Furthermore, the verbal description is linear and
interpretative whereas with the picture, it's all there in one quick
gestaltish glance.  And that illustrates the full significance of the
image-oriented reality vs. the word-oriented truth.  Words require
interpretation and common understanding whereas images just simply are.  We
process the two completely differently, according to Jacques Ellul who
provided me with this understanding, and my own reflection of course, in
which I concur with the truth of his assertion.






> Recall if you will not long ago when we told each other stories about
> reading aloud: the subtle inflections to realize emotion-laden expressions,
> the character-acting, the pregnant pause... all these lend a realism to a
> book that reading to oneself doesn't always allow. I fail to see any clearly
> defined demarcation between images and words. They're bound up together too
> tightly to tease apart in any such way.
>


Well I agree that there is a difference between the written word and the
spoken.  But it is not a fundamental difference in the same way that images
and words are fundamentally different.

>
> John:
>  What if I claim rather for myself that reason is my dynamic
> > intellectual defense mechanism that I use to understand my central
> reality?
>
> Dan:
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying you define the
> undefinable? If so, then I agree.



I guess I was turning the quote around to show the helpful, positive aspect
of reason as something to pursue rather than reject.  But I do agree that
there is a time to reject reason also.  When reason itself becomes a trap
(like in dealing with an unreasonable, value-free metaphysic from within the
metaphysic) then we have to find a context outside of reason to do so.
 This, I believe, was Pirsig's great contribution to modern philosophy.  But
once the beast has been tamed, there is no reason not to ride the thing.

Fundamentally,

John