[MD] Another parallel

[dan glover]

Hello everyone

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:00 PM, John Carl<ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>John:
> 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.

Dan:
Yes, which is why I offered the analogy in the first place. Pictures
are worth (x)words. So there is a value difference here, not a
fundamental difference as you claim.

John:
Furthermore, the verbal description is linear and
> interpretative whereas with the picture, it's all there in one quick
> gestaltish glance.

Dan:
It depends upon whether or not the context has been established. For
instance, you seemed to take exception to the Copleston annotations
that Robert Pirsig shared with Anthony McWatt. What you failed to take
into consideration is the context of the ongoing discussion between
them. It's the same with a picture. One quick gesaltish glance may
suffice if the context has been sufficiently developed. It took more
than a quick glance in order to "see" the picture in Steve Hagen's
book, at least for me. That's why it came to mind in reference to your
original question.

John:
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.

Dan:
I think this is too simplistic. Images require a cultural scaffolding
to build upon just as words.

John:
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.

Dan:
I think you're contradicting your previous assertion that pictures are
worth words, are you not? Still, you sir have me at a distinct
disadvantage when it comes to obscure theologians, I do admit.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>John:
> 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.

Dan:
There is a value difference the same as there is a value difference
between words and images, yes. No fundamental difference exists,
however. But it appears you've admitted as much already...

>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>John:
> 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.

Dan:
I know nothing of modern philosophy. I'm not a philosopher; I'm a
story teller. Fundamental reality is beyond any sort of reason and it
would be presumptuous of me to believe I know anything at all with
certainty. So I tell stories, instead. All my stories contain a seed
of truth yet that truth is elusive even to me. It shifts and shimmers
even as I look upon it in the full light of day. I console myself that
I am not alone in the depths of despair, yet I am...

Respectfully,

Dan