[MD] Another parallel

[John Carl]

> 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.



Well I disagree with "require".  Even animals will watch tv.
 Cats will stare at a movie of birds flitting; cats will not be
fascinated with a book of words about birds.  Sure, some images may
contain objects with which a person from a certain, specific culture
would not be familiar, but words DO require a common language and
interpretation whereas simple images from nature are universally
recognizable.

>
>
> 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.


Hopefully I cleared the values ambiguity up with my assertion that "worth"
in this sense is only a kind of efficiency which is of a fundamental
qualitative difference.

And I wasn't quoting Ellul as an authority, just giving credit to the roots
of my own intellection on the subject.



> 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...
>


Appearances can be deceiving!  (which is a BIG point to be made in the way
we rely on images for information)

John]


>  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.


And a darn good one too, imho.  And I overspoke on "modern philosophy".  I
should have said "From MY experience of modern philosophy, Pirsig's
 contribution to MY philosophic understanding is the greatest. "


All philosophy IS a  story, although maybe not all stories are
philosopophical.




> Fundamental reality is beyond any sort of reason and it
> would be presumptuous of me to believe I know anything at all with
> certainty.



Well, assertions like this always get me going.  How do you know fundamental
reality is beyond ANY sort of reason?  What evidence from experience
supports this postulate?

You obviously can't state *that* assertion with certainty, unless you want
to be accused of presumption.  Which I think I just did ;)




> 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...
>


Images isolate.  Words bond.


Affectionately,

John




>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>