[MD] Another parallel

[John Carl]

Craig,
An image doesn't "mean" anything.  If there is any interpretation, it has to
be creatively provided by a viewer but such an interpretation is certainly
not required.    An image simply is.

Cats don't need any interpretation of bird videos.

John


On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:52 PM, <craigerb at comcast.net> wrote:

>
>
> [John]
> > the verbal description is linear and
> > interpretative whereas with the picture, it's all there in one quick
> > gestaltish glance.
>
> This is the view that the later Wittgenstein argued against.
> True, interpreting 'bicycle' requires knowing a language.
> But a picture of a red bicycle needs interpreting too.
> Does it mean a generic bicycle, your bicycle, a metal object,
>
> a red object, an object with two wheels, something manufactured,
>
> etc.?
> Craig
> 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/