[MD] Another parallel

[craigerb at comcast.net]

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

[ Ian] 
> The picture symbolically will enable recall of xxxx thousand 

> words-worth of conceptual thought, not because those words jump out at 
> you or can be inferred with or without any interpretation from the 
> image, but because the story / message has already been communicated 
> and understood - and hence associated with the image(s) thereafter. 


I hold out a leaf to you. 
1) You can just experience its shape, smell, texture, etc. 
2) You can identify it in some way (in part dependent on the knowledge you have)—e.g., as a leaf, a part of a plant, a green object. 
Now I show you a picture or photo of it. 
3)   You can identify "what's in the picture" [presumedly using the same knowledge as in 2)]. 
Next I say, “Get me…[showing the picture]!” 



4) You can interpret what is wanted in many ways: as the original leaf, as a similar leaf, as any leaf, as part of a plant, as a green object, as this very picture, as any picture, and so on. 
     So the questions are:   i) Is the identification in 2) & 3), the same kind of process as the interpretation in 4) & ii) is the interpretation in 4) the same kind of process as understanding a language?           

Craig