From: Alan Riddell (peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 09:19:25 PST
> "Alan Riddell" <peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk> writes: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Richard S. Holmes" <rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu> > > > A picture of a pipe is not a pipe. > > > > Yes it is, it is a picture-pipe. Could you put tobacco in it and smoke it? > > No. But it is clearly a pipe. > > No, that's not "clear" at all. Look up the word "pipe" in a > dictionary, and then explain how a few 2-dimensional daubs of pigment > applied to a piece of woven fabric stretched on a wooden frame (or > whatever) match the definition of a "pipe". If you showed me the picture (before this argument) and asked me what it was I would most likely say a pipe. Of course this is a confusion of language but so much of the language we use every day is confused. > This is what a lot of Magritte's work is about, you know: the > surrealistic consequences of breaking the distinction between "thing" > and "representation of thing". Thus the sentence "This is not a pipe" > appears to be manifestly false -- until you realize the word "this" > refers (or does it?) to the picture of the pipe and not the pipe > itself. And the painting itself is of course a picture of a picture > of a pipe. > > Magritte did several paintings on the "this is not a pipe" theme, and > I confess I haven't seen the posted picture to see which one it was. > Were the words in the depicted picture of the pipe? If so then we > have several levels of redirection here too: in a relentlessly literal > interpretation, the text is not a statement but a representation (in > letters arranged in words) of a statement, and so we have a picture of > a picture of a representation of a statement. How many levels of > redirection can we have before the statement loses its force? > > Another thing: Let's suppose you as Judge decide the rule contains an > assertion that "this is not a pipe", and that you further decide that > "this" refers to something which is indeed a pipe. Then the assertion > is false. That does not constitute an inconsistency with itself or > the other rules or the ROs. After all, fantasy rules contain false > assertions all the time. If the rule also contained an assertion that > "this" (the pipe) *is* a pipe, then it would be self-inconsistent. As > it is, it's consistent -- false, but consistent. Ok, not suppose I pointed a pipe and said "this is not a pipe" then I would be making a false assertion. My statement would not be incosistent with itself but rather inconsistent together with the state of certain aspects of world. On the other hand if a cartoonist was to draw me pointing at the pipe and saying "this is not a pipe", would the cartoon contain an inconsistency with itself? I would argue that it would. Here, we mentally displace the cartoon into a world that resembles our own in that world to a sufficient degree to carry our whatever operations are needed. We consider the picture of the pipe to be a pipe in this world and the picture of me to be a person etc. as such in this world the statement is inconsistent together with certain aspects of that cartoon world. The cartoon would be as inconsistent as a picture of a sign saying both A and not A are ture. There is still a question if the text in the give picture should be considered as being inside the picture world or not, but I think that is up to me as Judge to decide. Alan -- Rule Date: 2003-02-25 17:20:38 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST