[Wittrs] Re: [C] of comic book conventions and philosophy of the mind
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:32:41 -0700
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 6:30 PM, John Phillip DeMouy <jpdemouy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
<< >>
> But here's why I am replying to this...
>>
>> Having a picture of Wittgenstein in a comic book (or illustrated
>> narrative), staring at a duckrabbit, and then having a thought
>> balloon showing "a rabbit" or "a duck" (i.e. which aspect he's
>> currently focused on), would be a clever way to capture
>> "aspect seeing" in this way Sean was yakking about.
>
> I can't say whether it captures Sean's picture of all this but it most
> certainly would not capture Wittgenstein's! It would in fact completely
> miss the point!
>
> A significant part of the issue with aspect seeing is Wittgenstein's
> attack on a certain picture we have of "internal representations" and in
> particular some confusions in Kohler's work.
>
I would doubt that it's necessary to read Kohler to appreciate
PI Part 2. I start with aphoristic writers in prep, and those that
number their passages. Nietzsche's Will to Power (aphoristic),
Love's Body by Norman O. Brown, some Synergetics (numbered),
some Tractatus. Then some really twisted works of fiction, to
get the imagination going.
In the lingua franca of comic books, an existing language game,
we would not consult Wittgenstein on how to use his head, as
our only goal is to get across the idea that "from the same picture,
these others might be gleaned by a viewer, if able to 'see' in that
way".
Yes, that doesn't nail it down completely, which is why there's
plenty of room for this drawing: of a Wittgenstein head staring
at a duckrabbit, actually two Wittgenstein heads (which is already
kinda weird, but doable in comix), each with a different picture
inside: a duck... or a rabbit (maybe same head, but the idea
is "flipping back and forth" over time).
Now a Wittgensteinian might go: you have no business showing
a "picture of a thought" inside someone's head ("duck in head
of W") as that merely reinforces the common prejudice that
thoughts are cloudly blob like things that live in brains like the
twin sisters of MRIs (we'll be able to discern the latter through
the former pretty soon, and finally be able to "read thoughts" --
might as well believe in voodoo while you're at it).
To which I'd say, "yeah, yeah I know, but we're talking 'comic
books' here and the sin of representing thoughts as some
kind of 'thing', namely cloud-looking objects called 'thought
balloons' has already been committed and we're not about
to 'take it back' and redo all the conventions."
In other words, "guilty as charged" but you can see where some
student not familiar with gestalt psychology or aspect shifts might
be aided by such a diagram, perhaps affixed to an exhibit case in
some museum featuring visual "doubled meanings" of this kind.
Anyway the duckrabbit is too easy. I'd go with that
"old woman / young woman" instead, as simply deeper, more
to think about. On the other hand, I've already launched
'Operation Duckrabbit' so who am I to be calling the kettle
black?
Great W quotes you come up with. That one about having no
MRI corresponding to my remembering something or whatever
plot line development (a paraphrase), is rather apropos (Zettel
610 was it?).
Those Anglos sure like to think they've debunked their own
superstitions, but then they go right on believing them, just
with different mental pictures swapped in (thought's more
like X-rays or cartoons, less like miniature talking heads).
Kirby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqnwbjCf0OA
(some demented philosophy for W's brain children)
Other related posts:
