[Wittrs] Re: comic book conventions and philosophy of the mind
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 19:52:47 -0700
On the other hand I think about the ethnicity of the artist, vaguely
Archie, a fifties flavor, newspaper look and feel. Could be New
Yorker. Short and witty.
Truly art. Could be duckrabbit.
I think the conundrum (of self in self) is ancient and why not project
to Indonesia, to those shadow puppets?
If those people in black make the shadow figures move (animation) then
what compels them (logical next question)?
Plato's questions get asked around many a late camp fire, and various
elders expound (might be geezers, might be geeks...).
Banal answers of who controls the puppeteers in terms of "it's a job"
or "they need to eat" is to miss the whole phenomenon of culture
(kulture?).
They may have ideological motivations. This may be a dream come true.
Philosophy that feels somewhat alien, but only somewhat... what does
that mean?
I'd let a Wittgensteinian show me probably, before I'd let just anyone.
Hey, I had a cigar with a bloke who really adores Popper and thinks
his influence was all for the best.
I felt only magnanimous. Sure, why would I wanna rain on that parade
of all parades?
Philosophers are too often trained by their imperial masters to serve
as scorpions in a jar, for the amusement of their masters.
What I like about Britney's defiance in this commercial, with help
from her friends.
http://mybizmo.blogspot.com/2008/05/defending-homeland.html
Yes, it's Pepsi. Reminds me of Food Not Bombs.
Kirby
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> what is happening here?
> [img] http://seanwilson.org/images/selfthink.png [/img]
>
> If there is one of her in the bubble, she is thinking about herself doing X,
> as she does X. Presumably, this is an existential moment. But with three of
> her, as she does X, she thinks about her thinking about doing it?
>
> God that actually hurts to think about. Let's say I type on a keyboard. As I
> type, I have an existential moment. I think about myself typing. (My eyes get
> in a gaze.) Can I really go further and think about my thinking about myself
> typing, as I type?
>
> I wonder if the better way to express what this idea may be is to simply have
> the person eyes bulging and weirded out as if she was lost in the greatest of
> trances, to show that the person is really not paying attention to X at all.
> This would sort of show the feeling of thought about thought. As it is now,
> she is perfectly composed in her face.
>
>
> What I want to say is: who has the bias here: the drawer of the comic or me?
> What would Wittgenstein think of this drawing if he were to see it?
>
> Also, perhaps the issue is much more simple. Maybe the drawing is meant to
> show merely that she is conscious of her actions, in which case the "thought
> bubble" fails remarkably as a device. Only the drawings of eye expressions
> and the like seem to do that.
>
> Why does this thought bubble drawing remind me of the same problem Moore has,
> as explained in On Certainty? That is, in each case the speaker (drawer) uses
> a device that trips over his or her own grammar.
>
> Regards and thanks.
>
> Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
> [spoiler] Assistant Professor
> Wright State University
> Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
> SSRN papers: http://tinyurl.com/3eatnrx
> Wittgenstein Discussion: http://seanwilson.org/wiki/doku.php?id=wittrs
> [/spoiler]
>
>
>
Other related posts:
