Surely if you do that, it is no longer a "picture" in the same sense? On 05/08/10 21:43, walto wrote: > > > On page 69-70 of her book Anscombe writes, > > It is clear that [in negation] one must convey /what/ situation one is > saying does not exist, and this will be conveyed precisely by the > picture depicting that situation. No other /picture/ could be involved: > you could not for example make a /picture/ of the situation's /not > /existing. We must be careful not to confuse what is not the case with > what is the case instead of it; if you tried to make a picture of a > situation's /not/ existing you would only make a picture of what did > exist instead of it. The only exception to this is when we have the > convention that not shewing something shews that the thing does not > exist: as when a map shews that no large river passes through Birmingham > by /not/ shewing a river passing through Birmingham. > > Today at least one convention for a pictorial "not" is very commonplace: > a circle with a diagonal line through it placed over the original > picture. Of course, this may be (and often is) taken to mean "Do not > ____", but there's nothing sacrosanct about this indicator being used as > a command rather than descriptively. > > It seems to me that both W and Anscombe go through a lot of convolutions > to avoid relying on anything like Frege's assertion sign. Pictures are > different from props in that they depict only--and don't also say that > what is depicted is the case the way asserting a prop does. But it > doesn't seem problematic to have a convention according to which adding > a mark to any picture would mean that it is intended to be > "non-fiction." I get the sense that W may here be overly fond of > avoiding reliance on "saying" in favor of some sort of intrinsic > property/element that can "show" what would otherwise have to be said. > > Walto