There IS a real world of material objects. It is detected by metaphor. WC --- On Mon, 1/26/09, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > Subject: From all appearances > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, January 26, 2009, 3:28 PM > This is when we need old Cheerskep back -- to remind us > that there > *is* no substance to be dichotomized with how things appear > -- and that events > "in the real world" only unfold as they appear to > do so. > > He always gets chastised for beating this dead horse -- but > that immortal > horse just refuses to die. > > BTW -- where has he gone ? When older listers go quiet -- > I always fear the > worst. > > > > > > > ************** > I am intrigued with the dichotomy of appearances--the > dichotomy of what is > perceived and what is the substance. > > We are reminded that the words are not the ideas, and the > ideas themselves do > not exist outside our transient, in-the-moment interpreting > of sensory data. > We are reminded that the war horse or nude is a bunch of > paint daubs on > canvas. That the actor is not the role. (Our modern word > "persona" is derived > from the Etruscan word for "mask.") > > The most intriguing inversion of this dichotomy is: > > > We recognize the other person by his or her appearance, > posture and gait, > sound of the voice and intonation and gestures--that is, > but many outward > aspects. And we infer the inner person by what the person > says and does, what > he or she has said and done in the past, by tell- tale > cultural cliues, like > winks and nods, frowns, smiles, animated movements. By all > of these signs, we > develop a paradigm that we believe "describes" > the other person's "inner > self." All of this from outside the person. > > But the one person we do know intimately, whose motivations > we understand, > whose reactions and associative thinking and likes and > dislikes we know as > intimately as the "Biblical" meaning of that word > conveys ... is the same > person whose appearances we know least well. Namely, > ourselves. > > Typically, one is surprised by how he appears in a > photograph or film and by > how he sounds on tape. And, perhaps, he thinks less of > himself because of the > sound of his voice or his shape or movements ... without > realizing that that > is exactly *how his friends know him*. In other words, he > might misinterpret > his own appearances, thinking that he is less attractive > because of these > qualities, even though he knows himself better than anyone > else. > > Furthermore, individuals who can control their appearances > the best are those > skilled in the various arts of public appearance--dancers, > actors, models, > speakers, and the like. They have learned how to control > the variables of > their appearance, the sound of the voice, posture, walk, > hand gestures, > clothing, choice of words, hair style and skin surface. > They have mastered, in > other words, the ability to manipulate superficial > qualities in order to > enhance or express what can pass for essential qualities. > > Isn't this like art: the artist creates some kind of > manifestation by > manipulating discrete independent aspects of a > presentation, so that some form > of "whole" is produced that conveys a certain > impression, whereas events "in > the real world" unfold as they do without this kind of > pretense? (Now, the > event may be a play or painting, which itself does involve > a pretense of some > kind, but our experience of it "in the real > world" typically does not: we go > to the theater or gallery and see it, we don't pretend > to see it.) > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click here to find the low cost way to send and receive > faxes by email! > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc1UbKuP0lcRDJuBHdWOcXzl7x > GhmnEg46NgYYZ6zor9slAjy/
