Craig, An image doesn't "mean" anything. If there is any interpretation, it has to be creatively provided by a viewer but such an interpretation is certainly not required. An image simply is.
Cats don't need any interpretation of bird videos. John On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:52 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > [John] > > the verbal description is linear and > > interpretative whereas with the picture, it's all there in one quick > > gestaltish glance. > > This is the view that the later Wittgenstein argued against. > True, interpreting 'bicycle' requires knowing a language. > But a picture of a red bicycle needs interpreting too. > Does it mean a generic bicycle, your bicycle, a metal object, > > a red object, an object with two wheels, something manufactured, > > etc.? > Craig > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
