What can literature do that visual arts can't?
literature has the power to create its own visual art in your head
>>8241114
literature accesses knowledge by primarily intellectual means whereas the visual arts access knowledge by primarily aesthetic means
Communicate ideas via language rather than images.
>>8241136
Surely you would agree that literature conjures images through language?
>>8241156
true that literature makes its impact partially by aesthetic means, but this is subordinate to its intellectual content. can you imagine a novel without any substance beyond the beauty of its prose?
>>8241164
Lolita.
Not rely on someone else's imagination.
>>8241126
It has the potential, not power.
>>8241215
you don't think that reading literature is reading the product of another's imagination?
>>8241164
Literally Ulysses
>>8241146
no. those are ideas
>>8241231
The film is the product of one reader's imagination.
A reader relies on their own imagination.
>>8241164
Literally poetry
>>8241246
Literally boring erotica.
I can insert my own imagination and settings and characters into something I read and interpret things going on inside the characters heads the way I want to. Also insert people I know or the way they look as I want them
>>8241278
I can also imagine the author's mind what they wanted to create and communicate to the reader as a concept, through the written form.
>>8241243
Please, most literature conjures images and generates ideas. You didn't develop a mental image of Gregor crawling around the ceiling in Metamorphosis or Queequeg diving over the side of the Pequod to rescue Tashtego from drowning in the head of a spermwhale?
>>8241245
Why can't a film viewer use their imagination in interpreting a film?
>>8241519
>Why can't someone use their imagination to interpret anything? etc., etc.
>>8241562
Yea so how is to what extent a medium allows you to use your imagination a meaningful difference?
>>8241641
>implying a linear measurement to imagination
literally say something
>>8241164
Scott Fitzgerald, Nabakov, etc
Please refer to >>8207436
literature is a process that can be applied to the visual arts
>>8241801
>>8241812
Abstract art can still be narrativised in the way we appreciate/interpret/critique it
If a rock can be "read" as a text a Pollock sure as hell can be, art exists in context and the way we frame that context constitutes a narrative
Calligraphy is a visual art so I guess nothing.
>>8241820
Tell me what the painting reads.
>>8241833
There is a wealth of criticism on Pollock, do you want me to find it for you?
The fact that we're discussing whether or not anything can be read into the painting is the creation of a narrative. Stating "there is no narrative to x" is kind of like saying "there are no absolutes." Once you establish that there's something to be said about it then it becomes textual and narrativised.
If I were to go about "reading" this painting I would start with colour and form, the value of randomness for Pollock's work, and it's place and importance within a grander art historical narrative.
>>8241847
Can't do it yourself, eh.
Come up with one sentence. Come on. You can do it.
>>8241851
>Can't do it yourself, eh.
not him but it's not anybody's fault but your own that you have fallen so far behind art history that you don't know the basic ideas floating around one of the most famous artists of the 20th century.
>>8241851
Abstraction up until Pollock had been more or less concerned with the exploration of forms, forms of shape and line that is, but as this painting of his demonstrates there is also an art to be found in formlessness; what are seemingly random splashes of paint are nonetheless intentionally made, the desired product meaning to evoke rather than exemplify randomness.
Fuck me for engaging with you.
>>8241862
We're talking about making literature, not questioning ideas.
You and he knows the concepts. Make one sentence.
You can't. Hence, no correlation to literature.
Two different mediums. Each cannot be substituted for the other one.
>>8241867
You made no literary work there.
I'm sorry that engaging with me proved your theory wrong.
I really wanted you to be proven right. I really did. I'm tired of shooting holes through anon's theories. It gets tiresome, old and quite sad really. I need someone with some mental balls to stand up for their ideas.
>>8241879
Analysis isn't literature.
>>8241882
What is literary work then, anon? Since I've clearly been BTFO'd without you engaging with my point about literature as-process. You claim to have destroyed my theory, but offered none in return.
While you're at it, also explain to me what is meant by phrases like "scientific literature"
>>8241886
Everyone knows what literature is. Don't demean yourself this way.
>>8241887
Ohohohohoho, why don't you just write one sentence on what literature is?
>>8241885
What is analysis?
>>8241889
If you were take what you read there, distill it down to your through your own ideas and elucidate it here, I might respect and engage with you more.
It's hard to respect somebody who follows authority. If you had said knowledge you should be more powerful here, right?
>>8241894I wrote the original thread
>>8241893
That was somewhat vague. More specifically, criticism.
>>8241895
>taking someone who uses spoilers incorrectly in a discussion on art seriously
>>8241894
And I mean, even if I weren't the OP of that thread, which I am, why are you going to such lengths to avoid answering my questions when I did my best to address your concerns? Seems mighty uncharitable of you.
Get inside another person's brain
>>8241901
Seeing as we're in full damage control here, I'm going to stop responding to you now
>>8241902
OP did not suggest a position on a yes/no to the question. However, we have proven the difference already. It is abundantly clear.
Once a question has been answered, why keep answering it? Take your newfound knowledge, apply it to your participation in the arts and maybe you will come back here with a new, more insightful take on the literary arts which would benefit us all.
>>8241907
Why? You've been so useful.
>>8241904
lmao I thought this was in reaction to the shitflinging but now I realize it's adumbresponse to OP
>>8241114
>What can literature do that visual arts can't?
It can keep your place, especially if you use a bookmark, if you fall asleep during it.
>>8241938
Kind of ruined your erection there, didn't it.
>>8241114
Literature is derivative of music and the visual arts. Theres far more information in a painting than a book, but that information is harder to sculpt w nuance. Literature is better/simpler for going into detail about almost anything, plus it has easier access to rhythm and melody, making its effects more visceral than that of painting (less of course than music)
>>8241961
Honestly how can there be more info in a painting
This thread reads like it is incompatible with literature. Delete.
>>8241968
You can pretend it's there.
Take a child's fingerpaint, for example. You can make up whatever you want about it. See?
>>8241961
rhythm is for poetry
melody is for hallmark cards
>>8241938
How is it dumb? Texts can quite easily depict the quirks and complexities of thought whereas visual mediums require much more work to present a version of even the simplest thought. What painting can come close to depicting what samuel beckett can depict in 100 pages?
>>8241974
But you can do the same thing with a book's printed letters. And theres more letters and they mean stuff. So a book's infinity is larger than a paintings infinity
>>8242121
You're right.
I didn't make my sarcasm quite blatant enough.
>>8242116
You're not considering cinema.
>>8242147
Oh woopsydaisies. My B
>>8242172
no problem *high five*
>>8242155
>cinema
Even if they are screening movies it's still called a theater.
>>8242178
There is new technology whereby movies can be viewed outside of a cinema.
>>8242155
I am actually. You still can't get the camera inside someone's head, and when it tries direct stream-of-conciousness it comes out as a hacky gimmick nine times out of ten. Small passing observations in a novel have to be telegraphed with a blimp in film.
>>8242219
Where does it go then?
>>8241334
can't make a painting out of the genealogy of morality or something like that innit
>>8242233
yes.
not necessarily "better" though, just "different" -- a different quality of form of mass communication of creative ideas
>>8241968
Literature includes information decided on the whim of the author
The visual arts, by necessity, have to include information that is extraneous/irrelevant to the whim of artist, simply because it part of the object. Thats what I'm referring by "more information" - literature is given freedom at the cost of truth
>>8241824
sage
>>8242280
This applies only to representational art obviously
>>8242259
I think you will find useful te read about category theory.
>>8242304
Thanks for explaining why.
>>8242305
I get that you're on edge but I'm not the anon that's trying to annoy you. I just think you could relate to it because you posit an hypothetical Genealogy of moral in painting form, that's all. I'm learning about it myself.
>>8242323
I meant Nietzsche's Genealogy of morals, obviously.
>>8241114
From the looks of this thread, it seems there's no good answer to your question -- go figure.
>>8242333
What are you even doing on 4chan?
>>8242339
There's a good answer, but you won't find it among sad NEETs and analytical phil autists.
>>8242343
Please dump it in this thread. Some anon, somewhere, will appreciate it.
>>8242340
Communicating with language, not posting grunts.
Thanks for admitting that you shitpost, though.
>>8242348
Presumptuous.
>>8241114
I believe pomo hermeneutics would regard any differences between text and art superficial and therefore without meaning. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Be explicit.
Literature moreso lets you directly in to how an author thinks--it allows the most direct access to their mind. So, it has that kind of intimacy.
Visual arts focus on what and how the author SEES. Photography, drawings, motion pictures, etc. Experiencing visual arts lets you see their visions through their eyes.
nothing. it took what literature had to offer and became its own beast
pleb painting by the way
>>8242372
Who is this pomo hermeneutics guy and where can I meet him?
>>8241133
This guy has a point though I'd phrase it differently. Basically you need to have language in order to understand literature
Visual arts have somewhat of a universal language.
Take for example this Rembrandt self portrait. Show it to anyone and they can understand that it is a man. There is of course deeper meanings, but the immediacy of visual imagery is what separates it from literature which takes language and time to comprehend.
>>8242372
*Which could account for the fluidity (no concrete, impassable definition) of the distinctions thus far illustrated.
>>8242403
You'd have to have eyeballs to understand the visual arts.
Pretty much every sense the body has can be used to transmit language.
So, I don't understand the "universal" point.
Also, some people don't get impressions from certain visual works at all.
I don't think the difference is found here.
>>8242403
and yet the aspects of a painting the average person doesn't think about like composition, color, technique, and so forth are analogous to the aspects of literature beyond pure storytelling like prose and theming. They both have obvious and less accessible elements each.
>>8242403
The REAL question is, which one is superior?
>>8242372
>the "everything is essentially the same" argument
laughable in its idiocy.
>>8242298
Fair enough, replace whim with disposition or prejudice then
As for
>>8241812
Like I said, abstract art is the exception. It's painting's attempt to become as free as music. As such the number of things you can say about it narrows down to the strictly interpretative
>>8242314
By information I mean concrete information too. Look at Vermeers painting of Delft, there are thousands of things with the potential to be talked about, things that would fill more than one novel, simply on the basis that they are part of picture (the buildings, the dryness of the sand, the pregnant women, the boatful of people leaving the quay, the breeze on the water, the blooming of the trees, the formal dress, the subdued light etc. Etc)
Perhaps it can be reduced to the mechanism of the eye itself - it's able to capture more information in less time than its possible to express verbally
>>8242345
Start with ut pictura poiesis then have fun going down the arid lit theory road all the way through modernism and the idea of artifice.
>>8241798
but fitzgeralds greatest work is strongly thematic
>>8242416
The reason for two different mediums to exist is ... say you have a concept. It will often be better facilitated using either visual media or writing.
The joys of endless competition is more /sp/ than /lit/.
I didn't feel like going through all of the posts, so some might have already said this. Literature can convey/carry vast quantities of data. They are also cheaper to make.
>>8242422
>coming back to a thread hours later
>expecting to pick up where you left off rather than catching up with the rest of the thread
I'm continually impressed.
>>8242424
It's amazing your incapacity to use language yet you suggest that you have authority on it.
>>8242437
>a drawing using a piece of charcoal on a sheet of paper is more expensive than publishing a book
>>8242438
Lol sorry
I had the impression my tangent wasnt really related to what the others were saying
>>8242455
>tl;dr
>>8241114
create a direct impression of an image the creator though of. literature is always "already interpreted" even as you read it; but you can "dumbly" look at a painting.
>>8242470
ha. this guy gets it.
>>8242442
I'm from /a/ and don't spoonfeed faggots. This knowledge has also costed me money, if you're not paying me in some way, you can fuck off and do the research yourself.
>>8242470
You're wrong, I have read the other responses and they're primarily arguing about a qualitative difference between lit and the visual arts
I'm arguing about the quantity of information available in both. Care to give a more thoughtful reply?
>>8242491
>I'm from /a/
You must be proud.
>>8242520
>let's count the number of pieces of information in a painting
Very interesting idea.
>>8242520
that collar is tight
>>8242539
It holds her head upright.
>>8242491
>has also costed me money
get a refund
>>8242533
Fuck you too buddy
>>8242412
>You'd have to have eyeballs to understand the visual arts.
>Pretty much every sense the body has can be used to transmit language.
>So, I don't understand the "universal" point.
Eyes are more universal than say English/Russian/French language necessary in order to understand a novel. Seeing comes naturally, while language takes education and time to develop.
>Also, some people don't get impressions from certain visual works at all.
Are you saying that if someone saw that Rembrandt they would not get the immediate impression that it is a man? Even if there are other interpretations, isn't the immediate one that this is an image of an old man?
>>8242548
Was that a piece of information in the painting? I think I see it in her eyes.
>>8242414
Yes and that furthers the argument of how the visual arts and literature differ.
>>8242564
>Eyes are more universal than say English/Russian/French language necessary in order to understand a novel
It's called translations, buddy.
>Seeing comes naturally, while language takes education and time to develop.
Multiple witnesses to a crime/accident, as many variations on what supposedly happened as there are witnesses. Classic fact. People can't be universally counted upon to see what is in front of them.
>Are you saying that if someone saw that Rembrandt they would not get the immediate impression that it is a man?
Yeah, and if an English-only speaker saw a book in Russian they would get the immediate impression if it was a novel. Stupid point to make.
What universal impression would one get from this?>>8241812
>>8242412
literature is written works not just language. you need eyes to read or ears to hear
>>8242643braile
Wow, a thread where people actually *somewhat* entertain ideas and discuss philosophy. Color me impressed, /lit/.
>>8242649
No problem!
>>8241114
How about audio?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0q3Ly6a6t0
>>8242591
>It's called translations, buddy.
Yet, you still need to be educated to understand whatever language it is translated to.
>Multiple witnesses to a crime/accident, as many variations on what supposedly happened as there are witnesses. Classic fact. People can't be universally counted upon to see what is in front of them.
You are using a real world situation in a 3D space with multiple points of view which I agree with in terms of interpretations. I am using a visual art form: painting which is 2D and seen from one point of view. Using the Rembrandt again as an example, people will see it as a painting of a man at the least. Again, other interpretations can occur.
>>Are you saying that if someone saw that Rembrandt they would not get the immediate impression that it is a man?
>Yeah, and if an English-only speaker saw a book in Russian they would get the immediate impression if it was a novel. Stupid point to make.
You are now talking about immediate PHYSICAL experience of objects. Your example can be used for painting as well: it is immediately understood as oil on canvas. My point is that after experiencing the physical object as oil on canvas, it is easier to access that this is a painting of a man. This is in opposition to the novel which takes time in other to get the "experience."
>What universal impression would one get from this?>>8241812
I used representational art for a reason. Abstract art, or are least the good ones actually need education to be understood. For example, in the same way a Pollock cannot be understood without being educated in a specific field, the same can be said for James Joyce.
>>8242648
that's a made up language by SJW cucks for the sake of muh equality
>>8242661
Thanks for making your examples more specialized which, in turn, makes your overall point less general, thereby less universally truthful. In other words, you're getting off the main topic by ignoring the other, more important elements.
>>8242661
>Abstract art, or are least the good ones actually need education to be understood.
it's funny that art about the materiality and presence of the work itself needs the theory to be explained in order to separate it from literary figurative works
>>8242694
Same thing with learning a language, to be honest.
>>8242677
I'll reiterate my original idea:
Language, which is necessary to understand literature, requires a understanding of vocabulary and grammar. These do not come naturally and are learned. While it is not too difficult to learn, it definitely requires more effort than simply seeing and registering an image.
Does this not make visual art (painting) more universally accessible than literature?
A 10 year old from Africa, China, Canada, and Mexico will see that this is a painting clouds and that it is day time.
Which is more accessable, this image or a book like Harry Potter?
>>8242731
depends if/what you're saying beyond first impressions wrt to the picture, though
if you see "harry potter" as just letters, they're equally accessible. if you say you're supposed to interpret writing on a higher ontological register, what's to say you're not supposed to interpret pictures the same way?
>>8242694
Yes, I think you are referring to the concept of the piece. What also needs to be understood is how the technique or form supports the concept, which is the same with literature.
>>8242731
It's an uninteresting point to make.
It's not about a "competition" between two significant mediums for art.
You might want to make your own thread. Seriously. Some people might discuss your subject and you'd build it to even more substance than it has going here.
This thread is determining the differences in how literature and visual impact us.
To make it into a high school debate, with your note cards at the podium, yellow button down shirt, brown tie, neatly parted hair with the hopes of achieving whatever it is you're doing is kind of nerdy.
This is a discussion, not a debate. Differentiate.
>>8242750
That's the boring part. The interesting point is the idea the artist intended. They were moved to express something and finding out what that is is the interesting part.
It's the difference between studying the code of a video game and actually playing it.
>>8242745
You make a good point. Letters are symbols which are visual shapes we learn to understand what they represent. However, so are shapes or clouds and mountains..
Therefore, I mean reading an the entire book of Harry Potter which is lets say 600 pages. Reading 600 pages to experience that art form takes time which a lot of people may not want to invest while a visual art's experience is immediate.
>>8242758
>They were moved to express something and finding out what that is is the interesting part
This kind of psychology is so reductive, you should take anon's hint
>>8242770
>psychology
>reductive
Intimacy issues? Need to put technique in between you and the artist to further your distance?
Nerd.
>>8242752
>What can literature do that visual arts can't?
OP
>This thread is determining the differences in how literature and visual impact us.
You
I'm stating what literature cannot do vs the visual arts in hoping that we find what literature can do.
So far I've drawn some ideas that literature requires more time and effort to gain experience its medium, which separates it from the visual art or photographs or paintings which are immediate and generally more universal.
>>8242769
Haha. So let's put together all of the paintings. They are symbols just like words so we can arrange their meaning together into something like a book. Aha!
I'm being entirely impractical and it silly but that's not important. I'm just following the logic given to me.
>>8242787
Having different abilities doesn't automatically make an interesting competition.
Let's have track and field runners compete with swimmers.
Ridiculous and stupid.
>>8242791
Not really, because the analogy I am using is that a single painting can have enough information as a novel. However the amount of time necessary to experience the medium differs.
>>8242802
What painting has enough information in it, without adding to it, to fill a novel up?
If that were true, there'd be plenty of well-known novels based off of one painting. Ridiculous, again.
>>8242799
>Having different abilities doesn't automatically make an interesting competition.
>Let's have track and field runners compete with swimmers.
But this isn't about competition, this is about what one medium can do and what the other cannot. By using track and swimming to literary and visual, we are agreeing that both can be enjoyable to experience yet serve different accessibility and function.
>>8242813
duh.
>>8242810
Value, color, form, line, edge, fashion, subject matter, shape, composition. We can humans have evolved to visually understand things so well that we take it for granted.
Also my point isn't about paintings inspiring novels. It is about information.
>>8242841
>>8242841Nerd.
>>8241114
The same things in different ways, and with differing amounts of difficulty.
>>8242860
Not exactly all the same things. No one true medium can communicate everything.
>>8242381
I don't think either of those things are especially true. You don't actually think in a direct stream of consciousness, and even if you did, it would be far to fast and inane to put to paper. Besides, your mind is much more expansive than your internal monologue. Sight, touch, proprioception, smell, etc are not communicated in a book.
Visual arts are more than a merely visual experience. All of your cultural, personal, and experiential associations with the art, including its composition, subject, and context, are elements of the aesthetic experience. Obviously, this is also true of literature. Film is an interesting medium because it combines prose, poetry, visual art, music, and acting. There are scripts which are well worth reading even if you've seen the film. Film does not focus merely on what the author sees. It focuses on what the writer thinks, the director interprets, the cinematographer sees, the composers hear, and the actors can protray.
I do agree that the two categories are different and are better suited at different things, however. Objects are defined as much by what they are not as by what they are. The lack of a visual and auditory component allows the audience to bring different parts of themselves into the interpretation, though I don't think you can meaningfully say that film allows less audience interpretation.
>>8242403
There is a language of film. It is comprised of montage and composition.
>>8242891
also english, or french, or whatever.
>>8242381
>Literature moreso lets you directly in to how an author thinks
hmm, I think it would be closer to say "literature lets you into how an author talks to himself"
some people think visually, or whatever.
>>8242381
>You don't actually think in a direct stream of consciousness
lmao, /lit/ is dumb as fuck sometimes.
>>8242885
>your mind is much more expansive than your internal monologue
mumbo jumbo
>Sight, touch, proprioception, smell, etc are not communicated in a book.
"He smelled like a piece of shit." BTFO
>Visual arts are more than a merely visual experience
So the sensation is not just in your eyeballs and all of your bodily organs aren't totally unaware of what you're seeing?! Wow!
>There are scripts
Not necessarily.
>Film does not focus merely on what the author sees.
Yeah, the screenwriter doesn't generally make an entire film by himself. His vision will not match the end product on screen.
>It focuses on what the writer thinks
No, it focuses on what he's written and not even always.
>the director interprets
or can change, add, delete content entirely
>defined as much by what they are not as by what they are
wut
>allows the audience to bring different parts of themselves into the interpretation
the author exerts some control over that. the "audience" doesn't have complete control
>I don't think you can meaningfully say that film allows less audience interpretation
agreed,
Way to end on a good note!
>>8242381
>Literature moreso lets you directly in to how an author thinks
it's more like literature is an author's attempt to make you think and feel certain things
>>8242810
Seriously?
It's not mistake that it's said "a picture is worth a thousand words."
"In the brain itself, neurons devoted to visual processing number in the hundreds of millions and take up about 30 percent of the cortex, as compared with 8 percent for touch and just 3 percent for hearing"
great paintings are easily worth hundreds of thousands of words, more ink has been spilled in the wake of paint than I care to count.
I suppose you're completely ignorant of art historical writing, art criticism, and art theory.
I'm not surprised.
>>8242907
>"literature lets you into how an author talks to himself"
naw, writing a decent novel isn't simply plopping your inner dialogue down on paper. it's working and reworking the content and it gets on a level that isn't just the chattering in one's own head
>lmao, /lit/ is dumb as fuck sometimes.
I know, but you accidently link to a different post, which was mine, and now my feels are hurty.
>>8242919
hm. in a way there's a similarities between meaningful letters (emails) sent between two friends and a novel written by the author which arrives "sent to" you.
There's personal contact, even if it's just one way. Of course, one can always write an author back ... if they're still alive.
>>8242911
>mumbo jumbo
You really think that the contents of your consciousness are entirely linguistic? Come on, now.
>never heard of mary in the black and white room. rejects hard problem of consciousness
>it focuses on what he writes
This is literally the same for literature.
>never read being and nothingness. dae what is nothingness
>>8242920
>a picture is worth a thousand words
Yeah, and you blindly hold that in your mind as the truth without thoughtful reexamination of its meaning.
Besides, what novel is 1000 words long anyways?
>>8242941
>You really think that the contents of your consciousness are entirely linguistic? Come on, now.
I think your pretending to understand the mind "outside" of its linguistics is pretentious mumbo jumbo. Nobody really understands how the brain works.
>>8242932
yes the inner dialogue is obviously refined (excepting exceptions)
But even if that inner dialogue consists of images, tactile sensations, or whatever else: it's hard to argue against the fact that those images or sensations must be approached through language.
As opposed to painting's visual immediacy, which transcends literacy and language.
I think visual art can convey meaning with greater visceral force: but with less clarity or detailed articulation than literature.
Each is suited towards different kinds of messages.
The beauty in Moby Dick and The Cliffs at Etretat are different. But each is undeniable.
>>8241334
No, I generally don't. The words evoke meaning and ideas and feeling in my head, they don't paint images. Sorry.
>>8242943
>Yeah, and you blindly hold that in your mind as the truth without thoughtful reexamination of its meaning.
Nuh uh, that's what you think
again I presume your compete ignorance of the extensive literary corpus of art historical writings, art theoretical writings, and art criticism, and again I restate my lack of surprise
>>8242659
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUdhmv1fy6M
>>8242951
You don't need to tell yourself "I'm hungry" every time you decide you eat.
Thoughts don't require language.
t. neuroscience student. read mark bear's introductory neuroscience texts, they're helpful.
>>8242951
So you are claiming that there exist no phenomena outside of the linguistic? Regardless of the way the brain works, phenomenologically, it is obvious that there are non-longuistic component to perception.
>>8242966
>yes the inner dialogue is obviously refined
It wouldn't be categorized as "inner dialogue". it becomes work on the paper. your ignorant presumption is glaring.
>inner dialogue consists of images, tactile sensations
bungling up the definition of "dialogue"
>As opposed to painting's visual immediacy
you're comparing the experience of the writer to someone studying a painting. more ridiculousness.
>visceral, visceral
I like that word, too.
>less clarity or detailed articulation
ergo, "That painting articulated to me ..." More bungling of the English language.
>Each is suited towards different kinds of messages.
duh. but there's overlap.
>The beauty in Moby Dick and The Cliffs at Etretat are different. But each is undeniable.
groan.
>>8242997
... non-linguistic components. fuck me
>>8242986
>again I presume your compete ignorance
That shuts down your ability to participate in verbal intercourse, which you lack in anyway.
>>8242999
stop being a cunt, faggot
>>8243009
>That shuts down your ability to participate in verbal intercourse
nuh uh, you're just a butthurt pseudointelletual
>>8242995
Yes, I know there are components to the "mind" outside of words.
I don't presume such a bold understand of them as you do. If you do have such knowledge of life itself, more power to you. You must be living an amazing life.
>>8242997
Again, I said "pretending to understand" it--which indicates I'm admitting it's there.
>reading comprehension
Work more on your linguistics and focus less on your mumbo jumbo. Just a suggestion.
>>8243003
penis in vagina or penis in anus?
>>8242999
fuck this guy
>>8243022
You're the one who made the initial incorrect assumption. I do not presume to have any propositional knowledge about the non-linguistic components of experience other than the fact that they exist. This is because propositional knowledge rests on linguistics. This doesn't mean that I'm not experiencing these phenomena. It just means that they are seemingly linguistically irreducible. I think I'm endorsing a sort of predicate dualism, but desu maybe I just don't understand what that means.
>>8243017
No, I presume a biology 101 understanding of the brain.
>nobody understands how the brain really works
Actually, I think that's just you. Try not to change the definition of "understand" too much, k? Wouldn't want to be accused of sophistry on an anonymous image board now.
>>8243047
You're right. Psychiatry is a closed and done deal.
>>8243046
>I do not presume to have any knowledge about the non-linguistic components of experience
So you don't know what hunger is. You go from one extreme to the other, don't you. In a desperate attempt to always appear "right".
>>8242941
being and time is better.
>>8243047
>google some biology 101 syllabuses
>control 'f' brain
>0 zero results
ergo, you presume no understanding in the brain
epic win here, guys
>>8243066
I said I had no propositional knowledge. Not no knowledge at all. I also don't know how anyone is saying that I ever claimed to understand all of consciousness. That just never happened.
>>8243088
It was pointed out that there was a presumption of understanding.
The wording used was "your mind is much more expansive than your internal monologue".
The qualifier expansive implies a quality. A physical metaphor implying that linguistics are the baseline for thought and all else "expands" from that, as in a panorama.
If the mind worked like mathematics worked, we'd be robots. Sorry. Your linguistics fail to explain it. Perhaps another field of art would better communicate it. ha
>>8243095
Factually, if you analyze two people in a dispute, you'll ironically discover that they're trying to say the same thing.SECRET
>>8243100
Huh. I guess "expansive" was a poor choice of word. I wasn't thinking about the quality of "expansiveness." I was just trying to say that linguistics don't tell the whole story.
>>8243053
Not only is that literally not what I said nor suggested,
>Psychiatryis the branch of medicine focused on the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mental, emotional and behavioral disorders. - APA
>>8243132
Thanks for admitting to it. It's not a problem really, it's just that all we have to communicate with here is the written word (mostly) and especially since we're on a board dedicated to literature, it is apropos to take your written words very seriously. Take it as a sign of respect.
I agree with your point, by the way.
>>8243084
>all syllabi are the same as the syllabi you found
w e w
you can do better than this /lit/, i believe in you
>>8243159
They would be similar.
Fail.
>>8242999
Don't respond to this lowercase-typing faggot. He's been shitting up the entire thread
>>8243225
Thanks. I let people tell me who to listen to and who to ignore so I don't have to think for myself. I appreciate the help.
>>8242424
It's sad that /lit/ fails to appreciate /a/non's well advised and pleasantly written advice, who was generously responding to a rather pathethic plea. /lit/ should step up its game, seriously, or intelligent posters will continue to disappear.
>>8241114
Why did you write that post instead of painting it?
>>8242372
underrated artwork
>>8242418
Start with the Greeks.
>>8241114
sometimes you need a line to draw a picture and sometimes you need a picture to reach the line
