Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: October ::
Re: Fops
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1950  Thursday, 19 October 2000.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 Oct 2000 11:26:55 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1945 Re: Fops

[2]     From:   Ed Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 17 Oct 2000 18:16:06 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1945 Re: Fops

[3]     From:   William Sutton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 18 Oct 2000 03:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1945 Re: Fops

[4]     From:   Edward Pixley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 18 Oct 2000 10:50:10 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1945 Re: Fops

[5]     From:   Edward Pixley <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 18 Oct 2000 11:36:03 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1945 Re: Fops

[6]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 18 Oct 2000 11:42:48 -0700
        Subj:   SHK 11.1945 Re: Fops

[7]     From:   Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 18 Oct 2000 15:04:45 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1945 Re: Fops

[8]     From:   Syd Kasten <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Oct 2000 00:58:49 +0200 (IST)
        Subj:   Images in the mind

[9]     From:   Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Oct 2000 06:53:41 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.1945 Re: Fops


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 17 Oct 2000 11:26:55 -0700
Subject: 11.1945 Re: Fops
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.1945 Re: Fops

Scott Oldenburg writes:

> I'm not sure that we all see the same Madonna and Child.  Doesn't it
> seem that an atheist might see a very different Madonna and Child than a
> devout Catholic would?  A mother might see a different Madonna and Child
> than her child might, and someone who has lost a child might see a still
> a different Madonna and Child (not to mention what Madonna fans see)?

This is quite true.  An art historian would see a different Madonna from
an iconoclast, to add to the examples.  I think that Umberto Eco has
rather convincingly shown, however, that short of being blind or having
no idea of the Biblical story figured in the painting, there is a
limited number of meanings that a group of semantic signs can
constitute.

Bill Godshalk adds:

> Well, actually, the words on the page DO nothing.  They certainly do NOT
> create images in our minds.  We readers do the creating; words on a page
> do not act.

Actually, recent readings of Husserl have tended to somewhat limit the
agency of the perceiver vis-

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.