Discussion opener for GRGR(10)

[mglosup at randomc.com]

On  7 Feb 97 at 17:09, andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk wrote:

> mglosup at randomc.com writes:
> 
>  [re Franz viewing Attila the Hun]
> 
> > I love this scene. Franz must have faith of a religious quality in 
> > cause and effect.  Franz doesn't have to actually 'connect the 
> > fragments', he can assume that the connections do exist and not 
> > exert himself by engaging in observation.  Of course he could have 
> > seen a synopsis of the film before viewing it.
> 
> Was this intended to go to the list? or just me? If not then let me
> know and I will forward my reply or else forward this reply yourself.

Yes it was intended for the list, I'm attempting to simultaneously 
work and correspond with the list and am failing at both.

> Anyway, you are right that Franz does not have to connect the
> fragments, up to a point. But imagine if those fragments are just dots
> with no lines between them. At what point does making the connections
> become a psychological, or better perceptual - better still conceptual
> necessity. We get so blase about teh concepts on which we have built
> our edifice that we think they must be trivial. Whereas it is merely
> that they are utterly familiar because of frequent and routine
> application of the methods and techniques which give them life. Fail
> to employ these techniques, i.e. apply the concepts, regularly enough
> and suddenly it becomes impossible to view aspects of one's world
> under the aspect of the concept (in case you know LudWit this is the
> key point behind his duck-rabbit aspect - in the case of the ambiguous
> duck-rabbit figure we cannot help but eep seeing at once rabbit then
> next duck because we cannot stop ourselves applying the two
> over-familiar concepts in rotation).

I was attempting to say that Franz has elevated cause-effect to an
article of religious faith and therefore has ceased questioning the
concept's validity, the edifice on which he has built his
philosophy.  If he awakens to see a frame of film displaying an
outcome, he reflexively assumes that there was a cause in an earlier
frame while he was nodding.  His utter subscription to causality--
his faith-- has led him to an intellectual slothfulness which prevents
his investigation of events. He assumes a cause, the nature of which
is unimportant to him-- only its existence which he feels no
compulsion to question.  You may need to expand on Wittgenstein's
aspect-seeing to help *me* to see the connection to this scene.  Are
you saying that by failing to strenuously apply the cause-effect
model, Franz runs the risk of losing the ability to see causes and
effects?

> Even if he had seen a synopsis how would he have known that the film
> conformed to the synopsis? If the intervals between frames get big
> enough then anything can be allowed to happen in the spaces. 
> Continuity at a conceptual level relies on continuity and regularities 
> at the day to day level. Franz's attempts to supplant this rule with 
> notions of cause and effect is a diversion (i.e. secular history) even 
>though, as you say, rooted in faith.

Exactly, and more of what I was attempting to say originally.  He 
reflexively accepts the veracity of any report he has seen of the 
event therefore can grab precious snooze time and avoid experience, 
and also verification that events transpired as reported. 
Thanks,

Michael Glosup