(no subject)

This does not seem a meaningful evaluation to me. The implication is that Gerry's theory is in competition with the idea James and I have. I don't think that nor do I think James does. Wolfe is fully capable of using language in his book that can be intentionally interpreted at 3 or 4 levels simultaneously. He does it over and over. Why take this example of (a possible) two levels and think we simply must choose one and exclude the other? BTW, in regards to the screen material, aren't they something like glass more like a tv screen (from the ancient 90's) than a movie screen? When they break they shatter not rip, yes?

Okay. For example, the image of the old woman (and the young woman to a lesser extent) is very euro-centric. That big long nose and the fur collar might make it more difficult for a person living in southeast Asia or west Africa to recognize the figure as an old woman, not being used to fur clothing or large, protruding noses. We all have such cultural and experiential gaps in our knowledge and perception base and I don't think they constitute a lack of cleverness. I suppose refusing to acknowledge and accept efforts by others to broaden one's view might fall into the category of "lack of cleverness" but I tend to classify that more as an issue of stubborness than intelligence.

Ant?nio No dia 2011/11/04, ?s 20:22, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> escreveu:

I can accept that if you substitute personal bias, as built over the years in a myriad of experiences, for cultural gap. It probably also means it becomes a matter of 'you weren't there' rather than stubbornness, ignorance or intelligence, as and such it may be more or less impossible to overcome. It also needs the 'the picture is there even if the author didn't intend it' bit you mentioned earler.