Andy K, there is a guy on APUG with a 'little' mind. His name is David Lyga. Would you tolerate him , through you as proxy, to query the deceased Henri Van Lier?
Is the nexus of "captured specific time" and "captured specific light" any matter to this philosopher? Do the two synergize, thus provide 'real' indice of their own, wholly unrelated to the individual 'reality' components that we know and understand through our own cultural brand of semiotics? (During the last century photographs were shown to tribes who had never had contact with 20th century imaging and they actually could not 'see' a 'correct' image, like we are trained to do.)
The spectacle, the actual photograph, has 'contained' within it this discrete 'nexus' and only THAT specific 'nexus'. Thus, maybe 'light' and 'time' become somehow 'different' when combined in this way because they share nothing with any other combination of these 'reality' components. Only during the actual exposure are these two components captured (but, only as indice, i.e., latent). We, as ignorant humans, turn this unique (truly unique) combination into 'reality' through the recognition of a respectable 'spectacle' in order to 'force' sense out of the mess.
Is this 'nexus' the key that is finally needed to 'open the door' so as to allow our basal understanding through transformation of the indice into index? - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 02-01-2013 at 03:05 PM. Click to view previous post history.