From: "hugh bone" <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: What's wrong with mainstream sensibilities?
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 21:11:36 -0500


Ken,

I think my quote was from Gellner.

The Hegel quote doesn't mention emotion.

but compare T.S. Eliot:

"What is actual is actual only for one time and only for one place."

It doesn't mention rationality.

More recent statements point to the role of perception, as Feyerabend:

 "...neither the object nor the perception can exist by itself; act, object
and perception form an indivisible block".

Is it rational to regard objects, subjects, perceptions as actual and real,
when know that on-screen or off-screen they are often convoluted with
illusions which  permeate our mainstream sensibilities.

emotionally,
hugh

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----- Original Message -----
From: <kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca>
To: <film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: What's wrong with mainstream sensibilities?


>
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 16:56:07 -0500 hugh bone <hbone-AT-optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > Occasionally I remember that we : "Rationalize our emotions and
emotionalize
> our reasons".
>
> I've heard that before: "The actual is rational, and the rational is
actual"
> (Hegel, Preface, Philosophy of Right)
>
> totalisticality,
> ken
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>




     --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---