Archive for October, 2011
It would be presumably easy to film a logical paradox, such as Catch-22, in its modus of script and premise. However, what if this very modus changes from script to aesthetic? The stated problem becomes much more difficult to handle, and we must go through various modes of translation to arrive at are answer. Here I will present the stated logic behind the logical paradox. From there, the next big leap I have made is deciphering this very logic into mathematical terms. For when it is finally reach mathematical terms, I find it easier to state the premise and translate it into more aesthetic, artistic, terms of say something such as film. So lets begin:
Part One, Stating the Logical Paradox:
Premise One Defined:
“If a person is excused from flying (E), that must be because he is both insane (I), and requests an evaluation (R)).”
Premise Two Defined:
“If a person is insane (I), he should not realize that he is, and would have no reason to request an evaluation.”
Definition of Implication:
Definition of Implication Defined:
“Since an insane person would not request an evaluation, it follows that all people must either not be insane, or not request an evaluation.”
De Morgan Defined:
“Since all people must either not be insane, or not request an evaluation, it follows that no person is both insane and requests an evaluation.”
Modus Tollens Defined:
“Since a person may be excused from flying only if he is both insane and requests an evaluation, but no person can be both insane and request an evaluation, it follows that no person can be excused from flying.”
Part Two, Defining Terms:
Now the next part becomes a matter of defining the terms existing within the logical paradox, here we find:
E = Excuse
I = Insane
R = Request
The other things we find are logical terms which are equivalent to:
Now that we’ve deciphered their logical equivalence, it’s time to define them:
Lets Define an Excuse:
“An excuse is a reason justified by dishonesty.”
Lets Define Insanity:
“Something that is unsound.”
Lets Define Request:
“Using reason to ask for something.”
The final step in defining terms:
An Excuse becomes an irrational attempt at a rational function.
Insanity is an irrational function.
A Request is a rational function.
Now that we’ve made that leap, its time to make it’s next leap, into the realms of mathematics we go!
Part Three, The Mathematical Step
Deciphering logical constructs into mathematical terms:
E = (1-1)
I = (-1)
R = (1)
To further classify:
E = Irrational Attempt at a Rational Function
I = Irrational Function
R = Rational Functional
How this mathematical construction looks:
((1-1) = (-1+1))
(-1 does not equal 1)
(if it does not equal -1 it also does not equal 1)
(if it does not equal (-1+1))
(it also does not equal (1-1))
Now that we have laid out its mathematical construction, it seemed easy for me at this point what this meant stylistically…
Part Four, Adding Artistic Style:
Having come to the conclusions of the mathematical step, it became easy for me to make the aesthetic step based on the mathematical step, here it is:
My own interpretation on this aesthetic is:
E = Stylistic Realism
I = Dada
R = Realism
((Stylistic Realism) = ((Dada) + (Realism))
State the synthesis before thesis and anti-thesis. This is key.
((Dada) does not equal (Realism))
Juxtaposed styles to show their differences.
(if it does not equal (Dada) it also does not equal (Realism))
Continue to juxtapose and counteract styles.
(if it does not equal ((Dada) + (Realism))
Since the two do not create a logical synthesis with one another…
(it also does not equal (Stylistic Realism))
…It is opposed to the Stylistic Realism it proposed.
Step Five, Final Word:
I am not entirely convinced this final section of how it would play out is valid. I’m beginning to think voice overs can play a huge part in aiding it’s conception. However, the important part is, the aesthetics are there and found. That was my ultimate aim to begin with. Only time and test will tell if I’m correct in my presumptions.
It was Michel de Montaigne who came up with the essay, and many have forgotten its original French intent, which is “to try” or “an attempt”. However, in the context of “The Essays of Cinema,” we are “trying” and “attempting” new forms of cinema for clarification. How does one bring about these new forms into being. As I have mentioned in the past, we begin to blend, but how?
Take this example:
Strunk and White’s book can be seen as a Bible for those who want a mastery of the form of the English language. However, when we are speaking in terms of how to build form of the cinematic language. We may need to take these forms of literature and translate them into cinematic context. This is how “Blank Verse” was created. But it doesn’t stop there.
The lexicon of every single outside form must be translated if film is to gain new forms outside, and coming within, itself. Take a Dewey Decimal Classification number, any will do, analyze its language, and exploit its language to film. This ultimately expands the very nature of film, allowing it to be a more complete art.
The “Essays” of Cinema are just that. “Trying” and “Attempting” to be a more complete and robust art form than it’s predecessors. Though cinema will never be a complete form, it must merge with all forms, therefore this notion of “incomplete” form renders it not at a disadvantage… but at a great advantage.