Taste of becoming silly.
not believe much in coincidences. Or rather. As I do not think in that sense absolutist mystic and egotistical enough, certainly, "attributed to whatever happens us as an explanation of the facts," Things happen for a reason, "it's karma," the Lord wanted it that way. " Allende's resignation or joy expressed with them, or the obvious, if there are underlying causes, everything has its own, necessarily, the polysemy possible - go for something , exquisite expression during transit and immanent to being, by extension, the body-tautology fully-sale, things happen for something, and then why: to sing carols in July? - glimpse, each dealing with a certain intention to suppress the thought and possible scenarios to / for / to the facts. Borges synthesized as one case: the chance is only ignorance of the complex causality-also unintelligible. As is unintelligible, the better we pass any mental event if it takes some effort ourselves.
If this is what we do with our daily lives, so important for everyone, "what can we expect with respect to expendable varied art and entertainment? By definition, the fantasy genre, and the same genre of science fiction-allegorical readings does not support, as arises from the Russian formalists Todorov-structuralism, point it is worth. That is, if you are aware of any work of science fiction, and is more aware of the connotations of any nature (philosophical, psychological, anthropological, economic, physical, or any other), is undertaking prejudicially the work, whose purpose is narrative hesitate to make the uncertainty: the supernatural seem to be there, but can not be said or denied. The thing, karma, God, seems to make his, or maybe just the chance, or even yes, no scientific explanation, but this is only likely, leave. I think a vacilada that definition, and yet supports the attitude of many Viewers who only consumed, especially when it comes to movies. So easy that would sit for a while wondering: What is my attitude to science: understanding the fabric of the universe, or the overcoming of human possibilities in a given universe, or both? This approach would define the supernatural in each event. But no, today it is paying money to consume time, it ends up in the lela time (and it supports Todorov, although not even know the existence of so gracious endorsement or damn who you are or need to do).
And so we are. I just watched last Thursday, "Tron" (Dir. Steven Lisberger, 1982). At first, I was struck by the title on the cover of DeVeDe, "Tron, the original classic" to distinguish it from "Tron, the legacy" (Dir. Joseph Kosinski, 2010). An itching business from production to not be affected by misleading advertising, they know many people are stupid and buy just to see a title, and price between the two films is, in these parts, quite mixed. In the second, and found that the target market is considered stupid (in its three existing meanings DRAE) or dumbed (DRAE it is, yet), my mind jumps to note how the 2010 was mounted in that, magnifying visual effects, but leaving a marginal: the narrative. In Tron there are significant gaps in the narrative concatenation of events, things that are not said, but may end up inferring, forcing the note, of course: not that the script was brilliant, is that in 1982 and 2010 the formal cause was to display visual effects, "while Legacy is repeated two or three times things are not going to be someone not capture, or more, lest someone to pay attention to other things, implied in passing, but with the potential to stimulate the unusual aspect of the mind as thinking verbalized. Same and next day I entered a few allegorical and poetic readings of the case-something have the art and entertainment that make up the required definitions of genres, merely provisional draft, "for now we close with the third: Tron and Tron's legacy is a work of science fiction, exciting and lucrative. Best-selling film, then. Like the Matrix, also saw many people (hey!: Meaning five). And so on, when you mix in the discussion something that has to do Byron, Descartes, Hawkins, Homer, Montaigne, Plato, Sagan, Sahagún, Seneca, or anything else other than The Da Vinci Code, look at you as if you invented two thousand years of cultural conditioning that you just look at two hours, as though too. What scares some not?.
Manuel Emilio Castillo Silva.
Lomas Verdes, on May 16, 2011. *********
Mentidero of Fallacies. Virgilio Sofistófeles .
0 comments:
Post a Comment