The Style vs Substance Problem in Literature

You get a lot of substance, YesNo, because substance is not just information or data. The energy, the feeling you get from a long haired troglodyte riffing and grutting is part of the substance. There is a reason why rock and roll can have similar impact either you know the lyrics (be it grunting or not). There is a reason they feel the same either it is a solo or not. The artistic expression there is not only in lyrics. The same goes for Opera. Either you know what means Figaro or not, but you can relate to the emotions in that performance.

The way you are talking, you can only access the substance if you have a complete understanding of the artwork and that is not true, because frankly, I doubt there is such thing as complete understanding of any artwork. And art is not science, what is being shared is more than informaiton, it is feelings and experiences, things you cannot explain so well. (Even a scientific thesis is telling a bit about how you should access the thesis, the dry, direct, objective style in a thesis is a way to lead you to a more analytic approach, but you can see, they want to reduce a lot the possiblities of the text to avoid misinterpretation. But in art, misinterpretation is a legitimate form of dialogue).

I have no idea what the Turing text may be or not. It is art? It is a random set of world? No meaning at all? Hence random. It is style? or Just form?

As Gibberish, even your example showed how it is a bad example: Gibberish spoken by those being verbally abusive, intending not to communicate. So, if you know they are verbally abusive, you know some of the content. There is abuse. So there is some substance. I am sure also you can also tell by the gibberish the anger behind it. Substance.

And of course, Joyce has no substance? His destruction of language is about chaos, primordial creation of words, some sort of universal human circle. FW style is chaotic, destructive, a mix of words, because of this. There is a lot of substance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

My point is one does not get substance from the language, only style. The same thing goes for the Gayatri mantra which can be beneficial as sound without knowing the meaning of the words.

The computer response in a Turing test when the response makes no sense to the human listeners would be an example of style without substance from the perspective of both the computer and the listeners. This is not just data, but an actual string of words.

Gibberish coming from various sources is probably a good example of style without substance. I am thinking of Joyce's Finnegan's Wake as one example of that.

---

Now, you're just repeating what you've already said before like your own little mantra...despite my having shown, with actual syllogistic and textual support, that you are wrong.

1. There is substance to all musical or purposeful sound such as mantras. If you think you need words for substance in oral or written music, chants, or mantras, you need to re-examine your notions of musicology and phenomenology, as well as aesthetics.

2. Again, the substance of a linguistic text does not depend on the reception of the text, even if a Turing machine produced it. I showed why that is true in my last post; you clearly didn't read it.

3. If you think Finnegan's Wake, one of the greatest works in the English and Irish language is just gibberish, you need to take some more English classes. Its being too difficult for you does not make it gibberish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

From the perspective of the blind viewer there is nothing there.

What I am trying to bring out in this example is the power of the style of language even if one does not understand it. I think sound is more powerful than an image which is one of the reasons why I am puzzled with the image metaphor that is used to describe poetry.

In the case of the computer making a response in the Turing test (and failing the test), the words the computer generated had no substance from the computer's perspective nor from the perspective of the human listener. They were pure style.

What you just wrote doesn't make any sense to me. So it would be pure style. It seems like you are saying that gibberish is an example of style without substance and then there is the however clause that follows that doesn't make sense.

So, I would use this passage as another example of style without substance.

I think one needs to have some language to start with but I don't think it is clear what else is involved. Our thoughts can range in emotional content, but at this point it is not a poem.

---

1. The perspective of a blind viewer has no bearing on the substance of the Van Gogh painting. The blind person may see nothing there, but the substance doesn't go away. The same goes for a deaf person at a symphony; his or her deafness does not negate the substance of the music. According to your logic, a blind person looking at you and not seeing you would take away your substance. I don't think you want to go there.

2, You weren't just trying to "bring out the meaning" of the mantra, you were erroneously claiming your limited experience of the mantra negated its substance, and it doesn't. And you clearly don't understand imagery's place in poetry. However, you make the solipsistic and illogical mistake of thinking that actually negates imagery's clear presence in poetry, literature, and other written form...and it doesn't.

3. Because of your constant repetitions without syllogistic support, I am saying this for the last time. Whether the creator of a written work is a computer or a human, the substance of a work is not contingent on the views of the creator or the perceiver of it. Using your logic, J.K. Rowling's changed view--as well as any of her reader's views--of one of her Harry Potter novels would change its substance. So, your logic is clearly flawed.

4. What I said in my post made perfect sense, and it was both style and substance. So, if didn't understand it, you need to work on your English and/or your lexicon. And my "however" clause made perfect sense and was perfectly clear. Your not grasping it is a comment on your reading skills, not my writing. I'll spell it out for you, though, since you failed to adequately read it: even the substance of gibberish expression isn't dictated by its speaker; it's dictated by its expression.

5. Again, you terribly misread, misrepresented, and misunderstood what I wrote. I never said the ideas formed a poem; that's a terrible strawman on your part. I correctly said: "One cannot form an idea for a poem without words, otherwise that "idea" is just subconscious, pre-conceptual pap, not an actual idea. So, an idea for a poem would always have style as well." And that is absolutely true. The fact you didn't even bother to dispute it helps support that fact.


Finally, since you rudely and incorrectly disparaged one of my responses as "style without substance," I will speak frankly (but politely) with you. I have no interest in continually debating with someone who constructs severely flawed arguments then digs in and continually repeats them after they are shown to be wrong. I also have no interest in debating someone who hasn't effectively examined their flawed aesthetic arguments for their holes or illogical ramifications. So, I will no longer engage you on this or any other matter and am putting you on ignore. I have no interest in wasting any more of my time with your mantras.

Good luck on your discussions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

1. The perspective of a blind viewer has no bearing on the substance of the Van Gogh painting. The blind person may see nothing there, but the substance doesn't go away. The same goes for a deaf person at a symphony; his or her deafness does not negate the substance of the music. According to your logic, a blind person looking at you and not seeing you would take away your substance. I don't think you want to go there.

2, You weren't just trying to "bring out the meaning" of the mantra, you were erroneously claiming your limited experience of the mantra negated its substance, and it doesn't. And you clearly don't understand imagery's place in poetry. However, you make the solipsistic and illogical mistake of thinking that actually negates imagery's clear presence in poetry, literature, and other written form...and it doesn't.

3. Because of your constant repetitions without syllogistic support, I am saying this for the last time. Whether the creator of a written work is a computer or a human, the substance of a work is not contingent on the views of the creator or the perceiver of it. Using your logic, J.K. Rowling's changed view--as well as any of her reader's views--of one of her Harry Potter novels would change its substance. So, your logic is clearly flawed.

4. What I said in my post made perfect sense, and it was both style and substance. So, if didn't understand it, you need to work on your English and/or your lexicon. And my "however" clause made perfect sense and was perfectly clear. Your not grasping it is a comment on your reading skills, not my writing. I'll spell it out for you, though, since you failed to adequately read it: even the substance of gibberish expression isn't dictated by its speaker; it's dictated by its expression.

5. Again, you terribly misread, misrepresented, and misunderstood what I wrote. I never said the ideas formed a poem; that's a terrible strawman on your part. I correctly said: "One cannot form an idea for a poem without words, otherwise that "idea" is just subconscious, pre-conceptual pap, not an actual idea. So, an idea for a poem would always have style as well." And that is absolutely true. The fact you didn't even bother to dispute it helps support that fact.


Finally, since you rudely and incorrectly disparaged one of my responses as "style without substance," I will speak frankly (but politely) with you. I have no interest in continually debating with someone who constructs severely flawed arguments then digs in and continually repeats them after they are shown to be wrong. I also have no interest in debating someone who hasn't effectively examined their flawed aesthetic arguments for their holes or illogical ramifications. So, I will no longer engage you on this or any other matter and am putting you on ignore. I have no interest in wasting any more of my time with your mantras.

Good luck on your discussions.

---

Oh boy! I vaguely miss these soap box discussions! (Imagine the minutes and hours forming these arguments, each one blowing a different tune).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonywalt

Oh boy! I vaguely miss these soap box discussions! (Imagine the minutes and hours forming these arguments, each one blowing a different tune).

---

What a remarkably exemplary statement. There certainly isn't much style to it, with "soap box" being a tired cliche. And, considering you make no cogent critique of any of my points, the substance is remarkably ephemeral as well.

Feel free to actually contribute if you ever feel you can...;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

What a remarkably exemplary statement. There certainly isn't much style to it, with "soap box" being a tired cliche. And, considering you make no cogent critique of any of my points, the substance is remarkably ephemeral as well.

Feel free to actually contribute if you ever feel you can...;)

---

I was just thinking of a few years back when we had long arguments and everyone stuck to their positions. I rarely saw compromise and I don't think it has changed. That said: I have contributed to the Marijuana thread, again.

Well, here's a suggestion if you want to be productive and polite in your discourse. Don't take cheap swipes at people's posts/arguments if you can't show the courtesy of actually backing them up. That's exactly what trolls do, and I don't believe you're a troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

Well, here's a suggestion if you want to be productive and polite in your discourse. Don't take cheap swipes at people's posts/arguments if you can't show the courtesy of actually backing them up. That's exactly what trolls do, and I don't believe you're a troll.

---

I agree with that.

It is certainly possible to say very little with great style. It is certainly possible to find readers willing to accept that any surreal concatenation of words must be a sign of profundity. Deep wells may be full of junk. Elements of not so common sense must be employed by every reader. But we all have different tastes and most of us may enjoy stylish drivel at times just as we may need a cake made largely of fake cream and glaringly loud colours rather than an apple.

"Deep wells may be full of Junk" Eiseabhal? Echoes there of that Bletchley Park poet. Intentional?

1) My viewing an opera in Italian. I don't understand Italian. All I get is the style, which is the sound of the words.

I don't speak Italian... and yet I certainly sense a content... feelings, emotions, drama etc... within the music, the tone of the language, vocal inflections, etc... Of course my grasp of the work is far greater when I understand what is being said... But I think it is like learning another language. With my limited German I can still read Goethe's Wandrers Nachtlied II:

Über allen Gipfeln
Ist Ruh,
In allen Wipfeln
Spürest du
Kaum einen Hauch;
Die Vögelein schweigen im Walde.
Warte nur, balde
Ruhest du auch.

When I read this poem I don't translate the words in my head to English... rather I think of them in German... in the form in which they exist because the content of the poem is a result of the form wedded to the "meaning".

2) My reciting a Sanskrit mantra such as the Gayatri mantra. I have memorized it, but I don't know what it means. It is all style for me.

Yet you are but cognizant of a small portion of the "style" under such a situation. Content is the result of an inseparable wedding of form/style and meaning.

4) Gibberish spoken by an infant, at least to the parent.

When I speak to my dogs I have no doubt it is but "gibberish" to them most of the time. Certainly they recognize certain few words: their names, basic commands like "sit", "outside", etc... But they understand quite a lot from the inflection of my voice, body language, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

You get a lot of substance, YesNo, because substance is not just information or data. The energy, the feeling you get from a long haired troglodyte riffing and grutting is part of the substance. There is a reason why rock and roll can have similar impact either you know the lyrics (be it grunting or not). There is a reason they feel the same either it is a solo or not. The artistic expression there is not only in lyrics. The same goes for Opera. Either you know what means Figaro or not, but you can relate to the emotions in that performance.

The way you are talking, you can only access the substance if you have a complete understanding of the artwork and that is not true, because frankly, I doubt there is such thing as complete understanding of any artwork. And art is not science, what is being shared is more than informaiton, it is feelings and experiences, things you cannot explain so well. (Even a scientific thesis is telling a bit about how you should access the thesis, the dry, direct, objective style in a thesis is a way to lead you to a more analytic approach, but you can see, they want to reduce a lot the possiblities of the text to avoid misinterpretation. But in art, misinterpretation is a legitimate form of dialogue).

I have no idea what the Turing text may be or not. It is art? It is a random set of world? No meaning at all? Hence random. It is style? or Just form?

As Gibberish, even your example showed how it is a bad example: Gibberish spoken by those being verbally abusive, intending not to communicate. So, if you know they are verbally abusive, you know some of the content. There is abuse. So there is some substance. I am sure also you can also tell by the gibberish the anger behind it. Substance.

And of course, Joyce has no substance? His destruction of language is about chaos, primordial creation of words, some sort of universal human circle. FW style is chaotic, destructive, a mix of words, because of this. There is a lot of substance.

---

What I am looking for are examples of style without substance. Do you know of any examples or is the distinction between style and substance irrelevant?

One of my favorite essayists was Walter Pater (A great "stylist" by the way :D ). Pater's book, The Renaissance was profoundly influential upon the thinking of the Art pour l'Art movement... and ultimately Formalism/Modernism and abstract art. Paul Klee, Kandinsky, and any number of other modern artists were profoundly impacted by Pater's essay's and his notion that form and content were one in music... and that all art aspires to the same:

All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music. For while in all other kinds of art it is possible to distinguish the matter from the form, and the understanding can always make this distinction, yet it is the constant effort of art to obliterate it. That the mere matter of a poem, for instance, its subject, namely, its given incidents or situation — that the mere matter of a picture, the actual circumstances of an event, the actual topography of a landscape — should be nothing without the form, the spirit, of the handling, that this form, this mode of handling, should become an end in itself, should penetrate every part of the matter: this is what all art constantly strives after, and achieves in different degrees.

Who can separate the form from the "meaning" here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6txOvK-mAk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

Now, you're just repeating what you've already said before like your own little mantra...despite my having shown, with actual syllogistic and textual support, that you are wrong.

---

You haven't shown anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

1. There is substance to all musical or purposeful sound such as mantras. If you think you need words for substance in oral or written music, chants, or mantras, you need to re-examine your notions of musicology and phenomenology, as well as aesthetics.

---

We are talking about words, not music, nor images.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

2. Again, the substance of a linguistic text does not depend on the reception of the text, even if a Turing machine produced it. I showed why that is true in my last post; you clearly didn't read it.

---

I think the example of the computer generating a verbal response that is not accepted by the human testers is a good example of style without substance. The problem is that it is an extreme example. What I suspect people are more concerned with when they talk style and substance is that they are annoyed with fraudulent style that has no substance backing it up and they wish those who provide something substantial would do it with more style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike Bishop

3. If you think Finnegan's Wake, one of the greatest works in the English and Irish language is just gibberish, you need to take some more English classes. Its being too difficult for you does not make it gibberish.

---

This sounds like a confrontational style with no substance underlying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

What I am looking for are examples of style without substance. Do you know of any examples or is the distinction between style and substance irrelevant?

---

I dont, but listen to Stlukes, style is not a technique or skill, that thee artist choose to add or remove. Da Vinci didnt paint that way because he dreammed to be photograph, no, that was part of his philosophy, it was a manifestation of his experriencies and ideas. When you develop a style is because your experience leads you there. So, if you analysee the style of work it will always say something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

You haven't shown anything.

---

Expect this. He claimed in a conservation with me that 'the vengeance of Clytemnestra, Orestes, Electa' referred to specific 'acts' of The Oresteia. Clytemnestra's 'vengeance' covers the entire trilogy, even after she dies with her ghost appearing to wake The Furies to pursue Orestes further to Areopagitica.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

We are talking about words, not music, nor images.

---

Is not the point that words can create music and images?

The enttire discussion if words are images or not was an attempt to murder Semiotics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

The enttire discussion if words are images or not was an attempt to murder Semiotics.

---

I am not following this. Could you elaborate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poetaster

Expect this. He claimed in a conservation with me that 'the vengeance of Clytemnestra, Orestes, Electa' referred to specific 'acts' of The Oresteia. Clytemnestra's 'vengeance' covers the entire trilogy, even after she dies with her ghost appearing to wake The Furies to pursue Orestes further to Areopagitica.

---

Yeah, I remember reading that.

I do like to discuss ideas with people who disagree with me even if I think they are being irrational. It forces me to keep thinking about my position and find another way to express it. Ultimately the one I am trying to convince is myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poetaster

Is not the point that words can create music and images?

---

My view is that words are composed of sound and those sounds allow us to create a communal meaning (or "sense", "understanding"). They don't create music or images, but understanding. Although there is some relationship to music, the sound of the words does not have to be metrical for understanding to occur.

There are other ways to communicate, but when words are used there is a sound basis rather than an image basis allowing us to understand each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

I dont, but listen to Stlukes, style is not a technique or skill, that thee artist choose to add or remove. Da Vinci didnt paint that way because he dreammed to be photograph, no, that was part of his philosophy, it was a manifestation of his experriencies and ideas. When you develop a style is because your experience leads you there. So, if you analysee the style of work it will always say something.

---

I think I agree with what you are saying if the context is limited to critiquing art, however, there are other ways to view the problem. The style and substance issue seems to have three directions it can go into.

1) Critiquing Literature and Art

Here style and substance may be the same thing. The person reviewing the art will see the style as representing something even if there is nothing that the art is about. Neither communication (understanding) nor truth is relevant.

2) Philosophy of Mind

Here the question is whether the style, words generated by a computer during a Turing test, imply that the computer understands the words. In this case style is the sound or printout. Substance is the meaning or understanding. Is there substance if there is style? I think the consensus today, based on Searle's critique, is "no", but there are some who may disagree and insist if something can generate style then that something has substance (understanding).

3) Falsification

Style can be used to justify something that is false and even prevent dissent. The RationalWiki article on what the author(s) call the "Style over Substance Fallacy" gives this argument: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Style_o...stance_fallacy One might see this during marketing or political campaigns. The most notorious example of this that I recall is when style was used to argue that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq over a decade ago. The substance came from UN inspectors who could not find any WMD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

My view is that words are composed of sound and those sounds allow us to create a communal meaning (or "sense", "understanding"). They don't create music or images, but understanding. Although there is some relationship to music, the sound of the words does not have to be metrical for understanding to occur.

There are other ways to communicate, but when words are used there is a sound basis rather than an image basis allowing us to understand each other.

---

I really like that, though I don't necessarily agree with it, if that makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I think I agree with what you are saying if the context is limited to critiquing art, however, there are other ways to view the problem. The style and substance issue seems to have three directions it can go into.

1) Critiquing Literature and Art

Here style and substance may be the same thing. The person reviewing the art will see the style as representing something even if there is nothing that the art is about. Neither communication (understanding) nor truth is relevant.

---

Ok, I am more than willing to say we are talking about this, Cacian about something however :D

Quote:

---

2) Philosophy of Mind

Here the question is whether the style, words generated by a computer during a Turing test, imply that the computer understands the words. In this case style is the sound or printout. Substance is the meaning or understanding. Is there substance if there is style? I think the consensus today, based on Searle's critique, is "no", but there are some who may disagree and insist if something can generate style then that something has substance (understanding).

---

Again, be more specific about Turing. Isnt Turing test accused of failing to answer to aesthetical emotions? In this case wouldnt that be rather than no style or substance, but poor style and substance?

Anyways, substance is neither meaning or understanding (or only them). In Art, understanding is not primary, in the lack of a better word, enchantment is what first matters. The substance may be ephemeral, you know the stuff Ariel is made off.

Quote:

---

3) Falsification

Style can be used to justify something that is false and even prevent dissent. The RationalWiki article on what the author(s) call the "Style over Substance Fallacy" gives this argument: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Style_o...stance_fallacy One might see this during marketing or political campaigns. The most notorious example of this that I recall is when style was used to argue that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq over a decade ago. The substance came from UN inspectors who could not find any WMD.

---

That is not lack of substance, it is false "substance". By the way, that a bunch of idiots let themselves be fooled by falacies is not about style without substance. It is style hiding substance. That is why some poeple can spot lies.

About the semiotics: because a written word is sign and by definitiion a sign is not the thing it represents. That simple. It is neither sound or image. Anyways, that would be irrelevant for the discussion, you do not use semiotics for what a poem means. If it suggeests imagens or music, it is like a painting suggesting movement, light, dimensions. Part of the Art that is artificial.

Isn't literature written? Aren't written words visual images, not sounds? (I'm not sure this is relevant to the style vs. substance discussion, but it seems to call YesNo's theory into question.)

I think Yesno means they arent the image of the object they represent or the scene they describe, not that written words are not graphical signs.

It's an interesting question. There are writers I enjoy almost entirely for their style: Evelyn Waugh is a good example. He was a dreadful human being, whose cold, hate-filled snobbery and sadism is apparent throughout his novels. Of all the writers I admire he is the one I would least want to meet. Though he IS very funny and can create strong, believable comic characters, I love him above all for the polished beauty of his writing. He really has nothing of interest to say to me, with the exception of the Sword of Honour trilogy, which explains the attraction of war to a certain kind of man in a very insightful way. There are also poets I read for their style rather than what they have to say: Larkin for example, a technically brilliant poet who wrote very beautiful verse, but a man with nothing to offer but despair and misery. I also love the poems of Betjeman and de la Mare, but again for the beauty and rhythm of their poems rather than what the poems contain. Oh and Tennyson, who wrote some of the most beautiful stuff I've ever read, yet was no visionary- a "lawn poet" and "rectory prude" as Joyce called him.

Others I read almost entirely for what they have to say rather than how they say it- Blake's prophetic books for example. I also find the ideas contained in the works of D H Lawrence and Oscar Wilde more attractive than their style. Same goes for the poetry of Robert Graves and Ted Hughes- especially Ted Hughes. I very rarely enjoy his poetry AS poetry, and never find it as beautiful as, say, Larkin's or Hardy's, but he interests me more than them.

Sometimes I love both the style AND substance of a writer's works. Aldous Huxley for example, also Blake's lyric poems, T S Eliot's Four Quartets (so far as I can understand them) and the essays of Bertrand Russell.

Wicked, you are confusing "substance" with "content" here. They are not the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Isn't literature written? Aren't written words visual images, not sounds? (I'm not sure this is relevant to the style vs. substance discussion, but it seems to call YesNo's theory into question.)

---

A JCamillo mentioned, the written words aren't images of the objects they represent but a visual way to code the sound of the words. To get back to the substance or meaning one goes back through sound.

It seemed to me relevant at the time I brought it up, because I suspected the image metaphor was de-valuing something I find to be crucial about words: they point to something else, that is, the image (and music) metaphors de-value the substance or meaning of the words emphasizing only style. An image does not need to have meaning. It need not point to anything beyond itself.

However, that is likely a different style vs substance concern than the OP had in mind which I think was more in line with how to write better: should one emphasize style or substance in one's writing?

When you mentioned Dickinson's poem about knowing where Heaven was as if the chart were given, I assume, since you have called yourself an atheist, that you don't believe in the content (substance) of her poem, but you are still accepting the poem for its style which is what counts for you rather than the actual content. I may have misunderstood your position, but I see a disconnect here. By contrast, as a panentheist, suppose Dickinson's content were atheistic, I would then reject the poem no matter how well I liked the style. From my point of view, style and content are different and content takes priority.

No, no. I accept the content of the Comedy, despite not believing on it at all (I mean most of the religious medieval thing). This is a bit of how substance & style work together: Suspension of Disbielief, The better the poet or writer is with his style, more he will make your experience with the substance (you never get all of it) more true. You engage more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Again, be more specific about Turing. Isnt Turing test accused of failing to answer to aesthetical emotions? In this case wouldnt that be rather than no style or substance, but poor style and substance?

Anyways, substance is neither meaning or understanding (or only them). In Art, understanding is not primary, in the lack of a better word, enchantment is what first matters. The substance may be ephemeral, you know the stuff Ariel is made off.

---

The Turing test is supposedly a way to tell if the machine has the same consciousness or understanding that we have. If enough people are fooled and think they are talking to a human being, then the machine passes the test based on its behavior which is usually all we have to go on when we want to know if a cat or insect or anything else is in any way conscious or not.

However, in the case of a machine, we know how it works. There is an algorithm backing up its behavior that fools us. Because of that it can't pass what could be called the Searle test: if a human being followed the algorithm the machine followed to communicate in a language the human did not know, would the human know what he actually wrote in that foreign language? Of course, the human would not know that after just following the algorithm. And so there is no need to assume the machine does either.

With art, I agree, much of it is style. It does not point beyond itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

That is not lack of substance, it is false "substance". By the way, that a bunch of idiots let themselves be fooled by falacies is not about style without substance. It is style hiding substance. That is why some poeple can spot lies.

---

I agree that it is about style hiding substance, or in this case, the true state of things. There is an imaginary substance behind lies. It just doesn't happen to be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

About the semiotics: because a written word is sign and by definitiion a sign is not the thing it represents. That simple. It is neither sound or image. Anyways, that would be irrelevant for the discussion, you do not use semiotics for what a poem means. If it suggeests imagens or music, it is like a painting suggesting movement, light, dimensions. Part of the Art that is artificial.

---

I think I agree here also. The sign points to something else. It is not the thing it represents.

However, why do we think today that a poem represents an image or even music? I find the metaphors suspicious. It seems to me a poem more likely represents a thought which need not have anything to do with an image or music. For example, take the sentences written in this post. What images come to mind? What music?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

No, no. I accept the content of the Comedy, despite not believing on it at all (I mean most of the religious medieval thing). This is a bit of how substance & style work together: Suspension of Disbielief, The better the poet or writer is with his style, more he will make your experience with the substance (you never get all of it) more true. You engage more.

---

I suppose I would as well. It all depends on how much the content is pushed in my face as something I must accept. Consider the movie Melancholia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholia_(2011_film)). This was well made. It had good style. I disagreed with the message. How should I approach the movie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

The Turing test is supposedly a way to tell if the machine has the same consciousness or understanding that we have. If enough people are fooled and think they are talking to a human being, then the machine passes the test based on its behavior which is usually all we have to go on when we want to know if a cat or insect or anything else is in any way conscious or not.

---

I think you misunderstand me, I know what is a turing test. But let's analyse the specific of a test, because the turing test is in the end just a way to produce a text. Does it really have "style" beyond correct grammatical structure for example?

Quote:

---

Ince, or in this case, the true state of things. There is an imaginary substance behind lies. It just doesn't happen to be true.

---

The substance does not need to be even related to the topic. Let me give you an imaginary example: someone debates here, long words, always claimming to have explained all. Rude attacking the person, but avoids the topic completely. Obviously, about the topic no substance, but you get a lot of substance from this harsh, over the top use of language. It does not tell you what you want, but it is telling something.

Quote:

---

I think I agree here also. The sign points to something else. It is not the thing it represents.

However, why do we think today that a poem represents an image or even music? I find the metaphors suspicious. It seems to me a poem more likely represents a thought which need not have anything to do with an image or music. For example, take the sentences written in this post. What images come to mind? What music?

---

That is when you get where semiotics will implode, because in france they think in a way, in united states another. Some defend a word does not even produce a meaning by itself, depending upon a verbal construction. Some will claim there is 3,5, phases of interpretation. Now, poems produce the artificial music not by the words itself, but by the use of metric, rhytim, etc. which they heritade from music itself. It is not exactly a semiotic example, but linguistic, as you are talking about phonems. Semiotics will only talk about signs. So, there is more than one process occuring when you read a poem. (or it should if you know the language of the poem).

Quote:

---

I suppose I would as well. It all depends on how much the content is pushed in my face as something I must accept. Consider the movie Melancholia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholia_(2011_film)). This was well made. It had good style. I disagreed with the message. How should I approach the movie?

---

After Antichrist, you should approach it with a long poking stick. Being well made is technical, you are talking about the form. Style is more subtle and the style I found normal, cliche, not inovative. If you look beyond the cinematography (which i suspect where the "good" style is), the directing is feeble, the acting dull and the script empty. More elements of style as Cinema is a multiple art. Style will not save bad substance by the way and good substance will be ruined by bad style. They are not the same, but integrated. Most of flaws in good artworks is probally the lack of balance between both - think of flawed good books: Dracula who loses the moody of the book, once the gothic style goes to a urban setting, words because excessive, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

I think you misunderstand me, I know what is a turing test. But let's analyse the specific of a test, because the turing test is in the end just a way to produce a text. Does it really have "style" beyond correct grammatical structure for example?

---

It may not even have correct grammatical structure, perhaps as much as a Google translated text. Perhaps what we need to do is define "style" and "substance". I would say that the text itself is at least part of its style. If the text exists at all, there is some style there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

The substance does not need to be even related to the topic. Let me give you an imaginary example: someone debates here, long words, always claimming to have explained all. Rude attacking the person, but avoids the topic completely. Obviously, about the topic no substance, but you get a lot of substance from this harsh, over the top use of language. It does not tell you what you want, but it is telling something.

---

Yes, there is "substance" in that style, but does that mean that style and substance are the same thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

That is when you get where semiotics will implode, because in france they think in a way, in united states another. Some defend a word does not even produce a meaning by itself, depending upon a verbal construction. Some will claim there is 3,5, phases of interpretation. Now, poems produce the artificial music not by the words itself, but by the use of metric, rhytim, etc. which they heritade from music itself. It is not exactly a semiotic example, but linguistic, as you are talking about phonems. Semiotics will only talk about signs. So, there is more than one process occuring when you read a poem. (or it should if you know the language of the poem).

---

I don't think the word produces the meaning by itself. Meaning would need a community of speakers who understand the word where each of them produces similar meanings. My ulterior motive here is to claim that the consciousness needed to use words is not reducible to the words themselves.

I can see how the metrical aspect of some poetry can link this to music, but not all language is metrical. I can also see how some verbal descriptions can allow listeners to get a visual idea of something, but I don't think language is mainly used to provide a description of objects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

After Antichrist, you should approach it with a long poking stick. Being well made is technical, you are talking about the form. Style is more subtle and the style I found normal, cliche, not inovative. If you look beyond the cinematography (which i suspect where the "good" style is), the directing is feeble, the acting dull and the script empty. More elements of style as Cinema is a multiple art. Style will not save bad substance by the way and good substance will be ruined by bad style. They are not the same, but integrated. Most of flaws in good artworks is probally the lack of balance between both - think of flawed good books: Dracula who loses the moody of the book, once the gothic style goes to a urban setting, words because excessive, etc.

---

I agree that style will not save bad substance and good substance can be ruined by bad style. He did have a nice last scene with the earth being swallowed up by Melancholia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

It may not even have correct grammatical structure, perhaps as much as a Google translated text. Perhaps what we need to do is define "style" and "substance". I would say that the text itself is at least part of its style. If the text exists at all, there is some style there.

---

Style is a mark of the "artist" past experiences at that moment. It is a bit like DNA. I suspect for example, google translation style is so poor that we can see they basically inherite all from the previous text.

Quote:

---

Yes, there is "substance" in that style, but does that mean that style and substance are the same thing?

---

No, they are things that mingle, work together. But different things.

Quote:

---

I don't think the word produces the meaning by itself. Meaning would need a community of speakers who understand the word where each of them produces similar meanings. My ulterior motive here is to claim that the consciousness needed to use words is not reducible to the words themselves.

---

That is rather complicated. Sometimes it seems that the word do carry a context, sometimes it seems it is very basic. It is something all semioticism in the world cann't reach upon an agreement.

Quote:

---

I can see how the metrical aspect of some poetry can link this to music, but not all language is metrical. I can also see how some verbal descriptions can allow listeners to get a visual idea of something, but I don't think language is mainly used to provide a description of objects.

---

Yes, not all. Poetic language (and may be in prose) is metrical. Typical prose language try to emulate the orality too, but a casual/matter of fact orality, which rythim is not musical and often use punctuation to achive this effect. And of course, many verbal construction do not produce image, like abstract ideas.

Quote:

---

I agree that style will not save bad substance and good substance can be ruined by bad style. He did have a nice last scene with the earth being swallowed up by Melancholia.

---

Well, yeah. There is fragments because he domains well the technique of his trade, but he found no inspiration/combination/theme that worked as well as his Dogville/Manderlay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

That is rather complicated. Sometimes it seems that the word do carry a context, sometimes it seems it is very basic. It is something all semioticism in the world cann't reach upon an agreement.

---

I am only vaguely aware of some of these positions. My ulterior motive is to neither eliminate consciousness nor reduce it to something that is supposedly unconscious.

Thoughts and words are both "about" something else. Sound is a convenient way to transmit a thought through space using words from one thinker to another. Words need to contain only enough information to allow the speakers to do the understanding with reasonable accuracy. Words fail when the speakers are not using the same language or when deception is involved.

This does appear to be far from the style vs substance issue, but it might be linked back by thinking of style as the words or thoughts themselves and substance as what the words or thoughts are about.