https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Phi_phenomenon
> On Aug 22, 2020, at 10:58 AM, Myron Ort <[email protected]> wrote: > > Didn’t the Gestalt psychology movement deal with this phenomenon. > > "Gestalt principles of movement perception > In 1912 Wertheimer discovered the phi phenomenon, an optical illusion in > which stationary objects shown in rapid succession, transcending the > threshold at which they can be perceived separately, appear to move. ... …is > referred to as the phi phenomenon.” > > https://www.psychologynoteshq.com/phi-phenomenon-and-psychology/ > <https://www.psychologynoteshq.com/phi-phenomenon-and-psychology/> > > > >> On Aug 22, 2020, at 10:52 AM, Santiago Fernandez <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Bernie, >> >> As far as I understand Deleuze, one of the few exceptions he does while >> following Bergson is that Bergson can’t or is unwilling to accept the image >> movement as illusion,Bergson can’t let go the machination that creates it; >> Deleuze says if it’s percieved as movement - wether one is aware of the >> trickery or not - it is image movement. Otherwise, Deleuze wouldn’t have any >> thesis at all. >> >> Enviado desde mi iPhone >> >>> El 22 ago 2020, a la(s) 12:28, Michael Betancourt >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> escribió: >>> >>> Hi Bernard, >>> >>> What do you mean by Deleuze then? >>> >>> It's very easy to reject or deny what someone else says when you haven't >>> explained your view yet. How about you explain it yourself? >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> Michael Betancourt, Ph.D >>> https://michaelbetancourt.com <https://michaelbetancourt.com/> >>> cell 305.562.9192 >>> https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Betancourt/e/B01H3QILT0/ >>> <https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Betancourt/e/B01H3QILT0/> >>> Sent from my phone >>> >>>> On Aug 22, 2020, at 1:19 PM, Bernard Roddy <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> proofing my post: >>>> >>>> 'It's as if the lab protects the writer from philosophy.' >>>> >>>> 'Now, all these tests [. . .]" >>>> >>>> Bernie >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:13 PM Bernard Roddy <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> Hi Pip: >>>> >>>> The perceptual experiments you describe don't seem to me to be necessary. >>>> We already have the moving image of cinema. What I have noticed, however, >>>> is that there is an attraction to the various lab studies. And this will >>>> be of particular interest for "experimental" animation. >>>> >>>> One of the things I am a little impatient with is this continual >>>> observation that Delueze is somehow not saying anything about whatever we >>>> want to identify as this "phi phenomenon." It's as if the lab protests the >>>> writer from philosophy. All I have to do is open these first pages of >>>> Deleuze to see that his thinking begins with broader questions than some >>>> sort of film history. >>>> >>>> You write that "Deleuze rejects the notion that motion is an illusion >>>> created from stills [. . .]." The very reliance on illusion, as far as I >>>> can tell, has no relevance in what I understand of Deleuze. So, in a >>>> sense, I can agree. But this point doesn't shed any light on what Deleuze >>>> thinks. (I don't think A Thousand Plateaus is a reference.) >>>> >>>> No, all these details about tests with lights going on and off reminds me >>>> of Bergson, who is also reading that kind of research, or what we would >>>> today call cognitive science (only it's usually involving people who have >>>> suffered injury of some kind and can thus provide a case study without any >>>> ethical difficulty). >>>> >>>> Let's go to this Gary Beydler. I've never heard of him. But the >>>> description lends itself to what goes for "experiment" in film. And that >>>> would belong also to what we encounter in psychological research that >>>> subscribes to the same philosophical orientation. That orientation, if I'm >>>> not mistaken, is rejected by Deleuze. For one thing, it fails to recognize >>>> the conception of movement and time that we find in Bergson. But we're all >>>> pretty versed in these effects, and so (as I see it) we present these as >>>> the philosophy of relevance. >>>> >>>> Deleuze isn't easy. But he's damn interesting, and this is in part because >>>> he'll formulate all these notions of images to talk about changes over the >>>> history of narrative cinema (he's selective, and says this history doesn't >>>> include all the screen work we might be paying for). >>>> >>>> (And I signed on to open a thought about the avant-garde.) >>>> >>>> Bernie >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - - - - - >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> FrameWorks mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >>>> <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> FrameWorks mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >>> <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks> >> _______________________________________________ >> FrameWorks mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
