OK, but now it's surely the case that God's mark is a metaphor and also that Cain is a metaphor, etc. Yet I can feel myself being spun down into a dizzying Saul Ostrowian vortex here since there's no end to forcing us to agree that the ultimate distinctions between the literal and the metaphorical rest on belief, and belief can't ever be falsified. Nevertheless, we can begin an investigation into mark by beginning with a presumed literal definition, which Mr. Miller has provided well enough. Now we can investigate the varied categories of marks and then the metaphorical uses of the term and how we take our metaphors as fact. wc
--- On Sat, 6/27/09, Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: marks > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, June 27, 2009, 9:41 AM > But in Cains case it was an actual > mark so all that met him knew him - it > might even be thought of as G-D's autographic mark > > > On 6/27/09 10:24 AM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The literal mark is one thing and its function as a > metaphor is another. The > expression, "the mark of Cain", is a metaphorical use of > the noun, nmark, to > convey an as-if effect and not a literal one. > wc > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: marks > > To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, > "armando > baeza" <[email protected]> > > Date: Saturday, June 27, 2009, 12:19 AM > > Then there is the mark of Cain > > > > On 6/26/09 5:31 PM, "armando baeza" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > It's uniqueness is also a mark.!!!!My friend is a > Mark! > > (mando is a mark) > > > > On Jun 26, 2009, at 2:24 PM, armando baeza wrote: > > > > > In clay sculpture a mark often times are finger > > prints. > > > So what is really the problem here?How about > > signature? > > > mando > > > > > > On Jun 26, 2009, at 1:30 PM, [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > > >> Michael writes the material between the > brackets: > > >> > > >> [On Jun 26, 2009, at 1:38 PM, [email protected] > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Miller's definition was this: > > >>> > > >>> "A mark is whatever is done to a surface > in a > > single uninteruppted > > >> touch." Miller's definition implies marks > being > > limited to human > > >> action > > >> alone. > > >> > > >> Where? I'm afraid I don't see it.] > > >> > > >> I bracket it, because my small worry is that > > succinct but sloppy > > >> lingo by > > >> me may have led Michael to think he's > responding > > to me when he > > >> says, "But > > >> your assertion above is one of them > inference > > things, not an > > >> implication. > > >> *You* > > >> interpreted "single uninterrupted touch" to > convey > > exclusively human > > >> touching, not bird-poo. . ." > > >> > > >> What cheers...@aol>COM actually wrote > was: > > >> > > >> [But earlier William conveyed that Miller's > > definition was this: > > >> > > >> "A mark is whatever is done to a surface in > a > > single uninteruppted > > >> touchb&. > > >> Miller's definition > > >> implies marks being limited to human action > > >> alone."] > > >> > > >> In fact, however, I largely agree with > William's > > "interpretation" > > >> of what > > >> Chris had in mind. William might have been > clearer > > if he'd said, > > >> "Miller's > > >> definition suggests. . ." > > >> > > >> In any case, I presume Chris Miller lives > on, > > though he may be > > >> taking a > > >> long weekend. When he gets back perhaps > he'll > > answer our feather- > > >> weight > > >> question: Did you, Chris, have in mind > solely > > human doings when > > >> you wrote, "A > > >> mark > > >> is whatever is done to a surface in a single > > uninteruppted touch"? > > >> > > >> Michael goes on to say: > > >> > > >> "As for my reply to Kate, I was addressing > only > > the nature of > > >> human-made > > >> marks. What I said did not preclude > non-human-made > > marks. . . > > >> > > >> I'd say you did a bad job of conveying that. > You > > wrote: > > >> > > >> [A mark is a distinctive visual artifact. > > >> > > >> Style - from stylus, a writing instrument, a > thing > > that makes a mark. > > >> Mark - a touching of a surface, a line made > as an > > indication or > > >> record of > > >> something > > >> > > >> The marks left on the surface--of a painting > or of > > a sculpture, > > >> even-- > > >> embody and preserve the action of the > maker's > > hand, that is, his > > >> *sytle*. No > > >> two > > >> people make identical marks, or make marks > with > > identical physical
