“In Calvin’s imagination, it would be the living tiger that he sees not the doll that other characters see.”
You continue to deny the reality that the strip actually shows. You are familiar with the classic example of a syllogism?
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
No rational person can possibly dispute either premise or the logic of the conclusion. The conclusion in the syllogistic structure is INESCAPABLE.
Let’s apply the same syllogistic analysis to what we see in the strip:
The source of a person’s imagination is his mind
The person imagining the newspaper is Calvin
The newspaper contains a photograph
The photograph shows Calvin and Hobbes
Hobbes in the photograph is A DOLL
Therefore, CALVIN’S MIND SHOWED HOBBES AS A DOLL IN THE PHOTOGRAPH. The conclusion that Calvin’s mind is acknowledging that Hobbes would be photographed as a doll is just as inescapable as the conclusion in the classic example, because you cannot rationally deny the reality of any of the premises or the logical structure. The logic is clear and unmistakable no matter how much you try to avoid it. As I said, you trying to claim “oh, it’s not Calvin’s imagination, it’s Watterson’s" is an attempt at evasion of the point and what the strip shows on your part, every bit as much as it would be to claim “Calvin doesn’t imagine Spiff or growing to the size of a galaxy, Watterson does”.
“It was Bill Watterson depicting WHAT CALVIN DID. His mind acknowledged that others see Hobbes as a doll.”
“If you mean that Bill’s mind acknowledged that other characters see Hobbes as a doll, that was soon established. If you mean that Calvin’s mind acknowledged that others see Hobbes as a doll, that is also possible.”
You know perfectly well that I meant Calvin’s mind. But I’ll state it explicitly: The fact that CALVIN’S mind imagined a photograph of Hobbes as a doll meant that CALVIN’S mind acknowledges that others see Hobbes as a doll. No other conclusion is possible, since the imagined newspaper (INCLUDING the photograph) is a product of CALVIN’s mind. Your attempt to claim that “oh, it’s not Calvin thinking that, it’s Watterson” is an evasion on your part.
“the caption “Calvin drives fire truck, few injured!” suggests to me that the newspaper represents how what Calvin imagines would be reported rather than it being what Calvin is imagining”
There you go again, trying to claim that what Calvin imagines is not what he imagines. It’s an absurdity.
“In Calvin’s imagination, it would be the living tiger that he sees not the doll that other characters see.”
You continue to deny the reality that the strip actually shows. You are familiar with the classic example of a syllogism?
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
No rational person can possibly dispute either premise or the logic of the conclusion. The conclusion in the syllogistic structure is INESCAPABLE.
Let’s apply the same syllogistic analysis to what we see in the strip:
The source of a person’s imagination is his mind
The person imagining the newspaper is Calvin
The newspaper contains a photograph
The photograph shows Calvin and Hobbes
Hobbes in the photograph is A DOLL
Therefore, CALVIN’S MIND SHOWED HOBBES AS A DOLL IN THE PHOTOGRAPH. The conclusion that Calvin’s mind is acknowledging that Hobbes would be photographed as a doll is just as inescapable as the conclusion in the classic example, because you cannot rationally deny the reality of any of the premises or the logical structure. The logic is clear and unmistakable no matter how much you try to avoid it. As I said, you trying to claim “oh, it’s not Calvin’s imagination, it’s Watterson’s" is an attempt at evasion of the point and what the strip shows on your part, every bit as much as it would be to claim “Calvin doesn’t imagine Spiff or growing to the size of a galaxy, Watterson does”.