Friday, October 30, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Project 1 recap
Project 1 was a photo retouching assignment to generate source material for all proceeding assignments. The difficulty I encountered in the development process was finding images. My great grand father and grandpa had an absolutew wealth of photos they had taken and collected over the years. So the issue was not if I could locate a pristine image that had been hermetically sealed inside of an album of ages past (inside a dusty safe encircled by a CO2 lazer mesh wich was protected further by an anvil perched precariously over the whole assembly). The problem came when I needed a picture that needed some photo shop work so as to actually have some work product. I found under neath the albums of photos a rather extemporaneously organized shoe box of the B-string photos that didn't make it into an album. Most of them, given their age and their vituperous yet unfortunate living conditions had felt the bite of entropy especially hard. Most of them were akin to an amalgamation of ash that adhered to it self by some unknown force (midocloriens much?). given the disparity of quality between the two sets of images I (in typical Goldilocks fashion) found the photos that were some where in the middle, not ruined and not pristine. scanned at home on my flat bed and sent to my flash stick
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
the importance of meaning
The crux of effective communication, relationships, and sociology is shared meaning. Shared meaning being that a "symbol" (verbal, written, non-verbal or other wise) that means the same thing to a group of people.
Take for instance the communication sub-straight of written language. Written language is based on (and could not exist without) shared meaning. A word is only a symbol, a word is only a drawing/picture, a word is in essence only a squiggle. The only reason a word has any meaning is because a person or group of people gave it that meaning. Example: the only reason the word "cat" means cat is because people said it did. We assigned that combination of three symbols (C-A-T) to correlate with the physical description and mental prototype of the feline we all know and love. A dictionary is simply a volume of symbols that have been given meaning agreed upon a large portion of society.
As time goes on the meaning of the ubiquitous symbols we call words has changed; to the extent that we have the evolution of local dialects and completely new languages. To the same end a squiggle can have (within a single language) a social meaning, a dictionary meaning, a relationship meaning, and a personal meaning. Words that have one social meaning can have totally different relationship meaning. The squiggle combo "hello tard" has a negative social meaning; but at the same time a positive relationship meaning. This is concurrently true for symbols that have been given the social and or dictionary meaning of "bad word". Yet! As we have previously discussed squiggles have no inherent meaning, the only meaning we have is the one we give it. So given that fact how can a squiggle be considered inherently bad? If words that originally had innocuous meanings such as "fag" (simply meant a bundle of sticks) can become "bad", would not it also be possible for a word that either started bad or became bad to become "good"? An excellent example of this is the word Christian, it was originally used as a slur against followers of Jesus yet now it is the common self identifier used in a positive sense to refer to them selves.
So because words have no inherent meaning or ill will, two things determine the meaning of the word during its genesis as well as when its meaning evolves. These two factors are intent and context. For example if two biblical scholars were studying numbers 22 (the story of Balaam's donkey) and one of them reads the King James word choice for donkey, no harm is done, why? Because the context the word was used in (study of the bible, among friends, as part of a larger context), and the intent of the word had no ill will or malice it was simply to denote a beast of burden, the meaning of that word was completely innocuous. Though if in rage in the context of a slur or intended as slander, that same word for that particular ungulate would indeed have a hateful meaning.
Take for instance the communication sub-straight of written language. Written language is based on (and could not exist without) shared meaning. A word is only a symbol, a word is only a drawing/picture, a word is in essence only a squiggle. The only reason a word has any meaning is because a person or group of people gave it that meaning. Example: the only reason the word "cat" means cat is because people said it did. We assigned that combination of three symbols (C-A-T) to correlate with the physical description and mental prototype of the feline we all know and love. A dictionary is simply a volume of symbols that have been given meaning agreed upon a large portion of society.
As time goes on the meaning of the ubiquitous symbols we call words has changed; to the extent that we have the evolution of local dialects and completely new languages. To the same end a squiggle can have (within a single language) a social meaning, a dictionary meaning, a relationship meaning, and a personal meaning. Words that have one social meaning can have totally different relationship meaning. The squiggle combo "hello tard" has a negative social meaning; but at the same time a positive relationship meaning. This is concurrently true for symbols that have been given the social and or dictionary meaning of "bad word". Yet! As we have previously discussed squiggles have no inherent meaning, the only meaning we have is the one we give it. So given that fact how can a squiggle be considered inherently bad? If words that originally had innocuous meanings such as "fag" (simply meant a bundle of sticks) can become "bad", would not it also be possible for a word that either started bad or became bad to become "good"? An excellent example of this is the word Christian, it was originally used as a slur against followers of Jesus yet now it is the common self identifier used in a positive sense to refer to them selves.
So because words have no inherent meaning or ill will, two things determine the meaning of the word during its genesis as well as when its meaning evolves. These two factors are intent and context. For example if two biblical scholars were studying numbers 22 (the story of Balaam's donkey) and one of them reads the King James word choice for donkey, no harm is done, why? Because the context the word was used in (study of the bible, among friends, as part of a larger context), and the intent of the word had no ill will or malice it was simply to denote a beast of burden, the meaning of that word was completely innocuous. Though if in rage in the context of a slur or intended as slander, that same word for that particular ungulate would indeed have a hateful meaning.
as real as it gets...
as real as it gets...
Reality. What is it and is it of a fixed/universal nature or is each individual the sole arbiter of their own personal reality. Is perception, as the saying goes, 100% of reality; or is reality something bigger than our senses, and grander than the interpretation of our small limited finite brain.
I would like to start with the claim that yes reality is governed by our own limits of perception. The world around us only exists as we perceive it does. We are simply incapable of knowing anything that cannot be known and we are incapable of knowing anything that cannot be perceived (or has not been perceived yet). The Matrix being an excellent example of this; in that we could be simply be fed electrical signals to our brain and that is reality. What is perceived in the matrix is real to the person perceiving it. “So if I die in the matrix do I really die”….. “your mind makes it real”. One might purport that indeed there was a larger “real” wold outside the matrix, being that the fact that a physical being acted out their will by means of an incorporeal avatar in a non-physical world. This is in STARK contrast to a reality where incorporeal (e.g. spirit) beings act out their will by means of a physical body in a matter bound world. Though if there is a larger world outside the matrix does that make the matrix less than reality? Certainly not, the matrix is reality to the people that perceive it as such, and the matrix is only unreal to the unplugged because their level of perception has increased. Yet even for the people out side of the matrix they are accepting their new “real” world as they perceive it just as they did in the matrix so what really is the dividing line betwixt one reality and the next. What makes reality “A” fake and reality “B” legitimate? The only difference is the level of perception that an individual or group of individuals have. As the level of perception is increased the awareness of reality is proportionately raised. Using this algorithm we come to the conclusion that to perceive reality at its highest level one would have to have the highest amount of perception (omniscience). All other realities beneath it would be of artificial construct and perception based.
Even the process of defining reality and the world around us known as the scientific process, is based on what? It is based on the process observable (perceivable) results that can be repeated. Without perceived truth there is no science. Consider quantum mechanics which dictates that if we observe/measure a particle, that our very observation will dictate its state. It was believed by some centuries ago that the earth was carried on the back of a turtle in the middle of a giant ocean. Now after raising our level of perception we know this to be false. Now science stands upon its ivory tower proclaiming that the world we perceive now is reaity (as opposed to a world that everything revolves around, or that was created by ice giants, or rides on the back of an over sized aquatic reptile). Yet as we reach the limits of our knowledge of the universe and approach the singularity of information that is unknown and that wich cannot be known, I fail to believe that we understand the totality of reality in this vast universe. As such just as ancient man was proven wrong it would be arrogant of us to believe that we can stake a claim on what is real and what isn't
Consider on a social level when people perceive one another. Similar to the fact that we don’t physically see any one ever (we don’t see them we see light that has reflected off of them at varying wavelengths and that information is interpreted by our brain) we don’t interact with the person, we interact with the image of them that exists in our mind. Example: some people think that billy is nice, others think that he is mean. Wich one is the real billy? Is billy nice or is he mean? The common answer is that Billy is both, that is both a nice person and a mean person at different times to different people. This basic view is not the correct answer. Both group “A” and group “B” the people that think he is nice and the group that think he is mean never interacted with billy in the 1st place. They interacted with a mental construct based on information that has been received, decoded and interpreted by their brain. This mental construct was built over time (possibly only seconds) based on both 1st hand (direct interaction with billy) and 2nd hand (hearing about billys words and deeds from others e.g. gossip) information. The fact that billys actions can be interpreted differently by different people goes to saying that it is the perception of those actions not the actions them selves that dictate weather billy will be seen as mean or nice. Though billys use of what he thinks are “nice” actions could be received as ill by those around him (and vice versa), we see that weather billy is mean or nice is created on the receiving end, not the sent. The people cannot control billys actions only how they CHOOSE, based on their past experiences, world view, and belief system, to perceive those actions on a per person basis.
Reality. What is it and is it of a fixed/universal nature or is each individual the sole arbiter of their own personal reality. Is perception, as the saying goes, 100% of reality; or is reality something bigger than our senses, and grander than the interpretation of our small limited finite brain.
I would like to start with the claim that yes reality is governed by our own limits of perception. The world around us only exists as we perceive it does. We are simply incapable of knowing anything that cannot be known and we are incapable of knowing anything that cannot be perceived (or has not been perceived yet). The Matrix being an excellent example of this; in that we could be simply be fed electrical signals to our brain and that is reality. What is perceived in the matrix is real to the person perceiving it. “So if I die in the matrix do I really die”….. “your mind makes it real”. One might purport that indeed there was a larger “real” wold outside the matrix, being that the fact that a physical being acted out their will by means of an incorporeal avatar in a non-physical world. This is in STARK contrast to a reality where incorporeal (e.g. spirit) beings act out their will by means of a physical body in a matter bound world. Though if there is a larger world outside the matrix does that make the matrix less than reality? Certainly not, the matrix is reality to the people that perceive it as such, and the matrix is only unreal to the unplugged because their level of perception has increased. Yet even for the people out side of the matrix they are accepting their new “real” world as they perceive it just as they did in the matrix so what really is the dividing line betwixt one reality and the next. What makes reality “A” fake and reality “B” legitimate? The only difference is the level of perception that an individual or group of individuals have. As the level of perception is increased the awareness of reality is proportionately raised. Using this algorithm we come to the conclusion that to perceive reality at its highest level one would have to have the highest amount of perception (omniscience). All other realities beneath it would be of artificial construct and perception based.
Even the process of defining reality and the world around us known as the scientific process, is based on what? It is based on the process observable (perceivable) results that can be repeated. Without perceived truth there is no science. Consider quantum mechanics which dictates that if we observe/measure a particle, that our very observation will dictate its state. It was believed by some centuries ago that the earth was carried on the back of a turtle in the middle of a giant ocean. Now after raising our level of perception we know this to be false. Now science stands upon its ivory tower proclaiming that the world we perceive now is reaity (as opposed to a world that everything revolves around, or that was created by ice giants, or rides on the back of an over sized aquatic reptile). Yet as we reach the limits of our knowledge of the universe and approach the singularity of information that is unknown and that wich cannot be known, I fail to believe that we understand the totality of reality in this vast universe. As such just as ancient man was proven wrong it would be arrogant of us to believe that we can stake a claim on what is real and what isn't
Consider on a social level when people perceive one another. Similar to the fact that we don’t physically see any one ever (we don’t see them we see light that has reflected off of them at varying wavelengths and that information is interpreted by our brain) we don’t interact with the person, we interact with the image of them that exists in our mind. Example: some people think that billy is nice, others think that he is mean. Wich one is the real billy? Is billy nice or is he mean? The common answer is that Billy is both, that is both a nice person and a mean person at different times to different people. This basic view is not the correct answer. Both group “A” and group “B” the people that think he is nice and the group that think he is mean never interacted with billy in the 1st place. They interacted with a mental construct based on information that has been received, decoded and interpreted by their brain. This mental construct was built over time (possibly only seconds) based on both 1st hand (direct interaction with billy) and 2nd hand (hearing about billys words and deeds from others e.g. gossip) information. The fact that billys actions can be interpreted differently by different people goes to saying that it is the perception of those actions not the actions them selves that dictate weather billy will be seen as mean or nice. Though billys use of what he thinks are “nice” actions could be received as ill by those around him (and vice versa), we see that weather billy is mean or nice is created on the receiving end, not the sent. The people cannot control billys actions only how they CHOOSE, based on their past experiences, world view, and belief system, to perceive those actions on a per person basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
