Q:How do you do sir?
A:By fiat, mostly.
Q:How are you?
A:By the will of god I suppose. It still sounds a bit queer, but the alternatives, by inertia, by the spontaneity of consciousness, etc, strike me as even more queer, so I will just have to allow the traditional responce to stand.
Q:How are you feeling?
A:After impact with an external force elctro chemichal signals are sent through my nervous system and into my brain where by a heiarchial system....etc
And how about that?
Showing posts with label conversation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conversation. Show all posts
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Sometimes these things happen
I talk online with Ray a lot.
And the conversations are often good. We have made some real breakthroughs now and then I think.
But nothing like this had happened before.
And it was real cool.
So I figured I would put it here.
Enjoy:
And the conversations are often good. We have made some real breakthroughs now and then I think.
But nothing like this had happened before.
And it was real cool.
So I figured I would put it here.
Enjoy:
7:17 PM Ray: So the issues of philosophy, the philosophers job, doesn't go away regardless of the improvment of the world
me: no: the world changes, and so the way the world understands itself changes
7:18 PM its our job to speak the understanding
to make the self-understanding of the world into something that can be looked at, listened to, experienced
Ray: speak.. seek etymology online HO!
| 5 minutes |
7:24 PM Ray: no connection
me: oh too bad
Ray: speak the understanding.
me: mmhmm
we play homunculous
7:25 PM Ray: We are like doctors some times.
Or with the family of metaphors you are using today
landscapers
me: gardeners
Ray: Or maybe...
right
zen
me: archetects
Ray: rock gardens
me: right
7:26 PM Ray: or banzai gardeners.
me: model makers
Ray: But with our fellow humanbeings, or not with them.
me: scientists, poets, etc
Ray: creative children
7:27 PM singers
me: indeed
the role of the philosopher is hard to nail down
because it is hallucinogenic
Ray: riiiight
me: the philosopher changes the way the world sees itself
by showing the world its self
7:28 PM Ray: we are a focal point
me: a hinge
Ray: a mirror
a pool
a cave
me: a baited hook
Ray: a candle
7:29 PM me: a lens
Ray: a snare
an eddie
me: a force
Ray: transparent
poetic
7:30 PM me: tragic
rediculous
Ray: comidic
silent
loud
me: vigelent
Ray: a paradox
passive
me: affective
7:31 PM effected
Ray: aware
blinded
me: wonder-full
Ray: surgery
7:32 PM me: we all taste different
sugery
sour
bitter
bland
7:33 PM sugary*
we build things up, we knock them down
7:34 PM Ray: we watch things get built up and knocked down
we laugh
me: we kill
7:35 PM we birth we nurture
Ray: we die
me: we die
we live
we ask
7:36 PM Ray: we answer
we seek
me: we find
we forget
Ray: we understand
we impose
we trust
7:37 PM me: we doubt
we affirm and deny
Ray: we sing
7:38 PM me: we dance
we are humans being humans
we sit
we breathe
we think
we sleep and wake
7:39 PM Ray: eat and hunger
me: we consume
we burn
we grow
Ray: we wilt
me: we flourish
Ray: a plant
a flower
me: a wallflower
7:40 PM a flower in the field
Ray: we are rich with nectar
or heavy with it
me: we call to the bees
we lure them in
we love them
we need them
they love us
they need us
7:41 PM we feed them
they teach us
we change, they change
Ray: pollinate us
7:43 PM may the hive go on
me: and may there be a myriad of blooms
Ray: fruit and honey
and all that is sweet
7:44 PM me: crystallized air and sun
water and earth
7:46 PM Ray: crystallization.
7:47 PM me: to be metabolized, burned slowly
careful smoke
| 6 minutes |
7:54 PM me: what is going on here?
Ray: internet glitch
me: that is a good answer
Monday, October 13, 2008
Some mood lighting
So here is a little bit of what I have been throwing together.
It is the messiest of messes right now, but that's how these things start, or that's how this thing has started, or something.
I kind of got carried away a little, more than once, and I am fairly certain that a lot of the wrestling with this project will be in getting high flying ideas to come down to earth in one way or another.
This is nowhere on the outline, btw. This is a sort of introduction to an introduction. A prelude to an explanation of purpose. A prologue of sorts.
mmmhmm
(What is calling itself to be here?)
So: a funny thing happened to me on my way into the 21st century. A maxim was echoed, time and again, from every corner, from the newspapers and newscasts, from movies and magazines, from saturday morning cartoons and road-trip radio broadcasts, from novels and picture books and classrooms and pulpits and thousands and thousands of commercials, it resounded in the air and it colored the walls. Be Yourself. It was a message the world seemed desperate to convey. It was impossible to avoid, ubiquitous, omnipresent, but also inescapable in form. One wanted to scream: I am being myself. It was all one could do. With all the repetition though, one could come to have some doubts. Are you being yourself? Have you even found out who you are? How can you know if you are being yourself if you don't know who you are? Who are you anyway? And how can you be yourself, or fail to be yourself for that matter? What the hell was going on?
It's that last question that's most nagging. What the hell was going on? "Be Yourself" was being called, but from whence? by who? Was this some tug of conscience?
To confront this call is utterly destabilizing, everything starts to shift and tilt as the words come into focus. Be,Yourself. We no longer know anymore what it is to be, what form our self might take. We no longer have any idea how to follow the command, or what is even being commanded, we have only a raw force. What at first seemed simple and friendly takes on a bizarre, if not unplayful appearance. And it is not unplayful. In its mysteriousness the call to be yourself can invite us to explore and experiment, to find out how to find out, if we are the sort attracted by the mysterious rather than repelled.
But I've wandered a bit afield already. Be yourself. As a call so many of us have heard, it stands as a prime example of a kind of weirdness that has yet to be unpacked in any full way, and this particular instance hinges on the Self. Selves, it seems, abound. They are the most everyday of things. And yet it is nigh impossible to get a good explanation of just what a self is. The simple reasoning seems to be that since you have a self, and you'd be crazy to deny that you do, you must know what it is. Just look at it if you don't. You're the best judge of your own self. And quit with this philosophical nonsense, I was only trying to be helpful.
But sometimes philosophical nonsense can take on a life of its own, and an investigation of just what a self is is exactly the sort of thing that feeds off of itself. It is no simple task however, it has in one way or another been taken on in a myriad of ways, and every last attempt has fallen short of the mark. Many claim to have been to the peak, to have conquered once and for all the self, but every flag that flies on that mountain only serves to suggest more to climb. Some time ago it came into vogue to attempt to map out the self, but to leave room about the edges for shadow and mystery. 'Here there be dragons'. This was announced with the same sort of finality as every previous trek up the mountain, as a flag at the peak, with a dire warning not to traverse any farther. More recently there have been those that want to deny anything hidden beyond such impenetrable fog. Only what can be seen, they maintain, exists, and where there is no sight there is no mountain to climb. There are marks along the trail though, of some who wandered far out into the fog long ago, and their accounts have been slowly spreading through the west, mingling with our own tales of intrepid explorers of the self, tempting some to wander off into that mist, perhaps never to bee seen again.
I do not wish to make any claim of finality. I do not wish to put up flags. Many of the roads I have traversed have been well marked by those that came before me, and I believe it is clear that whatever else might be true, there is a lot more exploring to be done.
It is the messiest of messes right now, but that's how these things start, or that's how this thing has started, or something.
I kind of got carried away a little, more than once, and I am fairly certain that a lot of the wrestling with this project will be in getting high flying ideas to come down to earth in one way or another.
This is nowhere on the outline, btw. This is a sort of introduction to an introduction. A prelude to an explanation of purpose. A prologue of sorts.
mmmhmm
(What is calling itself to be here?)
So: a funny thing happened to me on my way into the 21st century. A maxim was echoed, time and again, from every corner, from the newspapers and newscasts, from movies and magazines, from saturday morning cartoons and road-trip radio broadcasts, from novels and picture books and classrooms and pulpits and thousands and thousands of commercials, it resounded in the air and it colored the walls. Be Yourself. It was a message the world seemed desperate to convey. It was impossible to avoid, ubiquitous, omnipresent, but also inescapable in form. One wanted to scream: I am being myself. It was all one could do. With all the repetition though, one could come to have some doubts. Are you being yourself? Have you even found out who you are? How can you know if you are being yourself if you don't know who you are? Who are you anyway? And how can you be yourself, or fail to be yourself for that matter? What the hell was going on?
It's that last question that's most nagging. What the hell was going on? "Be Yourself" was being called, but from whence? by who? Was this some tug of conscience?
To confront this call is utterly destabilizing, everything starts to shift and tilt as the words come into focus. Be,Yourself. We no longer know anymore what it is to be, what form our self might take. We no longer have any idea how to follow the command, or what is even being commanded, we have only a raw force. What at first seemed simple and friendly takes on a bizarre, if not unplayful appearance. And it is not unplayful. In its mysteriousness the call to be yourself can invite us to explore and experiment, to find out how to find out, if we are the sort attracted by the mysterious rather than repelled.
But I've wandered a bit afield already. Be yourself. As a call so many of us have heard, it stands as a prime example of a kind of weirdness that has yet to be unpacked in any full way, and this particular instance hinges on the Self. Selves, it seems, abound. They are the most everyday of things. And yet it is nigh impossible to get a good explanation of just what a self is. The simple reasoning seems to be that since you have a self, and you'd be crazy to deny that you do, you must know what it is. Just look at it if you don't. You're the best judge of your own self. And quit with this philosophical nonsense, I was only trying to be helpful.
But sometimes philosophical nonsense can take on a life of its own, and an investigation of just what a self is is exactly the sort of thing that feeds off of itself. It is no simple task however, it has in one way or another been taken on in a myriad of ways, and every last attempt has fallen short of the mark. Many claim to have been to the peak, to have conquered once and for all the self, but every flag that flies on that mountain only serves to suggest more to climb. Some time ago it came into vogue to attempt to map out the self, but to leave room about the edges for shadow and mystery. 'Here there be dragons'. This was announced with the same sort of finality as every previous trek up the mountain, as a flag at the peak, with a dire warning not to traverse any farther. More recently there have been those that want to deny anything hidden beyond such impenetrable fog. Only what can be seen, they maintain, exists, and where there is no sight there is no mountain to climb. There are marks along the trail though, of some who wandered far out into the fog long ago, and their accounts have been slowly spreading through the west, mingling with our own tales of intrepid explorers of the self, tempting some to wander off into that mist, perhaps never to bee seen again.
I do not wish to make any claim of finality. I do not wish to put up flags. Many of the roads I have traversed have been well marked by those that came before me, and I believe it is clear that whatever else might be true, there is a lot more exploring to be done.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Preliminary stab
So: Some of you may have noticed that I've been thinking about things.
Some of these things are related to one another. Slowly I have been solidifying an understanding of what we are. And more and more it looks like there are some fundamental differences between what is starting to show up for me and what the standard understanding is. So. I'm staring to think that I should organize all this and structure it into some sort of work. As I am doing that my plan is to put my notes and drafts and things here. I have been wanting for there to be DVD-extras type work for a number of things that I have read, and I feel like it will generally enhance the possibility of understanding what I'm up to in the end if I am as transparent as possible. There may be a danger of putting all my cards on the table, but really in the end I'm pretty sure that the only thing that can come of that is more conversation which can only help things along. We are all involved in the project, and I am just a locus of its activity. As it will come to show. I hope.
This is perhaps the first official step of a thousand mile journey that I have been on for a while, and it has a lot in common with my journey west: it is an exploration, and I am in some ways alone, and in other ways more connected than I have ever been. I kind of feel like an astronaut; I am far far away from where most people are residing, and communication with the general population has become difficult. But I have a radio link to a few of you, and that bond is stronger for it being my only tie back to the planet where most people live. And maybe we all feel like that. Maybe some times more than others.
In any case, here is the initial outline I threw up this morning. It is the sketchiest of sketches. A shadow of a shadow. But it's something. Here we go:
it
Chaos/Order
Much/One/Many/One
Unstable/Stable
Evolution!
The vast proliferation of mind.
The rise/myth of individuals
Culture/individual
Public/Private
you
Conversation
/Confrontation
We/you/I
Self as object
id/ego/id-ego
self understanding limits
strange loop/wolfram
conditions of self - > structure of self
derrida's trace: differing differed, universality of that
I
my life is this moment
my life
this moment
is this
moment
my
life is this moment
So we have this spiral inward, from the initial, scientific, mathematical understanding, to a psychological, symbolic, personal, to finally a breakdown of the phenomenal world and its showing itself in the enlightening moment. A lot of what this aims to be is a study of enlightenment as a concrete possibility of any self understanding. And how that appears, and what it shows itself as, what it shows us about what we are.
This will, inevitably, result in more you change than I change (as far as this thing is structured. You as self-object, I as this moment), as any understanding of the self that enters the general consciousness will become part of the self symbol (and is already preconditioned by that symbol), altering how we talk about selves, and in turn how we experience the self. But I think I'm shooting at some of the roots of the normal structure, even as I am using that structure to get there. We've been headed in this direction for a while.
And so that it's clear: This may be a systematic approach, but it is about the impossibility of any system (or systems) ever being adequate. This is not in any way an attempt to capture the world in a net made from a part of the world. This is an attempt to describe the weaving of such nets, and their becoming tangled up in themselves as they are stretched to capture a world that includes the net they are.
My next objective is to write an initial attempt at an introduction, which I hope to have up here sometime this week. I will keep you all posted as that happens.
(here we go)
Some of these things are related to one another. Slowly I have been solidifying an understanding of what we are. And more and more it looks like there are some fundamental differences between what is starting to show up for me and what the standard understanding is. So. I'm staring to think that I should organize all this and structure it into some sort of work. As I am doing that my plan is to put my notes and drafts and things here. I have been wanting for there to be DVD-extras type work for a number of things that I have read, and I feel like it will generally enhance the possibility of understanding what I'm up to in the end if I am as transparent as possible. There may be a danger of putting all my cards on the table, but really in the end I'm pretty sure that the only thing that can come of that is more conversation which can only help things along. We are all involved in the project, and I am just a locus of its activity. As it will come to show. I hope.
This is perhaps the first official step of a thousand mile journey that I have been on for a while, and it has a lot in common with my journey west: it is an exploration, and I am in some ways alone, and in other ways more connected than I have ever been. I kind of feel like an astronaut; I am far far away from where most people are residing, and communication with the general population has become difficult. But I have a radio link to a few of you, and that bond is stronger for it being my only tie back to the planet where most people live. And maybe we all feel like that. Maybe some times more than others.
In any case, here is the initial outline I threw up this morning. It is the sketchiest of sketches. A shadow of a shadow. But it's something. Here we go:
it
Chaos/Order
Much/One/Many/One
Unstable/Stable
Evolution!
The vast proliferation of mind.
The rise/myth of individuals
Culture/individual
Public/Private
you
Conversation
/Confrontation
We/you/I
Self as object
id/ego/id-ego
self understanding limits
strange loop/wolfram
conditions of self - > structure of self
derrida's trace: differing differed, universality of that
I
my life is this moment
my life
this moment
is this
moment
my
life is this moment
So we have this spiral inward, from the initial, scientific, mathematical understanding, to a psychological, symbolic, personal, to finally a breakdown of the phenomenal world and its showing itself in the enlightening moment. A lot of what this aims to be is a study of enlightenment as a concrete possibility of any self understanding. And how that appears, and what it shows itself as, what it shows us about what we are.
This will, inevitably, result in more you change than I change (as far as this thing is structured. You as self-object, I as this moment), as any understanding of the self that enters the general consciousness will become part of the self symbol (and is already preconditioned by that symbol), altering how we talk about selves, and in turn how we experience the self. But I think I'm shooting at some of the roots of the normal structure, even as I am using that structure to get there. We've been headed in this direction for a while.
And so that it's clear: This may be a systematic approach, but it is about the impossibility of any system (or systems) ever being adequate. This is not in any way an attempt to capture the world in a net made from a part of the world. This is an attempt to describe the weaving of such nets, and their becoming tangled up in themselves as they are stretched to capture a world that includes the net they are.
My next objective is to write an initial attempt at an introduction, which I hope to have up here sometime this week. I will keep you all posted as that happens.
(here we go)
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Someone else
I kind of feel like I've been saying this stuff for a while now.
But apparently so has Kevin Kelly.
And I read WIRED and he edits it so maybe that has something to do with it and maybe not.
But either way, the guy knows what's up.
And he's worth a look:
But apparently so has Kevin Kelly.
And I read WIRED and he edits it so maybe that has something to do with it and maybe not.
But either way, the guy knows what's up.
And he's worth a look:
Thursday, August 21, 2008
ho ho ha ha ha
This is it.
This is exactly what I was talking about.
Back in high school I had a "media matters" class. It was one of my last classes senior year, a fantastic class, the class where I was asked by the teacher to stand up as an example of how people need not follow the current mandate about fashion to look good. (The same class with "Crystal Beth," if I've mentioned that at all.) (If not ask me to.)
It was one of those multi-grade-level elective classes that was very open with itself, so that by the end of it we had definite personalities throughout the room. They varied. Mine was, ultimately, happiness.
It was a good year -- I had finally conquered some of the larger demons floating around in my mind, the end of school was coming, I had about 5 art classes that semester, I wasn't working at the juice shop anymore, I knew for certain I was graduating. I had returned to center, and that center has always been pretty positive. One day we were asked to bring in a CD and play our favorite song for the class. Well, the first minute or two of our favorite song. Someone played Evanescence's "Haunted", which I learned that day to be, out of context, one of the darkest and most sinister intros ever recorded. Immediately following this I played my choice -- Bela Fleck's "Aimum," from Outbound. Quite a different soul-story.
Once we had a discussion about trends in "cool". We had just watched a video clip lining up goth > tattoos/piercings in younger and younger people > insane clown posse in a linear time-lapsed progression, suggesting that cool is a pursuit of youth, and that the youth are trying to say "I am more extreme and dark than you are". Dark/violent/extreme = cool, thus spake the video.
Some people totally bought into this, some people getting passionately upset at the idea yet felt we were powerless to stop this inevitable path to Bad Bad Bad. (To what end, oh video?) I disagreed. "There's no way the 'more extreme' thing can progress much farther. When it comes down to actually hacking off your own limbs, people will start to realize that to be REALLY different is to be happy."
This was scorned by several people outright -- you can't combat all this darkness with a little happiness!
Oh, can't you?
In truth, trends went on to emo; sadness, not happiness. But a more honest picture of teen angst, maybe.
But since then I've seen a lot more pushing for the positive, I note somewhat smugly. I don't think it's just my age and life-place either. The Culture is into living green and eating healthier, and those are two steps in the right direction for sure. The buzz word is not 'consumerism' so much as 'sustainability'. People are trying to eat less processed mush and more Actual Food. Yoga is becoming a little more widespread. Actual studies are going into the pseudo-sciencey holistic medicine type facilities, meaning we are giving more serious thought to our mental well-being, which is a good step towards living life full -- not just focusing on SAT score type statistics on how smart we are or how much money we are making. Groups like Kaiser Permanente have those wonderful ad campaigns on just doing great things -- "Thrive".
Thrive. It's like seeing billboards for apples. Like seeing great big banners on buses that encourage you to go for long walks, or take naps. It warms your heart.
(Yes, this line of thinking was the original inspiration for my Crocs).
So. A few days ago I watched the first episode of the BBC's "The Human Face," hosted by John Cleese. I was completely delighted by this segment:
It isn't political, it isn't a push for the culture to be one thing or another, there's no motive. It's just a bunch of people laughing and enjoying one another's company. Their website outlines the laughter meetings in greater depth, lists all their findings and suggestions at length, and includes ample information for one to start their own club. So this can spread to anyone across the globe, for free.
This is where it's at, people. This is it. This is exactly what I've been saying all along. It's about people, it's about enjoying life, it's about being happy.
So let's tell everyone.
This is exactly what I was talking about.
Back in high school I had a "media matters" class. It was one of my last classes senior year, a fantastic class, the class where I was asked by the teacher to stand up as an example of how people need not follow the current mandate about fashion to look good. (The same class with "Crystal Beth," if I've mentioned that at all.) (If not ask me to.)
It was one of those multi-grade-level elective classes that was very open with itself, so that by the end of it we had definite personalities throughout the room. They varied. Mine was, ultimately, happiness.
It was a good year -- I had finally conquered some of the larger demons floating around in my mind, the end of school was coming, I had about 5 art classes that semester, I wasn't working at the juice shop anymore, I knew for certain I was graduating. I had returned to center, and that center has always been pretty positive. One day we were asked to bring in a CD and play our favorite song for the class. Well, the first minute or two of our favorite song. Someone played Evanescence's "Haunted", which I learned that day to be, out of context, one of the darkest and most sinister intros ever recorded. Immediately following this I played my choice -- Bela Fleck's "Aimum," from Outbound. Quite a different soul-story.
Once we had a discussion about trends in "cool". We had just watched a video clip lining up goth > tattoos/piercings in younger and younger people > insane clown posse in a linear time-lapsed progression, suggesting that cool is a pursuit of youth, and that the youth are trying to say "I am more extreme and dark than you are". Dark/violent/extreme = cool, thus spake the video.
Some people totally bought into this, some people getting passionately upset at the idea yet felt we were powerless to stop this inevitable path to Bad Bad Bad. (To what end, oh video?) I disagreed. "There's no way the 'more extreme' thing can progress much farther. When it comes down to actually hacking off your own limbs, people will start to realize that to be REALLY different is to be happy."
This was scorned by several people outright -- you can't combat all this darkness with a little happiness!
Oh, can't you?
In truth, trends went on to emo; sadness, not happiness. But a more honest picture of teen angst, maybe.
But since then I've seen a lot more pushing for the positive, I note somewhat smugly. I don't think it's just my age and life-place either. The Culture is into living green and eating healthier, and those are two steps in the right direction for sure. The buzz word is not 'consumerism' so much as 'sustainability'. People are trying to eat less processed mush and more Actual Food. Yoga is becoming a little more widespread. Actual studies are going into the pseudo-sciencey holistic medicine type facilities, meaning we are giving more serious thought to our mental well-being, which is a good step towards living life full -- not just focusing on SAT score type statistics on how smart we are or how much money we are making. Groups like Kaiser Permanente have those wonderful ad campaigns on just doing great things -- "Thrive".
Thrive. It's like seeing billboards for apples. Like seeing great big banners on buses that encourage you to go for long walks, or take naps. It warms your heart.
(Yes, this line of thinking was the original inspiration for my Crocs).
So. A few days ago I watched the first episode of the BBC's "The Human Face," hosted by John Cleese. I was completely delighted by this segment:
It isn't political, it isn't a push for the culture to be one thing or another, there's no motive. It's just a bunch of people laughing and enjoying one another's company. Their website outlines the laughter meetings in greater depth, lists all their findings and suggestions at length, and includes ample information for one to start their own club. So this can spread to anyone across the globe, for free.
This is where it's at, people. This is it. This is exactly what I've been saying all along. It's about people, it's about enjoying life, it's about being happy.
So let's tell everyone.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Loose ends
After finishing Hofstadter's book, I felt that I was a little harsh, but not too much. The man is convinced that a single adult human mind is the top level of consciousness. And frankly that's crazy. He flirts with the idea that two people might form something more than a single individual, but he shies away from the idea as fast as he approaches it. At one point, while he is thinking about video cameras pointed at the TV that displays what the video camera sees (making a little strange loop, like at target or best buy when they have the TVs set up so that you can play with their video cameras and you point the camera at the TV; you get a sort of grey tunnel hall of mirrors effect.), he thinks about two such cameras situated so that they can see each other's displays.
This is sort of a complicated situation.
With one camera pointed at its own screen, you get a sort of infinite tunnel, like when two mirrors face each other. But because of the time delay in the camera, if you add any input (like waving your hand in front of the camera) you get a cascading pulsating image, which Dougie is pretty excited about, mostly because he has played with it a decent amount, and feels like it's something he has explored more than other people.
But things get much more interesting with two cameras and two TVs. Good ol' Dougie just points out that each camera still has the specific TV tied to its own input, and so two individual strange loops exist, but he completely misses the existence of the big strange loop made up of the whole system, two cameras and two TVs.
The same problem happens with people. He's so worried about losing his own ego that he just won't acknowledge the entity that consists of himself AND his wife, and their awareness of each other. Again, he flirts with the idea, but only enough to infuriate me.
We are two. And we are one. And I am many, and you are many (there are so many ways to carve up Reality). But the One is just as important as the many. No more, no less.
What I'm getting at is this:
A mind is made up of subsystems that share information (experiences, emotions, moments, sights, sounds, tastes, conversations, touches, kisses, movements, etc). Any two minds that have flow of information between each other ( see above ) compose a single, greater mind.
Once you have a physical understanding of the mental, this is an undeniable fact.
When we are together, we build a communal headspace. Our minds are like houseboats. When they float near one another, we build bridges between them. Then, when the bridges are stable, we begin to build rooms and extensions to our individual houseboats. I add to your boat and you add to mine, we both add to the space between. The entire constructed entity, this big bunch of two houseboats and the bridges and rooms between them, the links that tie it together make it into one houseboat.
[Metaphorical thinking: helpful?]
As we interact, our two individual minds comprise one greater mind. Your brain has two hemispheres that cannot communicate everything that happens between themselves. But they can communicate, and it is their communication that is YOUR MIND. Our communication is OUR MIND. Yours AND mine. Just because minds are physical and so are we.
This might all sound crazy, but it's just true.
If we spend some time thinking about the physical nature of our minds, and abhor mysticism with a proper carefulness, we must come to the conclusion that any pair (or greater number) of minds in communicative community will comprise a single greater mind.
The End.
The thing that is important is the life of this entity that is made up of you and me.
With a brain, you can separate the two hemispheres, so long as you maintain the informational connections. The connection can be stretched over any given distance (with little radios, or fiber optics, or quantum strangeness, or what have you). This will change the rhythm of the complete brain, but not its function.
Any distance between two people works the same.
The rhythm will change, but not the function. Not the existence of this greater whole that we are a part of. And that's what's amazing about being here together.
Here can be very, VERY big.
And we only have to stretch it a little to get a taste of that.
Nighty night.
This is sort of a complicated situation.
With one camera pointed at its own screen, you get a sort of infinite tunnel, like when two mirrors face each other. But because of the time delay in the camera, if you add any input (like waving your hand in front of the camera) you get a cascading pulsating image, which Dougie is pretty excited about, mostly because he has played with it a decent amount, and feels like it's something he has explored more than other people.
But things get much more interesting with two cameras and two TVs. Good ol' Dougie just points out that each camera still has the specific TV tied to its own input, and so two individual strange loops exist, but he completely misses the existence of the big strange loop made up of the whole system, two cameras and two TVs.
The same problem happens with people. He's so worried about losing his own ego that he just won't acknowledge the entity that consists of himself AND his wife, and their awareness of each other. Again, he flirts with the idea, but only enough to infuriate me.
We are two. And we are one. And I am many, and you are many (there are so many ways to carve up Reality). But the One is just as important as the many. No more, no less.
What I'm getting at is this:
A mind is made up of subsystems that share information (experiences, emotions, moments, sights, sounds, tastes, conversations, touches, kisses, movements, etc). Any two minds that have flow of information between each other ( see above ) compose a single, greater mind.
Once you have a physical understanding of the mental, this is an undeniable fact.
When we are together, we build a communal headspace. Our minds are like houseboats. When they float near one another, we build bridges between them. Then, when the bridges are stable, we begin to build rooms and extensions to our individual houseboats. I add to your boat and you add to mine, we both add to the space between. The entire constructed entity, this big bunch of two houseboats and the bridges and rooms between them, the links that tie it together make it into one houseboat.
[Metaphorical thinking: helpful?]
As we interact, our two individual minds comprise one greater mind. Your brain has two hemispheres that cannot communicate everything that happens between themselves. But they can communicate, and it is their communication that is YOUR MIND. Our communication is OUR MIND. Yours AND mine. Just because minds are physical and so are we.
This might all sound crazy, but it's just true.
If we spend some time thinking about the physical nature of our minds, and abhor mysticism with a proper carefulness, we must come to the conclusion that any pair (or greater number) of minds in communicative community will comprise a single greater mind.
The End.
The thing that is important is the life of this entity that is made up of you and me.
With a brain, you can separate the two hemispheres, so long as you maintain the informational connections. The connection can be stretched over any given distance (with little radios, or fiber optics, or quantum strangeness, or what have you). This will change the rhythm of the complete brain, but not its function.
Any distance between two people works the same.
The rhythm will change, but not the function. Not the existence of this greater whole that we are a part of. And that's what's amazing about being here together.
Here can be very, VERY big.
And we only have to stretch it a little to get a taste of that.
Nighty night.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Excerpts from my last entry in my journal for MIND class.
Well here it is.
It is no other.
Someone came up to me in the library today and asked me about this thing. This journal assignment. I can't say I was surprised, but still. Damn girl, weren't you paying attention?
Not just to the assignment thing, but to life.
Even just life in this class.
I have said it before but I can't remember if I said it here: I certainly didn't need this class. Not in the same way as the others did.
And so they needed this, even if some of them wrote it off as an "easy" non-conventional class.
And I do think there were boundaries pushed.
I hope they grew from it.
I needed this class in a different way.
Because even when I dreaded it, it was a re-awakening. Because at the end of the day, this was the first art taught to me since freshmen year. Because at the end of the day, my soul needed this.
I hope other people were able to learn from me.
I don't want that to be prideful or smug.
I just really mean it.
Because evidently, art doesn't MEAN anything to those who have always had it.
Art was taken from me.
deemed
NOT. GOOD. ENOUGH.
NOT. QUITE. "US".
I know what it is to not let that stop me.
I know what it is to be told "no"
by a department
again. And again.
I know what it is to take 16 English credits
work 20 hours at a desk
and use the remaining 4 hours of daylight to sit at my easel
and "paint like no one's watching."
because they aren't.
There is no audience.
There is no class critique.
There is no feedback.
No opening Friday with free food.
Nothing.
Not for me.
Duchamp had a scornful audience, something to react to.
I have a handful of emails from the Dean.
Memories of meetings.
And then mental image of my portfolio on the "no" pile.
And that was it.
In my dorm filled with paintings instead of posters,
I was an English major.
Art is my life any way.
It was then, it is now.
That could never change.
So to watch these musicians, actors, painters be so complacent is a wrench in the gut. A duck to the face at 250 knots. [link]
You HAVE it. The establishment is on your side.
You have the funding, the nurturing, the equipment, the peers.
DO. NOT. WASTE. THIS.
Above all, appreciate it.
Relish it.
Well here it is.
It is no other.
Someone came up to me in the library today and asked me about this thing. This journal assignment. I can't say I was surprised, but still. Damn girl, weren't you paying attention?
Not just to the assignment thing, but to life.
Even just life in this class.
I have said it before but I can't remember if I said it here: I certainly didn't need this class. Not in the same way as the others did.
And so they needed this, even if some of them wrote it off as an "easy" non-conventional class.
And I do think there were boundaries pushed.
I hope they grew from it.
I needed this class in a different way.
Because even when I dreaded it, it was a re-awakening. Because at the end of the day, this was the first art taught to me since freshmen year. Because at the end of the day, my soul needed this.
I hope other people were able to learn from me.
I don't want that to be prideful or smug.
I just really mean it.
Because evidently, art doesn't MEAN anything to those who have always had it.
Art was taken from me.
- I know what that feels like
- I know what it is to have your
- life
- heart
- soul
- mind
- heart
deemed
NOT. GOOD. ENOUGH.
NOT. QUITE. "US".
- And what it feels like to do plan B
- And wander the halls without a voice
- without a mind
- without a way to talk
- without a way to emote concisely enough
- to anyone.
- without a way to talk
I know what it is to not let that stop me.
I know what it is to be told "no"
by a department
again. And again.
I know what it is to take 16 English credits
work 20 hours at a desk
and use the remaining 4 hours of daylight to sit at my easel
and "paint like no one's watching."
because they aren't.
There is no audience.
There is no class critique.
There is no feedback.
No opening Friday with free food.
Nothing.
Not for me.
Duchamp had a scornful audience, something to react to.
I have a handful of emails from the Dean.
Memories of meetings.
And then mental image of my portfolio on the "no" pile.
And that was it.
In my dorm filled with paintings instead of posters,
I was an English major.
Art is my life any way.
It was then, it is now.
That could never change.
So to watch these musicians, actors, painters be so complacent is a wrench in the gut. A duck to the face at 250 knots. [link]
You HAVE it. The establishment is on your side.
You have the funding, the nurturing, the equipment, the peers.
DO. NOT. WASTE. THIS.
Above all, appreciate it.
Relish it.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
We are a Strange Loop
So, I've been reading Doug Hofstadter's I Am a Strange Loop, and while I think Dougie (as he is sometimes called) is on to something, I'm not convinced yet that he really knows what he's on to exactly.
The book is largely (so far anyway, I'll let you know if there are any surprises) a re-telling of his earlier book, Godel, Escher, Bach, which is a detailed examination of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, with an eye towards the magic of self-representation. Basically the idea is Ouroboros as the heart of consciousness: it is that we have the ability to model (imagine, understand, etc) ourselves that makes us conscious. That's not all that crazy of an idea; self-awareness is basically a synonym for consciousness, and it's had to imagine what consciousness without self-awareness would even mean. The exciting thing, for Mr. Hofstadter, is that this sort of self-representation is a necessary consequence of any symbol system of sufficient complexity, which, Hofstadter argues, follows from Godel's lovely theorem.
This consequence, that any (inherently meaningless*) symbol system of sufficient complexity (enough to deal with counting numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) leads inexorably to self-representation strikes Hofstadter as the key to understanding consciousness. This I think is somewhere in the ballpark of the truth. What Hofstadter doesn't see though, are the consequences of being able to see consciousness as such a simple, universal event. He does see that this opens up the potential for A.I (he spent a great deal of GEB talking about that, but much less so in IAASL, at least so far), but he has a crucial assumption that completely covers up the most exciting thing about his way of thinking of minds: Hofstadter places individual, adult, human beings at the very top of his hierarchy of self-hood, awareness, and consciousness. This might not seem like a controversial decision to some people, but to me it seems insane; networks of human beings have a far greater potential for self awareness than any single human being ever could. The same way that an ant colony (which Hofstadter knows some stuff about) if far more self aware than any given ant (though still far less self aware than an given human being), a human colony is far more self-aware than any given human being. It's completely fascinating that Dougie has missed this (again, he may not have, and I might be speaking to soon, but this strikes me as a pervasive issue in his thought), because he does an enormous amount of thinking about networks of smaller things being outside of our perception just because of the size we are. He's ever so keen to recognize that the way we see things has everything to do with our size, but he only seems interested in seeing that there are things smaller than us, never bigger.
I suppose that part of what helps me see minds all over the place, big and small (that are really all part of the same big system, and therefore all part of the same big mind, the Homunculus is You and all that) is my thinking about the internet so much, but I think it has to do with something simpler than that too.
Just thinking about human relationships, and the fractal nature of our understanding each other.
Thinking of you
Thinking of me
Thinking of you.
We make a mind together, you and I, we we sit down and talk, or just interact in pretty much any way. We are self-aware of us together just as much as we are aware of each of us separately. Thomas Nagel, in his ever-so-famous (if not nearly enough), What it is like to be a bat, proposed that we think of conscious things as things that it would be like something to be that thing. He contrasts things like rocks and fungi, which he does not suppose it is like anything at all to be (or perhaps: it is just like being nothing), to things like bats and other people, which we often find ourselves wondering what it would be like to be. I think Thomas suffers from an impaired imagination, and I also think he does not understand the consequences of his own argument, which is mostly centered on showing that no mater how much we wonder what it is like to be a bat, we can never know at all. The thing is, it follows that we can't even know what sorts of things it is like something to be.
I propose a different solution. It is like something to be a part within a whole, and as a part in a whole, it is possible (I am tempted to say necessary) to interact with other parts within the whole. Now: it is never at all possible to draw a hard and fast distinction between some part of a whole and another part, because the interactions between them are indistinguishable from actions on the part of some bigger portion of the whole. [There may be simplest parts, each of which is a distinguishable individual, but apart from those, no composite part can be strictly delineated, because it is then composed of simple parts that must interact with BOTH composite parts of any pair of interacting composite parts. I'm only dealing with systems that do include composite parts, because systems without composite parts are boring, and I don't really think there are simplest parts of the whole we are a part of, so I am largely (except for this large parenthetical, that this parenthetical is nested in) ignoring simplest parts as well.] Then: there is always some ambiguity as to what part of the whole any given part is, and that ambiguity opens up the field of what it's like to be some other part. I can imagine what it is like to be a bat, because there is no real way to tell where the bat ends and I begin. Similarly, when you and I are together, it is impossible to draw any sharp distinction between what is you and what is me, and so it is no surprise that we start to use "we". Now: it is also always possible to make an arbitrary distinction between this thing and that thing, between you and I, but we must be careful to remember that such distinctions, while terribly useful, and while terribly difficult to avoid seeing, are no more and no less real than the distinction between a pawn and a bishop in a game of chess. We make the distinctions, and they are only as real as we make them. Once we see that, we can really wonder, and in some small way find out, what it is like to be a bat, or for that matter, a mountain, a grain of sand, an ant colony, a pair of humans, the Internet, Mother Nature, the Sun, or even The All. We are all connected, not in some mystical, wishy washy way, but just because of the nature of being a composite thing that is a small part of a great whole. Any system of sufficient complexity will inevitably include the possibility of self-awareness, and further, a system of sufficiently greater complexity will inevitably include the possibility of self-aware sub-systems.
Which reminds me of my proof that not even God can see everything. But I'll save that for next time.
*The logic that Godel worked with was definitionaly meaningless, requiring a separate interpretation schema, entirely divorced from the symbols themselves, to make any of the typographical marks anything more than pieces in a game, jumbling around according to the rules they are given (or really, composed of), churning out theorems while nobodies looking.
Edit: I may have spoke too soon, but I would hate to repeat the error, so I'm going to wait until I'm done with the book to speak on this again.
The book is largely (so far anyway, I'll let you know if there are any surprises) a re-telling of his earlier book, Godel, Escher, Bach, which is a detailed examination of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, with an eye towards the magic of self-representation. Basically the idea is Ouroboros as the heart of consciousness: it is that we have the ability to model (imagine, understand, etc) ourselves that makes us conscious. That's not all that crazy of an idea; self-awareness is basically a synonym for consciousness, and it's had to imagine what consciousness without self-awareness would even mean. The exciting thing, for Mr. Hofstadter, is that this sort of self-representation is a necessary consequence of any symbol system of sufficient complexity, which, Hofstadter argues, follows from Godel's lovely theorem.
This consequence, that any (inherently meaningless*) symbol system of sufficient complexity (enough to deal with counting numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) leads inexorably to self-representation strikes Hofstadter as the key to understanding consciousness. This I think is somewhere in the ballpark of the truth. What Hofstadter doesn't see though, are the consequences of being able to see consciousness as such a simple, universal event. He does see that this opens up the potential for A.I (he spent a great deal of GEB talking about that, but much less so in IAASL, at least so far), but he has a crucial assumption that completely covers up the most exciting thing about his way of thinking of minds: Hofstadter places individual, adult, human beings at the very top of his hierarchy of self-hood, awareness, and consciousness. This might not seem like a controversial decision to some people, but to me it seems insane; networks of human beings have a far greater potential for self awareness than any single human being ever could. The same way that an ant colony (which Hofstadter knows some stuff about) if far more self aware than any given ant (though still far less self aware than an given human being), a human colony is far more self-aware than any given human being. It's completely fascinating that Dougie has missed this (again, he may not have, and I might be speaking to soon, but this strikes me as a pervasive issue in his thought), because he does an enormous amount of thinking about networks of smaller things being outside of our perception just because of the size we are. He's ever so keen to recognize that the way we see things has everything to do with our size, but he only seems interested in seeing that there are things smaller than us, never bigger.
I suppose that part of what helps me see minds all over the place, big and small (that are really all part of the same big system, and therefore all part of the same big mind, the Homunculus is You and all that) is my thinking about the internet so much, but I think it has to do with something simpler than that too.
Just thinking about human relationships, and the fractal nature of our understanding each other.
Thinking of you
Thinking of me
Thinking of you.
We make a mind together, you and I, we we sit down and talk, or just interact in pretty much any way. We are self-aware of us together just as much as we are aware of each of us separately. Thomas Nagel, in his ever-so-famous (if not nearly enough), What it is like to be a bat, proposed that we think of conscious things as things that it would be like something to be that thing. He contrasts things like rocks and fungi, which he does not suppose it is like anything at all to be (or perhaps: it is just like being nothing), to things like bats and other people, which we often find ourselves wondering what it would be like to be. I think Thomas suffers from an impaired imagination, and I also think he does not understand the consequences of his own argument, which is mostly centered on showing that no mater how much we wonder what it is like to be a bat, we can never know at all. The thing is, it follows that we can't even know what sorts of things it is like something to be.
I propose a different solution. It is like something to be a part within a whole, and as a part in a whole, it is possible (I am tempted to say necessary) to interact with other parts within the whole. Now: it is never at all possible to draw a hard and fast distinction between some part of a whole and another part, because the interactions between them are indistinguishable from actions on the part of some bigger portion of the whole. [There may be simplest parts, each of which is a distinguishable individual, but apart from those, no composite part can be strictly delineated, because it is then composed of simple parts that must interact with BOTH composite parts of any pair of interacting composite parts. I'm only dealing with systems that do include composite parts, because systems without composite parts are boring, and I don't really think there are simplest parts of the whole we are a part of, so I am largely (except for this large parenthetical, that this parenthetical is nested in) ignoring simplest parts as well.] Then: there is always some ambiguity as to what part of the whole any given part is, and that ambiguity opens up the field of what it's like to be some other part. I can imagine what it is like to be a bat, because there is no real way to tell where the bat ends and I begin. Similarly, when you and I are together, it is impossible to draw any sharp distinction between what is you and what is me, and so it is no surprise that we start to use "we". Now: it is also always possible to make an arbitrary distinction between this thing and that thing, between you and I, but we must be careful to remember that such distinctions, while terribly useful, and while terribly difficult to avoid seeing, are no more and no less real than the distinction between a pawn and a bishop in a game of chess. We make the distinctions, and they are only as real as we make them. Once we see that, we can really wonder, and in some small way find out, what it is like to be a bat, or for that matter, a mountain, a grain of sand, an ant colony, a pair of humans, the Internet, Mother Nature, the Sun, or even The All. We are all connected, not in some mystical, wishy washy way, but just because of the nature of being a composite thing that is a small part of a great whole. Any system of sufficient complexity will inevitably include the possibility of self-awareness, and further, a system of sufficiently greater complexity will inevitably include the possibility of self-aware sub-systems.
Which reminds me of my proof that not even God can see everything. But I'll save that for next time.
*The logic that Godel worked with was definitionaly meaningless, requiring a separate interpretation schema, entirely divorced from the symbols themselves, to make any of the typographical marks anything more than pieces in a game, jumbling around according to the rules they are given (or really, composed of), churning out theorems while nobodies looking.
Edit: I may have spoke too soon, but I would hate to repeat the error, so I'm going to wait until I'm done with the book to speak on this again.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
what art is
Communication happens in a lot of ways.
Art is communication that is aware that it is communicating. It is thought made physical (and by that I mean thought made bigger), on purpose.
Art can be about the accidental, but one must set out to do that.
Communication that is not art is automatic. Reaction. What a mirror does, what a satellite does. Art is active, like what the sun does, what a fountain does. The line is not hard. and we could explore the line (as it was fashionable to do for a while there, maybe still is), but there are clear cases of Not Art, and clear cases of Art. When you call customer service, what is going on on the other side of the line is Not Art. When I tell you my dreams in the morning, that might be art. When I try to re-create my dreams, that is Art.
The line between fine art and practical art is blurry too, but all of it is art.
We can set out to draw a line around a kind of communication that we like very much and call it Art, and exclude lots of other things, and call them Not Art, but we should try to recognize that any such line is arbitrary. That does not mean the distinction is not arbitrary.
One thing I am missing here (there is probably much more) is that part of the art is in the viewing. Photographs are art seen in the world. The viewer decides to come to something as art, or not as art, and that alone can make all the difference.
One thing is for sure. Kubrick makes Art.
But his art is not for the morning.
Ah well.
Goodnight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)