| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="OldPapers" |
|---|
| | | In a definition of reality, I would include the objective world (I assume this substratum exists, given its apparent substantiality and consistency) and all subjective consciousnesses/souls. Each subjective consciousness/soul exists experientially with perceptual data and substance, additive to and part of the whole. While there is real material, a large common thoroughfare, experience and reality of good and right at least in some cases/senses, conventional wisdom, common sense, ability to understand and operate individually and between people, because each person only has access to and is particular to a subset of the whole (possibly pending the Lama's suggestion to Carl Spackler), one naturally operates with situations, assumptions, interests, understandings, and meanings that differ from others’. | |
<
< | We have some content, sense, and communication, though our understanding and effort has some epistemological/substantial delicacy, as far as we know/understand anyway. We have our five regular senses, thoughts and feelings, with some subset of material experienced/known in some extent, various in kind/degree, consistency/contrast. We have tools of rationality and move along in reality/pace/efficiency of space and time. We have language to formulate/represent/express/communicate/organize reality bouquet material with some fidelity/effectiveness, with some development/boundedness of language and degree of facility with it (how expert a musician are you? what are you able to play with your instrument in comparison with reality beyond/separate from that?), and when a person has/says something, there are usually/often elements of approximate model between reality and understanding and speculative hypothesis subject to iterative development, confirmation/rejection, some other ways of having/developing/resolving. A linguistic representation might be characterized as a metaphor: a signal pointing to reference material, aside from possible non-referential and/or thing-in-itself ars poetica of linguistic material itself, lorem ipsum. Layered on top of this are supra-linguistic cues such as context, structure, tone, and irony, which further refine the message to make it a more precise pointer. Non-linguistic statements, such as facial expressions, body language, and visual arts, may be further added or stand on their own as expressions that can be characterized similarly. Some Finnegan's Wake surf in phenomenology, though things are largely clear and well-understood, like I get school, I get laws, I get spatulas and other things, more or less, the composition of reality is largely sensible, my apartment and life makes sense to me. | >
> | We have some content, sense, and communication, and our lives, understanding, and effort have some substantial/epistemological robustness/delicacy, as far as we know/understand anyway. We have our five regular senses, thoughts and feelings, with some subset of material experienced/known in some extent, various in kind/degree, consistency/contrast. We have resources and rationality and move along in reality/pace/efficiency of space and time. We have language to formulate/represent/express/communicate/organize reality bouquet material with some fidelity/effectiveness, with some development/boundedness of language and degree of facility with it (how expert a musician are you? what are you able to play with your instrument in comparison with reality beyond/separate from that?), and when a person has/says something, there are usually/often elements of approximate model between reality and understanding and speculative hypothesis subject to iterative development, confirmation/rejection, some other ways of having/developing/resolving. A linguistic representation might be characterized as a metaphor: a signal pointing to reference material, aside from possible non-referential and/or thing-in-itself ars poetica of linguistic material, lorem ipsum. Layered on top of this are supra-linguistic cues such as context, structure, tone, and irony, which further refine the message to make it a more precise pointer. Non-linguistic statements, such as facial expressions, body language, and visual arts, may be further added or stand on their own as expressions that can be characterized similarly. Some Finnegan's Wake surf in phenomenology, though there's much content and form clear positive and well-understood, like I get school, I get laws, I get spatulas and other things, I get industrial design ideas, more or less, reality is substantial/stable/sensible, my apartment and life makes positive sense to me, good/reasonable, health/taste, interest/productivity/responsibility. | | | There is sense/expression with some facility/difficulty and understanding of expression with some facility/difficulty. Expression conveys something subjective and becomes additional perceptual data for others. Evaluation commonly interprets expressional metaphors to be consistent with one’s own pre-existing subjective world. One tends to lock into what is perceived as common/connective between expression and material as one understands it and reject, ignore, or not hear the rest. Though this may be substantially an unconscious process, logically this may involve imputing to him underlying assumptions and experience similar to one’s own or identifying which communication script one is familiar with that he seems closest to following. Responses then start with this interpretation while adding some related expression of one’s own. What can be funny or tragic is that the first communicator will often interpret the response under the assumption that the other has understood the first expression as intended, and follow-up can be confused. This is what we call talking past one another, which commonly happens to some extent/degree, even amid substantial and often/generally sufficient common thoroughfare, with varying awareness/certainty/import/effort. | | | Openness to changing one's views coupled with active reflection on others' expressions allows access to a greater slice of intersubjective reality, which leads to new and more complete ideas. Moreover, greater empathy to others’ expressions helps one to be a clarifying and productive communication partner. | |
<
< | Reflection on the processes of constructing expressions allows more accurate and productive interpretation. What’s his situation? What are his interests? What’s his intention? What’s the tone? Is he earnest or ironic? What’s there that I haven’t incorporated? What seems to be missing? What do I know that might be relevant? What don’t I know that might be relevant? What kind of mistake might he be making? What if I’m making the mistake and not him? What might a third person have a frustrated urge to tell me about it? What might be the next step? What's on second? | >
> | Reflection on the processes of constructing expressions allows more accurate and productive interpretation. What’s his situation? What are his interests? What’s his intention? What’s the tone? Is he earnest or ironic? What’s there that I haven’t incorporated? What seems to be missing? What do I know that might be relevant? What don’t I know that might be relevant? What kind of mistake might he be making? What if I’m making the mistake and not him? What might a third person have a frustrated urge to tell me about it? What might be the next step? What's on second? How unimportant/unintentional might some things be? An interesting note in Samuel Beckett's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt_(novel)][Watt]], the title of which is probably or sounds/themes like it might be a pun for what (?), is "no symbols where none intended." I wrote a story called "The Squirrel and the Beaver" when I was young in which the primary issue/nature was what a couple of neighborhood friends were going to do with their time. | | | In this way, interpretations can veer from one thing to another, or from a thing to its opposite. Ideally, open and reflective communication finds its way to increasingly robust understanding. |
|