elsewhere

Independent community dedicated to fine art and social visualization

Any advice gratefully received: What kind of mutual relationships are possible in a system of three types of elements?

עצה קטנה תתקבל בברכה גדולה: אילו יחסי גומלין אפשריים במערכת בת שלושה סוגי אלמנטים? תודה על תשומת הלב, יוסי

מערכת דימויים - מודל 3 סוגי אלמנטים: תמונות, היגדים ודימויים. כפי שניתן לראות, פרטי כל סוג יכולים להיקשר בינם לבין עצמם או עם פרטי כל סוג אחר; למשל: תמונה עם תמונה, תמונה עם היגד, תמונה עם דימוי (וכיו"ב לגבי היגדים ודימויים). המיקוד שלי הוא בעיקר במקרה של דימוי הקושר תמונה והיגד

Views: 150

Comment

You need to be a member of elsewhere to add comments!

Join elsewhere

Comment by Weinstein Henry on November 19, 2013 at 2:28am
Errata: Because they don't want to see that evil strikes us in our blindspots.
Comment by Weinstein Henry on November 19, 2013 at 2:22am
I agree with you, Allon.
"So we don't know that we don't know, but we also got a "filling" of wrong information".
I notice it happens when I feel something bad & disgusting is trying to seduce my mind, afterwards I am strong & moral enough to see how bad & disgusting it was.
*
When they realize that they don't see the full picture, for instance realizing they are intolerant the hateful way they preach tolerance, some people say: "The answer must be in my blindspot".
Because they don't want to see evil strikes us in our blindspots, because they trust blindly their intellect.
*
That's why disinformation & hatred is viral now.
Comment by Allon Zaslansky on November 15, 2013 at 9:33pm

Hi,

i find this diagram very interesting, so let me try something here and maybe i can spark the idea flow here, ok?

Image= the general perception of some concept

Picture= a segment of the image (for example to "take a picture" would be to technically "grab" a certain moment out of the "image")

Utterance= is the ability to convey a message, meaning both sides of the transmission (Paul Simon has expressed the problem very poignantly in "The Boxer" : All lies and jests 
still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" which by this i think i agree with Henry mentioning the blind spots.

on a different note, regarding the blind spots, i would like to add that i find the blind spots is a deeper problem since not only do we not see those areas, add to that the way our brain fills the blind spot with some kind of information (for example - looking at a white wall, not only do we not see the information from that area, rather our brain fills that empty spot with an "interpolated"  layer of information - we see white there). 

so we don't know that we don't know, but we also got a "filling" of wrong information.

Comment by Weinstein Henry on June 22, 2013 at 2:15am
If I were a French engineer at Thales I would have suggested to you TopOwl as answer!
Watch the video: http://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/articles/salon-du-bourget-201...
Comment by Weinstein Henry on June 21, 2013 at 3:46am
Errata: in our edenic mind, not edemic.
Comment by Weinstein Henry on June 21, 2013 at 3:35am
So the question is "what do you think could be done to overcome this blindness in our perception of the world and others?", and my answer is: I don't know, I'm not Noam Chomsky!
What I know is that most people don't see where is this blindness. On this I can elaborate a little.
*
The problem with this blindness in our perception of the world and others is that most people don't see this blindness in their own perception.
More precisely most people don't see where is the blind spot: inside each human mind, not outside in the minds & cultural background of others.
*
In other words the problem is that most people don't see the problem, where is the problem, even if they feel something wrong is coming, because this blindness is inside our perception, more precisely because this blindness is a blind spot in our knowledge & cultural background.
*
That's why most people don't see where is the problem, and it is much worse with the intellectuals who are so infatuated with their intellect that they don't want to see where is the problem.
Indeed almost all of the intellectuals - secular and clerical, artists, all the big inflated egos - are in absolute denial about this blindness, i.e don't want to acknowledge their own inevitable blindness & intellectual limitations.
*
Because of their vanity, their desire to be admired, their will of intellectual power among their respective communities, almost all of the intellectuals (they sometimes prefer to be call Activists) don't want to see the blind spot in their own perception of the world & knowledge of others.
What they don't want to see is that they look and sound often like ventriloquist dummies, driven as they are by ready-made ideas & concepts & slogans.
*
So, to conclude, the most difficult step to overcome this blindness in our perception of the world and others - and to be able to speak to others - is not to become aware & critical of the media framing, the images system, it is to become aware & critical of his own inevitable intellectual limitations & illusions.
And to meet people on the other side who understand this, who are aware of their own blindness.
*
Post-scriptum: Schelling saw this blind spot in his essay on human freedom (1809), that is to say in this essay intellectual freedom. Schelling was trying to understand how evil, yes evil, works inside our mind. From which invisible point in our perception & knowledge evil was able to take control, pretending to speak in our name, or in the name of G-d, or pretending to be us, each one of us in a godlike frame.
Schelling saw this and was brave enough to write on this, and he is one among the very few intellectuals who went beyond their own vanity. Paul in a short section of the Epistle to the Romans, those who warned us a long time ago that there was the Serpent always eager to bite us in our edemic mind, always ready to say "you shall be as G-d knowing good from evil", and some other great thinkers, Kafka, Pascal, Kleist, Büchner.
But our great intellectuals don't study Schelling, they are more at ease with Hegel, another Last Prophet, who was so much in love with the Supreme Intellect that he wrote an entire system celebrating it under the tag Spirit.
Hegel philosophy digested: Inch Spirit.
Comment by Yossi Nahmias on June 17, 2013 at 6:18am

Thank you Henry for your fascinating comment.
I fully agree with your diagnosis, and ask myself what can be done in a situation such as you describe. We need to do something about it (and something we try to do here at Elsewhere); what do you think could be done to overcome this blindness in our perception of the world and others?

Comment by Weinstein Henry on June 16, 2013 at 2:15am
Yossi, I would suggest that our intellect, i.e what we know, frame everything we see & read, not only pictures, with related images providing ready-made meanings.
Unlike the children who are discovering everything, the adults spend most of their time re-cognizing images & meanings produced by their social environment - and they are alas unable to see anything else if they live in a society refusing the plurality of opinions.
*
It is very difficult to see anything else than clichés because our intellect is at the present time saturated with billions of media-made images & meanings designed to normalize our perception.
We all live under this pressure, i.e under the rule of Management experts.
*
I would suggest that most of the time we don't see the full picture, we see only the media framing.
In the world designed by the media, the images system, what we see out of the media framing has no importance, no value, no meaning.
*
All the great moralists have warned us that our intellect, what we know, what we believe, cannot help but being insanely egocentric, thinking 'he' (it, actually) is the center of the universe - and very often thinking 'he' is the Supreme Intellect (the Last Prophet, some centuries ago).
*
So there is a blind point in our perception; Donald Rumsfeld famously said there are not only the things we know that we don't know, there are also the things we don't know that we don't know.
Unfortunately for our mental health - and it is much worse for those living in a closed society refusing the plurality of opinions - we all live at the present time in an hyper-intellectualised algorithmic world under the rule of computer calculations, that is to say under the rule of the Supreme Intellect who pretends to know everything.
The big blind point source of violence is that we are billions to think each one of us is the center of this virtual world - and each personal computer say: yes you are the one! -, billions of people who don't know how to think by themselves out of their set of preconceptions - our leaders included.
Comment by Yossi Nahmias on June 14, 2013 at 10:06pm

Indeed Yudit, that's what I intended.

Comment by yuyume on June 14, 2013 at 6:41pm

so if i understand it correctly and image would be a kind of "mental picture", an imagination (whether "picturesque or verbal but not utteredqexpressed), which can be expressed physically in either a picture and/or an utterance, which would place the mental image as the "mother" of both the picture and the utterance? And listening to an utterance i create a mental image of the content of that utterance and viewing a picture i may create a mental picture of it? (chicken/egg)?

© 2017   Created by Yossi Nahmias.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service