Thursday, March 09, 2006
My Mind, A window
Imagine this...
We all stand staring at a wall.
Upon that wall is a window, and through that window we gaze out upon all the situations, all the beings, everything that life offers up for our consideration.
In front of us is a control console, sleek and advanced, and upon it an amazing array of buttons, knobs and switches. They are labelled, but not easy to move. It can be done, but moving each one takes a large amount of effort.
Not only that, but some of these controls are dependant upon what is being viewed through the window. When a particular situation, person, or event occurs, these controls become active, overriding the other defaults.
The controls all do the same thing, but in different ways. They effect the way the window is tinted. This tinting seems a minor thing, but it can turn a simple scene into a much more complex one, or a more complex one into a far simpler one.
Now here's the catch, we don't know what effect the controls will have on the windows tint. In fact, we are not even aware of how tinted the window is, since we have never seen the scene behind it without the window. The way the window tints the scene is what we define as the norm.
What do we do with the controls. We can look around and compare them to how others are set. We can randomly adjust them, trying different combinations, we can leave them as they are. We can spend a lifetime playing with them, and still never understand just how they work. We have no baseline. No way to understand the world as it actually is. All we have is how we currently see it.
Sometimes events in the world will be strong enough, that in spite of the filtering effect provided by the windows tint, we still catch some aspect of their true nature.
I guess what I'm trying to express here is a characterisation of emotion. The tint of the window is our emotions, colouring our reaction to events that occur around us. (Not that I am saying this is necessarily wrong).
We can work hard at the controls, trying to get the window tint as clear as possible, but ultimately, we will never know, since we have no baseline for comparison. And would we be any better off?
Assume we succeed, we now see the world exactly as it actually is. We see the truth of the matter. What have we gained. We now live in a world we understand completely, but are unable to understand anyone else's perspective. We shut down the control panel needing it no more, and then wonder why others don't see things the way we do. We forget the control panel even exists.
We feel proud of our success, we have solved the puzzle, suppressed all the controls, all the reactions, wonder, love, anger, hate, the list goes on. Does this enrich our lives? Or does it nullify them? Leaving us automatons, All logic and no emotion.
The alternative is no better, we view the world through our own particular set of settings, our own rose-coloured glasses, our own situation specific tintings. We are over-sensitive to some things, and completely insensitive to others.
We must continue to adjust the settings, to avoid emotionlessness, but we need also be aware of the dangers in doing so, and working to mitigate them.
An Optimist, a Pessimist, a Realist, they are at their most dangerous when unaware of their own nature.
The tinting of our windows can lead to the greatest joy. But also to the greatest crimes. Use the controls wisely.
We all stand staring at a wall.
Upon that wall is a window, and through that window we gaze out upon all the situations, all the beings, everything that life offers up for our consideration.
In front of us is a control console, sleek and advanced, and upon it an amazing array of buttons, knobs and switches. They are labelled, but not easy to move. It can be done, but moving each one takes a large amount of effort.
Not only that, but some of these controls are dependant upon what is being viewed through the window. When a particular situation, person, or event occurs, these controls become active, overriding the other defaults.
The controls all do the same thing, but in different ways. They effect the way the window is tinted. This tinting seems a minor thing, but it can turn a simple scene into a much more complex one, or a more complex one into a far simpler one.
Now here's the catch, we don't know what effect the controls will have on the windows tint. In fact, we are not even aware of how tinted the window is, since we have never seen the scene behind it without the window. The way the window tints the scene is what we define as the norm.
What do we do with the controls. We can look around and compare them to how others are set. We can randomly adjust them, trying different combinations, we can leave them as they are. We can spend a lifetime playing with them, and still never understand just how they work. We have no baseline. No way to understand the world as it actually is. All we have is how we currently see it.
Sometimes events in the world will be strong enough, that in spite of the filtering effect provided by the windows tint, we still catch some aspect of their true nature.
I guess what I'm trying to express here is a characterisation of emotion. The tint of the window is our emotions, colouring our reaction to events that occur around us. (Not that I am saying this is necessarily wrong).
We can work hard at the controls, trying to get the window tint as clear as possible, but ultimately, we will never know, since we have no baseline for comparison. And would we be any better off?
Assume we succeed, we now see the world exactly as it actually is. We see the truth of the matter. What have we gained. We now live in a world we understand completely, but are unable to understand anyone else's perspective. We shut down the control panel needing it no more, and then wonder why others don't see things the way we do. We forget the control panel even exists.
We feel proud of our success, we have solved the puzzle, suppressed all the controls, all the reactions, wonder, love, anger, hate, the list goes on. Does this enrich our lives? Or does it nullify them? Leaving us automatons, All logic and no emotion.
The alternative is no better, we view the world through our own particular set of settings, our own rose-coloured glasses, our own situation specific tintings. We are over-sensitive to some things, and completely insensitive to others.
We must continue to adjust the settings, to avoid emotionlessness, but we need also be aware of the dangers in doing so, and working to mitigate them.
An Optimist, a Pessimist, a Realist, they are at their most dangerous when unaware of their own nature.
The tinting of our windows can lead to the greatest joy. But also to the greatest crimes. Use the controls wisely.
# posted by ChinDoGu @ 18:29 
Comments:
<< Home
"The realist (from the Latin res = thing) who thinks he deals in things and not images and who is suspicious of the abstract and of art, is not the practical man but a man caught in a fantasy of his own unmaking.
"The realist unmakes the coherent multiple world into a collection of random objects. He thinks of reality as that which has an objective existence, but understands no more about objective existence than that which he can touch and feel, sell and buy. A lover of objects and of objectivity, he is in fact caught in a world of symbols and symbolism, where he is unable to see the thing in itself, as it really is, he sees it only in relation to his own story of the world."
Jeanette Winterson, From "Imagination and Reality" in Art Objects: Essays on Ecstasy and Effrontery.
I love your metaphor, Matt. While Winterson theorises that the "true artist" (though the way she divides the "true" artist from any other artist seems somewhat arbitrary to me) is capable of the purest objectivity, I'm with you. Our experience is entirely subjective and can be nothing else since we have no real basis of comparison. Since the only things we experience, we experience personally, the closest we can come to objectivity is an overlay of the subjective opinions of others and even then, we can only subjectively experience their explication of their experiences. *Re-reads the last sentence. Brain grinds to a halt.* Er, yeah.
I don't know that seeing "the world exactly as it is" is necessarily a bad thing, though I don't think it is actually possible. Plato, while discussing the nature of reality and the role of art in is ideal society, uses the following metaphor. Imagine there is a cave. Everyone in the world is in this cave, chained in such a position that they face the back of the cave and cannot turn around. Behind them is reality, factual, pure and true, passing between them and the light, so all that the viewers can see is shadows cast on the cave wall.
Plato says there are... kind of two layers to the world: the material and the divine. What we see in this world is simply copies of the divine world. Every tree (for example) is an imperfect copy of the divine tree. (Back to the role of the artist: he also places the artist on the lowest social rung in the Republic, caliming that what they make is a copy of a copy, at a third remove from the divine.) Thus, what we experience can never truly be objective reality; it can only contain the suggestion of the real. (He also talks about experience and perception indelibly colouring one's view of the world, making it distinct from anyone else's view of the world: "tables with a quality of tableness", for those who read the Red Dwarf novels.)
I think, in the end, the greatest truth lies not in what is "real" (that is, in objective experience of the world) but in how one approaches one's subjectivity and that of others. What's right for you, isn't necessarily right for others. What you hold to be true in the absolute is not necessarily true for others. And it's somewhere in between that "truth" (for want of a better word) lies; balanced inbetween opinions, where things overlap and interact, caught up in large abstracts and small actions, where emotion and intellect intermingle and where individual meets individual with a mind to respect and equality.
There you are: something for Talen and The Grumbler to vociferously disagree with. ;) Sorry to ramble on.
Just to note, though: personally, I agree with Winterson. (And Shelley. And Rimbaudt. And Eliot. And Auden. And every other Neo-Platonist since the Romantics. Yes, even Wordsworth. The wanker that he was.) I think the artist is important because they are in the best possible position to capture that "truth". Because an artist always lives on the boundaries. Like Granny Weatherwax. ;)
"The realist unmakes the coherent multiple world into a collection of random objects. He thinks of reality as that which has an objective existence, but understands no more about objective existence than that which he can touch and feel, sell and buy. A lover of objects and of objectivity, he is in fact caught in a world of symbols and symbolism, where he is unable to see the thing in itself, as it really is, he sees it only in relation to his own story of the world."
Jeanette Winterson, From "Imagination and Reality" in Art Objects: Essays on Ecstasy and Effrontery.
I love your metaphor, Matt. While Winterson theorises that the "true artist" (though the way she divides the "true" artist from any other artist seems somewhat arbitrary to me) is capable of the purest objectivity, I'm with you. Our experience is entirely subjective and can be nothing else since we have no real basis of comparison. Since the only things we experience, we experience personally, the closest we can come to objectivity is an overlay of the subjective opinions of others and even then, we can only subjectively experience their explication of their experiences. *Re-reads the last sentence. Brain grinds to a halt.* Er, yeah.
I don't know that seeing "the world exactly as it is" is necessarily a bad thing, though I don't think it is actually possible. Plato, while discussing the nature of reality and the role of art in is ideal society, uses the following metaphor. Imagine there is a cave. Everyone in the world is in this cave, chained in such a position that they face the back of the cave and cannot turn around. Behind them is reality, factual, pure and true, passing between them and the light, so all that the viewers can see is shadows cast on the cave wall.
Plato says there are... kind of two layers to the world: the material and the divine. What we see in this world is simply copies of the divine world. Every tree (for example) is an imperfect copy of the divine tree. (Back to the role of the artist: he also places the artist on the lowest social rung in the Republic, caliming that what they make is a copy of a copy, at a third remove from the divine.) Thus, what we experience can never truly be objective reality; it can only contain the suggestion of the real. (He also talks about experience and perception indelibly colouring one's view of the world, making it distinct from anyone else's view of the world: "tables with a quality of tableness", for those who read the Red Dwarf novels.)
I think, in the end, the greatest truth lies not in what is "real" (that is, in objective experience of the world) but in how one approaches one's subjectivity and that of others. What's right for you, isn't necessarily right for others. What you hold to be true in the absolute is not necessarily true for others. And it's somewhere in between that "truth" (for want of a better word) lies; balanced inbetween opinions, where things overlap and interact, caught up in large abstracts and small actions, where emotion and intellect intermingle and where individual meets individual with a mind to respect and equality.
There you are: something for Talen and The Grumbler to vociferously disagree with. ;) Sorry to ramble on.
Just to note, though: personally, I agree with Winterson. (And Shelley. And Rimbaudt. And Eliot. And Auden. And every other Neo-Platonist since the Romantics. Yes, even Wordsworth. The wanker that he was.) I think the artist is important because they are in the best possible position to capture that "truth". Because an artist always lives on the boundaries. Like Granny Weatherwax. ;)
Dude.. Esoteric much? It's a long way around to paint the pitcure.
My views: Yes our views are coloured by our emotions, and yes, /most/ people seem to have some ability to adjust to what degree that is the case, and no, we propabably can't ever reach that state of complete objectivity, and even if we could I agree that it wouldn't really gain us anything useful.
However, the "tint" needs to account for more than emotion. Many people hold different views about right and wrong, and if emotions were left to the side, would still perceive certain situations differently. At one stage, I had achieved that state of emotionless, and I've never fully recovered from it. But during that time I didn't have any better view into the "truth" of a situation as it was still altered by my personal belief structures and supported with logical reason from what evidence was at hand.
Secondly, I believe you can be emotional and objective. I feel it is possible to be conscious of your emotive reactions but set them aside in consideration of the situation at hand. You aren't being emotionless, it's just a matter of not allowing them to run your thinking. What you feel shouldn't /have/ to disable your ability to make clear judgements of something.
As a "Scientist" I do believe that there is an underlying "Truth" of a situation, and that sufficient accurate information will reveal what that is. The biggest problem is that we are very, very bad when it comes to being accurate. The human brain is one big fuzzy system, and our perceptions work on near estimates at best. The volume of incoming information (both in the immediately personally sense, from our perceptions, and from wider afield in a social sense) is so huge, that even if it was accurate it would be very hard to perform any analysis in real-time, meaning that we'd have to live our lives in very slow motion while we processed what was going on.. :P
The "Truth" is there, we just aren't designed to be able to access it, and I personally don't feel that the artist, ("true" or otherwise), is in any better a position to do so.
Anyway, more directly to what you were saying I have a few thoughts:
1) I think you need to broaden the perspective in terms of objectivity, it's more than emotions.
2) Reaching a state of emotionlessness doesn't enrich our lives, and is an extraordinarly dangerous thing to do. Like any safety mechanism, our emotions are their to fullfil an important role, and it times they may seem like an inconvinience, but they are very important to our proper functioning.
3) We shouldn't be so quick to supress or avoid our emotions, instead we should try to understand why we are having the emotional reaction, and take into consideration to the cause of the emotional response in controlling our responses.
4) You say that "The alternative is no better", perhaps you mean that the other extreme is no better? There are a myriad of alternatives to being an automaton as you put it. That said, I would argue that the other extreme, being an overly emotional individual, is far better in many ways, and largely wouldn't include being insensitive, unless by that you mean being seen as insensitive by others due to being overwhelmed by an emotional response that deflected concern for an issue the observer was expecting a different emotional response to.
5) Why must we continue to adjust the settings? Why is it a /must/? I think many people need to make various degrees of adjustment to their emotional responses, but that doesn't mean that /must/, I also think many people are fine where they are, and perhaps we can always make a few adjustments here and there if we feel or are convinced by another that it's a good idea.. But I don't see the /must/.
6) Extreme Optimists are rarely harmful unless left to take care of very important issues, without any form of double check or fall back plan, and in many cases, the shear force of their optimism can carry them through some situations that a less optimistic individual would crumble in. On the other side, extreme Pessimists will be self defeating of their own efforts, but again, are not much danger unless left in charge of some significantly important task, the only other danger they pose is that of a morale issue of those working with them, but it's really not that much.. And Realist isn't a title I agree with at all, given that I don't think anyone is capable of understand the "Truth" behind any event of reasonable significance, there can't be a Realist, and most people who claim that they are Realists, are generally cinics and pessimists who back their opinion up with more grounded points of view that the average.
Post a Comment
My views: Yes our views are coloured by our emotions, and yes, /most/ people seem to have some ability to adjust to what degree that is the case, and no, we propabably can't ever reach that state of complete objectivity, and even if we could I agree that it wouldn't really gain us anything useful.
However, the "tint" needs to account for more than emotion. Many people hold different views about right and wrong, and if emotions were left to the side, would still perceive certain situations differently. At one stage, I had achieved that state of emotionless, and I've never fully recovered from it. But during that time I didn't have any better view into the "truth" of a situation as it was still altered by my personal belief structures and supported with logical reason from what evidence was at hand.
Secondly, I believe you can be emotional and objective. I feel it is possible to be conscious of your emotive reactions but set them aside in consideration of the situation at hand. You aren't being emotionless, it's just a matter of not allowing them to run your thinking. What you feel shouldn't /have/ to disable your ability to make clear judgements of something.
As a "Scientist" I do believe that there is an underlying "Truth" of a situation, and that sufficient accurate information will reveal what that is. The biggest problem is that we are very, very bad when it comes to being accurate. The human brain is one big fuzzy system, and our perceptions work on near estimates at best. The volume of incoming information (both in the immediately personally sense, from our perceptions, and from wider afield in a social sense) is so huge, that even if it was accurate it would be very hard to perform any analysis in real-time, meaning that we'd have to live our lives in very slow motion while we processed what was going on.. :P
The "Truth" is there, we just aren't designed to be able to access it, and I personally don't feel that the artist, ("true" or otherwise), is in any better a position to do so.
Anyway, more directly to what you were saying I have a few thoughts:
1) I think you need to broaden the perspective in terms of objectivity, it's more than emotions.
2) Reaching a state of emotionlessness doesn't enrich our lives, and is an extraordinarly dangerous thing to do. Like any safety mechanism, our emotions are their to fullfil an important role, and it times they may seem like an inconvinience, but they are very important to our proper functioning.
3) We shouldn't be so quick to supress or avoid our emotions, instead we should try to understand why we are having the emotional reaction, and take into consideration to the cause of the emotional response in controlling our responses.
4) You say that "The alternative is no better", perhaps you mean that the other extreme is no better? There are a myriad of alternatives to being an automaton as you put it. That said, I would argue that the other extreme, being an overly emotional individual, is far better in many ways, and largely wouldn't include being insensitive, unless by that you mean being seen as insensitive by others due to being overwhelmed by an emotional response that deflected concern for an issue the observer was expecting a different emotional response to.
5) Why must we continue to adjust the settings? Why is it a /must/? I think many people need to make various degrees of adjustment to their emotional responses, but that doesn't mean that /must/, I also think many people are fine where they are, and perhaps we can always make a few adjustments here and there if we feel or are convinced by another that it's a good idea.. But I don't see the /must/.
6) Extreme Optimists are rarely harmful unless left to take care of very important issues, without any form of double check or fall back plan, and in many cases, the shear force of their optimism can carry them through some situations that a less optimistic individual would crumble in. On the other side, extreme Pessimists will be self defeating of their own efforts, but again, are not much danger unless left in charge of some significantly important task, the only other danger they pose is that of a morale issue of those working with them, but it's really not that much.. And Realist isn't a title I agree with at all, given that I don't think anyone is capable of understand the "Truth" behind any event of reasonable significance, there can't be a Realist, and most people who claim that they are Realists, are generally cinics and pessimists who back their opinion up with more grounded points of view that the average.
# posted by 
: Friday, March 10, 2006 4:17:00 pm
: Friday, March 10, 2006 4:17:00 pm << Home
