Experience & Virtuereality, episode 32: Mixtapes
“In a network, a digital platform turned place — language co-evolving with UI, conversations co-evolving with UX.”
@johnkellden
In a network, in transition along our evolutionary trajectories, code always need to remain in service to aliveness. The trouble is, it isn’t. It’s gamed, co-opted, bought and sold, most of it having little if anything to do with aliveness. Still, in the middle of proprietary platforms turning participants produce, digital conversations can bring out authentic engagement.
:::code and aliveness; aliveness and code:::
Aliveness? Yes, the spontaneous confluence of thoughts, relationships and interactions, an emergent metalogue, unfolding participatory inquiries of our joint making.
However we try to define it, regardless the clarity and simplicity we aim for, it always and already can never be anything more than one seventh of a well-formed pattern.
Below, a sample digital conversation from the Conversation Community, interspersed with an outline of seven parts to a well-formed pattern in a sequence that can help turn our efforts generative:
3 may 2017
Christer Söderberg :
Have we reached a point where the word, language (any language), doesn’t suffice to express the need to communicate in an evolving society? What alternatives are there / could there be?
Karin Meira :
…evolução não acontece quando absorvemos o que é expressado? Ou me engano? Me parece que muito mais está sendo expressado, do que absorvido. Eu sinto sim, que línguas viraram blá, blá, blá.
Christer Söderberg :
Aí você introduziu otro fator interesante… gostei. Será que não conseguimos absorver pelo “barulho” das lenguagems, e por isso mesmo precisamos de outra coisa, uma comunicação que atinge com sentimento, emoção, beleza, e sim, até com Amor? Será?
Karin Meira :
Só com Amor! Só com o que toca a Paixão do Indivíduo!! Pois absorção de barulho adoece o ser humano. Mata.
Karin Meira :
….even fashion designer genius Marc Jacobs has presented his latest collection (Fall 2017) in silence/quiet mode! WOW: I feel ‘touched’ by this!!
https://youtu.be/ezJtBXkTAwA
John Kellden :
What a fab thing to wake up to today!
Harry van der Velde :
All art forms, silence, presencing, cuddling, embodiment, and other ´languages´? :-)
Solution Space
Our needs, co-evolving with abductive sensemaking and design synthesis, aka our understanding. The need for “us” out here in the digital, to coordinate our efforts, making them count, making a difference.
Christer Söderberg :
Thank you. We’re on the same page there. That’s what I’m thinking; art, music, dance, even handicrafts, anything which expresses beauty non-verbally. Alas we seem just barely to begin to understand this new language, much less speak it meaningfully, or is that just the rational mind who thinks so? Do you have any examples?
Karin Meira :
The order in which you wrote your choice of words above, Harry, evokes a lovely development of intimacy! And indeed, those are all languages.
John Kellden :
Flemming Funch Heiner Benking Ron Scroggin Joachim Stroh Val Fraser Sophie Grimbert Tweed Deborah Stacy Eric Lynn Nora Bateson
Eric Lynn :
Do we need an alternative word or simply expand our concept of language?
Heiner Benking :
Christer, I believe Supersigns and Supersystems are one ingredient of possible wider communication architectures, We experiment also with sounds, tones, patterns, fields, frames, … but in a multi-modal “parallel” approach, as nature does: http://www.newciv.org/.../__show_article/_a000396-000045.htm maybe see also http://www.newciv.org/.../__show_article/_a000396-000367.htm or search RENAISSANCE in Flemming*s NewCiv search window; http://www.newciv.org/.../news.../_v396/__search_articles... multi-modal means many eyes and senses, expressions and impressions, mind-sets and mental models…. http://benking.de/.../Knowing-Moving-Transcending-Borders...
John Kellden :
One of the 800lb narratives in the room, is power narrative:
http://kairos.laetusinpraesens.org/hegem_m_h_1
Nora Bateson :
All of the questions below are of personal, institutional, and global concern. “We” in this document refers to anyone who will ask such questions with me.
Karin Meira (my synthetic Polaroid picture) :
Deborah Stacy :
John Kellden, curation, high touch and thoughtfulness as expressions of care and love. Creating a space with dimension, where it’s not only safe, but encouraged to be attentive to each other, to consider and offer to be considered while thinking of oneself and others simultaneously. It is possible.
Words with so many layers of semantic space packed inside, there’s an entire sprawling palace inside your words. Let’s follow these beautiful clothes draped on chairs and sofas through rooms and see where they lead us to be
naked with ourselves and our attention.
Forces & Building Blocks
Semiospheres and semiosphere slingshots. Our muddling through, our slings and arrows, our experienced reality and everything that goes with it. Our signs, our lives as if they are both co-extensive and co-extending.
John Kellden :
Bakhtin on Language
“According to Michael Holquist, Bakhtin is a system-builder, but not in the sense of methodological closure. Rather, his system consists of open-ended connections, and refuses to view issues in isolation. Nevertheless, he seeks to conceptualise general tendencies, in contrast to the untheorised collections often found in folklorism.”
In Theory Bakhtin: Dialogism, Polyphony and Heteroglossia
Harry van der Velde :
To deep to just scan…
“Things don’t exist ‘in themselves’, but only in their relations.”
I agree. Or things could but I would not know… ;-)
John Kellden, did you digest this?
John Kellden :
I believe you captured the core insight Harry. If we realize, that when we scan, we miss out on all the good stuff — then we’re good to go.
John Kellden .
“We are always in dialogue, not only with other people, but also with everything in the world. Everything ‘addresses’ us in a certain sense. Each of us is uniquely addressed in our particular place in the world. One can see one’s exterior only through others’ perspectives.”
It sounds like a Bakhtin version of Ubuntu, right?
John Kellden .
- But, John, why can’t we scan?
- Because people are not barcodes.
Harry van der Velde :
John Kellden Yes
John Kellden :
Tarkovsky on Silence
“I don’t know… I think I’d like to say only that they should learn to be alone and try to spend as much time as possible by themselves. I think one of the faults of young people today is that they try to come together around events that are noisy, almost aggressive at times. This desire to be together in order to not feel alone is an unfortunate symptom, in my opinion. Every person needs to learn from childhood how to spend time with oneself. That doesn’t mean he should be lonely, but that he shouldn’t grow bored with himself because people who grow bored in their own company seem to me in danger, from a self-esteem point of view.”
— Andrei Tarkovsky
Andrei Tarkovsky’s Message to Young People: “Learn to Be Alone,” Enjoy…
John Kellden :
Just outside our comfort zone, there’s two languages: magic and serendipity. One could argue that those are two dimensions of the same language. Imagination is how we access those languages and imagineering is one of the things we can bring back.
via Beverly Helton
https://www.facebook.com/jasonlsilva/videos/1845432922387651/
Juxtaposition is the operating space of serendipity.
Albert Klamt :
Can we engeneer serendipity? No.
John Kellden :
Heh. Agree! We might be able to imagineer our way from there to here! :)
Albert Klamt :
John Kellden Always aware that mere imagination isn’t creating lasting results. Dudley Lynch- one of the authors of “Mind of the Dolphin” outlined it this way.
John Kellden :
Mere? Our spirit is always and already at the ready, having imagineered an action potential, 0.3 seconds before our every movement. It could well be, it is the other way around, yes?
John Kellden :
Could be we are talking about two different things, you might be referring to fantasy, rather than imagination.
John Kellden :
In which case I would agree. Fantasy is gamed to the point of near exhaustion and escapism. Imagination is something else entirely. At least if you ask me. :)
Albert Klamt :
Even imagination. For example Jung, active imagination. From there to lasting results it takes hundreds of steps and processes.
John Kellden :
Every step of the way, an always and already action potential, as I outlined in a previous comment. We might have to agree to disagree on this one.
Bal Simon :
I’m late to this group and thus probably coming into the middle of an ongoing conversation spanning multiple threads. So forgive me if this seems a inapt response.
Christer — can you elaborate on your opening question? Societies evolve; the need to communicate does not seem to be neglected. Witness the bajillions of comments and conversations that happen on a daily basis.
That doesn’t mean we communicate well. But the conversations are non-stop. The *need to communicate* seems to be deeply felt and responded to, even if not articulated.
Could it be that you are asking about the need to communicate so as to truly understand and be understood? That would be a deeper question in my view.
John Kellden :
No need to ask for forgiveness Bal. Almost always the best approach, to dive right in.
Context
In a context of nature, dialogue, mutuality, learning, generativity, connectivity and play, inside our intensely human becoming. Context turned contextual intelligence. Intelligence turned ability. Ability to wisely wield and wend our ways.
John Kellden :
“Communication is a precarious cliff climbing through theme and variation.”
— Nora Bateson
I found this one today Nora, have been re-reading your book, Small Arcs .
http://www.triarchypress.net/small-arcs.html
Nora Bateson :
I love seeing which treasures you find!
John Kellden :
I’m a slow reader, but we’ll get there! :)
John Kellden :
I’ve been exploring something I call Double Quotes
“It is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important.”
― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry“It is the meraki you have freely given your rose that turns your rose red.”
@johnkellden riffing on Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Jorge Pineda :
Love this words of Saint Exupéry and the way you have paraphrased him John!
Heiner Benking :
Christer Söderberg, we tried with new words which have a referent. Check: Concept and Context mapping here:https://www.academia.edu/.../Terminology-Concept-Context... but the terminologists had much problems with it, as I / we were “overstepping fields” and even without “mandate”.
We later tried with models and new wordings/terms. Take for example “GLocal”. It took 25+ years to reach the academic world…. enjoy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glocalization... Unfortunately these “Academics” have problems with scales, dimensions, schemas, models,…. so the idea of extensions or a spectrum of meaning was the max these authors did observe/manage. conceptually.
And this only after being introduced to the “spectrum of meaning” “Big Brother” examplified: http://benking.de/.../The_spectrum_of_meaning-watching.htm by late Herbert Stachowiak — an Academic who founded the “General Model Theory”: http://quergeist.net/Stachowiak/
John Kellden :
https://inventingthemedium.com/glossary/
John Kellden :
The Academic world is not a problem. We can hold larger, more fluid, extendable, more blurry at the boundaries — possibility spaces.
Later, in due time, the Academic world can establish “clearings in the forest” inside which things can be built, if such more orderly blueprints and buildings are required.
“The relationship of symbolic codes to the realm of human experience, such as the meaning of words or gestures, is ambiguous, indeterminate, and a matter of interpretation.”
— Janet H. Murray
https://inventingthemedium.com/glossary/
Tim Sandgren :
I disagree. We just do not use words properly. I mean really listen to what we are saying to eachother.
Participatory Inquiry: Resonance
“Imagine a conference with a keynote listener instead of a keynote speaker.”
— David Gurteen
Don’t just sit there… | Henry Mintzberg
Tim Sandgren :
Yup. Badly needed 👅
John Kellden :
The trick with CEO’s, is to remind them that they are good listeners.
Tim Sandgren :
Yup at one point they had to have been.
John Kellden :
Oh, they still are! They are just wearing Teh Importance Slip.
Play
Finite and infinite games, engaged in and from a disposition of infinite play. Play as process. Questions. Generative questions. Inquiry. Participatory inquiry.
Nora Bateson :
isadora duncan :
”If I could say it, I wouldn’t have to dance it.”
Christer Söderberg :
Thank you, Love that one!
“So many words get lost. They leave the mouth and lose their courage, wandering aimlessly until they are swept into the gutter like dead leaves. On rainy days, you can hear their chorus rushing past: IwasabeautifulgirlPleasedon’tgoItoobelievemybodyismadeofglass-I’veneverlovedanyoneIthinkofmyselfasfunnyForgiveme….
There was a time when it wasn’t uncommon to use a piece of string to guide words that otherwise might falter on the way to their destinations. Shy people carried a little bunch of string in their pockets, but people considered loudmouths had no less need for it, since those used to being overheard by everyone were often at a loss for how to make themselves heard by someone. The physical distance between two people using a string was often small; sometimes the smaller the distance, the greater the need for the string.
The practice of attaching cups to the ends of string came much later. Some say it is related to the irrepressible urge to press shells to our ears, to hear the still-surviving echo of the world’s first expression. Others say it was started by a man who held the end of a string that was unraveled across the ocean by a girl who left for America.
When the world grew bigger, and there wasn’t enough string to keep the things people wanted to say from disappearing into the vastness, the telephone was invented.
Sometimes no length of string is long enough to say the thing that needs to be said. In such cases all the string can do, in whatever its form, is conduct a person’s silence.”
― Nicole Krauss
Tim Sandgren :
A word string theory. I like that.
John Kellden :
Eleven dimensions, the additional seven which are folded in silence and unfolds, nested with music.
Wout-Jan Koridon :
Great question, thanks Christer.
My take — apart from reinventing conversations, becoming aware of energetic presence and creating new words: … ART
Where art can transcend borders, of old language, of gender, of nationality, of race, of religion.
Music, paintings, dance, movies …
Initiatives are on the rise there, intensifying.
And, if we immerse in Nature — also as being one with it — we can experience how Art can transform consciousness.
imho
“The purpose of art
is washing the dust of daily life off our souls.”
Pablo Picasso
Christer Söderberg :
The language of the future; ART.
Karin Meira :
Art is actually the only language which is always and only ‘present’.
John Kellden :
Christer Söderberg this whole thread, in a word: no! :)
No, we haven’t. :)
Christer Söderberg :
Interesting isn’t it? I think Nora Bateson nailed it with her quote by Isadora Duncan. Dance anyone? :-)
John Kellden :
I’ll play the fiddle!
:::enacting a makeshift dance hall:::
Christer Söderberg :
Thank you everyone for bringing a little more light on the subject, enlightening!
Val Fraser :
What if we really don’t need words? What if our connection is through our eyes, our hearts and our magnetic waves, I have experienced connecting & learning at a far deeper level sitting with someone — in silence — for 15 minutes than I have wading through a one hour conversation of words and their inherent associations….
Val Fraser :
Maybe communication could be replaced by connection. Allowing our energy fields to flow together into a powerful force to achieve our objectives.
John Kellden :
This is beautiful beyond words.
Deborah Stacy :
Can we do this in a virtual world?
Deborah Stacy :
Are we developing a worthy, dual sense of ourselves ‘IRL’ and virtually?
Val Fraser :
Deborah Stacy Interesting thought…I suppose intention is always the basis of connection and thereby influences the shape of the energy. Virtual worlds are just a different encapsulation of energy therefore presumably we might be able to harness this energy.
Deborah Stacy :
I hope we can.
John Kellden :
…and weave between…
Deborah Stacy :
One of the ways I have hope is that those who have met the flesh me after knowing me here have said I’m exactly who they thought I was.
Ron Scroggin :
Where air and water meet there is a zone of interaction that culminates in frothy wavecrests and clouds of spray. This foamy aerosol dimension where the wild blue yonder meets the deep blue sea, is where language lies, connecting.. meaning and action? self and world? When selves become directly neurologically connected will they speak in the brain’s own language of neurodynamics? What are its words, musics, arts?
John Kellden :
Best. Questions. Ever.
:::bowing:::
Bal Simon :
I’m a lover of words.
Raw “connection” may have some value, but it’s almost always in the context of words. A pleasant example:
In less than two weeks, I’m about to become a grandpa. From the moment of her birth, my granddaughter will be immersed in words. She will also be immersed in non-words (music, cooking, toilet training, learning to play, share, stand up for herself, etc.). But without words none of it would happen.
Without words, it also is doubtful that any of us would be alive because there is no way that Earth could support 7+ billion wordless human beings. We might not even have moved to become an agrarian species, let alone moved beyond that.
Try to accomplish complex projects without words. Maybe it could be done here and there by some very sharp people. But by and large — no. It doesn’t happen.
We respond to the “need to communicate” all the time.
We talk/listen, write/get read, create and watch videos etc. — repeatedly — incessantly. We come by it as naturally as birds twitter.
There may be much that words don’t communicate, but without words we don’t communicate in-depth or for very long.
As I see it, our words support the human-centered, beyond-words patterns.
I’ve experienced “silent connection” with others. I’ve danced extemporaneously in a room of individually dancing eclectic people, each of us dancing to our own muses as music wafted in a room (a place called Dance Home in the 1980s, in Santa Monica, California). I’ve had “shared experiences” with others.
And always — always — we come back to talking about it — or “moving on” to talk — talk about something else.
So — this goes back to my original comment. What is the context of the opening question? I’m not challenging it. I’m saying I just don’t really understand it. All of the above is meant to help anyone who’s up for it to show me what I’m missing. I’m here mainly to try to explore — not to assert — even though I recognize that I have asserted — a lot. :)
Hopefully all of this makes at least a little bit of sense.
Maps, Models & Theories
Diagrams and code, code and diagrams. Frameworks, when needed. Paths, if desired. Patterning, when translation is called for. Sharing and distribution — always.The last two of the seven, is where you’ll find almost all activity, as if fools rush in. Please consider the five just outlined. Thank you for flying with Conversation Community. :)
Val Fraser :
I hear you and like you, I enjoy words and I agree words can facilitate many interactions, but equally at a certain point they thwart understanding due to significant differences in associations we construct over years and experiences. At this point the very tool designed to facilitate understanding becomes the substance of confusion. Sometimes even deliberately, when you start reading fine print in certain contracts….interpretation is deliberately vague. I would never discount the value of words, I just question if there is not a time we need to go beyond them…
Bal Simon :
I would say that one time to discount words is the minute one or more of the participants are not actually trying to communicate. The contract you mentioned is a good case in point.
I think you just helped me articulate this a little better. Let’s find out.
I think the phrase “beyond words” may be better replaced with the idea of words and connecting in other ways flowing together, mutually supporting deeper and better communication — or at least potentially so.
Val Fraser :
Perhaps, sometimes I work with a group where I asked participants to write down what they would like to say to someone, and in a second step I ask them to now tell them what they wrote, but without words, they need to do so only by looking into each other’s eyes. I then ask the ‘receiver’ to articulate what they felt was said. It is a powerful exercise and sometimes surprising at the amount of detail that is communicated.
Bal Simon :
That’s an interesting experiment. Are you saying that if I was thinking of saying was that I was looking forward to going to the symphony next week, that the other person might be able to pick that level of detail up?
Val Fraser :
Yes, I think so, but in context…I believe similar types of information have been shared, BUT there was a prior history of communication which helped the intention to be formulated.
Val Fraser :
Does that make sense?
Bal Simon :
I think so. So if you and I were to do this experiment, it might take some time — perhaps better said, a variety of exposures — for that kind of wordless connection to communicate word-equivalent understandings. In other words, the repeated exposures would let us become aware of how we bodily communicated when we used words, and over time, allow us to anticipate each other?
Val Fraser :
Potentially, yes, I believe that! However, the work I’ve done would not be able to show this, as it has been rather simplified — the participants were asked to communicate something they appreciated or liked about someone else. However responses would sometimes come in the form of — X likes my approach to project Y and he will help me promote the project to management. This information was new to the person, it had never been verbalised or even hinted at. But they had at some point either looked at or worked on the project.
Bal Simon :
OK — I get that. I think I had a similar experience on a job once, though not as part of an experiment. We were in a group meeting led by our manager. A number of people spoke up. One guy spoke in a deliberate, thoughtful way. Not off the cuff. Assertively, but not aggressively — not dogmatically.
I walked up to him after the meeting and suggested that it would be mutually beneficial to talk a bit and see if we could help each other out. Turned out I had read him right. We worked well together.
This wasn’t because he said, “Bal — I think we can work well together.” It’s because I saw “beyond the words,” or rather I took in both what he said and his physical demeanor and how he communicated to make a pretty good guess that we could collaborate.
Is this something similar to what you are discussing?
Val Fraser :
Yes, yours was coincidental. I do it as part of a fun team building exercise — instead of the usual ‘what I appreciate about you’ — I added the challenge of looking into the other persons eyes and communicating it non-verbally.
Bal Simon :
Got it.
Val Fraser :
I’ve been pleasantly surprised at the depth of connection this creates.
:::absolute awesomeness:::
Ron Scroggin :
Val Fraser said “in context…I believe similar types of information have been shared, BUT there was a prior history of communication which helped the intention to be formulated.” -Similar to musicians who can communicate in mutual improvisation without knowing what will happen, or without talking about it, typically in the context of a history of direct or indirect communication.
Matthew Herschler :
I love words too, not to say it’s all honeymoon, just that what seems possible by them is potentially so amazing that feels like its worth the effort. And yes, listening and other ways we pay attention may be the much bigger other part of that — the giant in the room.
Albert Klamt :
And there is always the mysterious aura of the nonsayable. Of this zone of the barely communicable. Just 2 examples. One from Stacey `De Erasmo. One from Steven King:
“The most important things are the hardest to say. They are the things you get ashamed of, because words diminish them — words shrink things that seemed limitless when they were in your head to no more than living size when they’re brought out. But it’s more than that, isn’t it? The most important things lie too close to wherever your secret heart is buried, like landmarks to a treasure your enemies would love to steal away. And you may make revelations that cost you dearly only to have people look at you in a funny way, not understanding what you’ve said at all, or why you thought it was so important that you almost cried while you were saying it. That’s the worst, I think. When the secret stays locked within not for want of a tellar but for want of an understanding ear.”
―Stephen King, Different Seasons“This darker sense of unsayability is keenly aware of negative capability. It asks, “Can we find the words to say it?” “Are we able to say it at all?” Instead of fearing that language will affirm an already pernicious reality or reveal something so shameful that we’ll immediately be banished, or banned, or divorced, we seem to be afraid that language will not be a sufficient instrument to locate, or delineate, or withstand, what we’re trying to get at.
This sense of unsayability is the one that interests me a great deal. “
―Stacey D’Erasmo
Val Fraser :
Albert Klamt Perfectly expressed!
Matthew Herschler :
Yes, this speaks to me too. Parts of it come through right away, like “And you may make revelations that cost you dearly only to have people look at you in a funny way, not understanding what you’ve said at all” or “That’s the worst, I think. When the secret stays locked within not for want of a tellar but for want of an understanding ear.” I’ve also noticed that people tend to blame it entirely on the speaker, when they don’t understand.
Problem Space
Erhmagerd, we’re all going to die! With 8bn more or less nuanced variations on a surprisingly finite set of themes. Fear — turning, turning, turning. Widening gyre? Fear turning aliveness. Can you feel it? Do you meraki?
Mila Ali :
Perhaps I missed it, did anyone talk about metaphors? George Lakoff’s work (Metaphors we live by) really enlightens the connection to how we think relating to and beyond words..
Idea Framing, Metaphors, and Your Brain — George Lakoff
Sophie Grimbert Tweed :
Powerful pictures embodied by words. Thanks Mila.
Mila Ali :
Thank you Sophie Grimbert Tweed. Learnt experiences and observation becomes our cellular memory .. That’s why words are difficult to express a subconscious cellular memory..
Art, dance, metaphors, embodiment practices, emotions, tactile expressions, using all our senses etc.. seem to this most effectively ..
How can you describe our subconscious experiences through conscious words?
Sophie Grimbert Tweed :
Bringing the subconscious to the awareness level. Exploring. Joachim, potential of sceenius.
Mila Ali :
Sophie Grimbert Tweed Think alike. Yay!.
Part of a topic I mentioned to Joachim Stroh at recent conversation on Sceenius relating to bringing it to ULab and Theory U
Harry van der Velde :
Mila Aliana W O W
Gregory Shephard :
Evolving language to reclaim the space in between is key to y[our] survival as a species bott[om] line. To spark an exchange I began a system of bracketing to focus on certain letters and words that represent all things timeless. For instance [om] pronounced A-U-M-[ ] , is followed by the brackets representing the silence that follows without which there would be no music. For us to reclaim this space in between while we still can is my motive for finding a simple way to recognize , reclaim, restore, redeem, recover, reveal, revisit , reconcile, recycle, reconstitute, remember….
Gregory Shephard :
I come from a long line of wagon makers.My grandfather used to tell me “the space between the spokes is just as important as the spokes themselves”.[It] is the spaces in between that get us h[om]e…
Gregory Shephard :
…and by the way arent all words metaphors?
Wendy Wheeler :
Delectable Creatures and the Fundamental Reality of Metaphor: Biosemiotics and Animal Mind
This article argues that organisms, defined by a semi-permeable membrane or skin separating organism from environment, are (must be) semiotically alert responders to environments (both Innenwelt and Umwelt). As organisms and environments complexify over time, so, necessarily, does semiotic responsiveness, or ‘semiotic freedom’. In complex environments, semiotic responsiveness necessitates increasing plasticity of discernment, or discrimination. Such judgements, in other words, involve interpretations. The latter, in effect, consist of translations of a range of sign relations which, like metaphor, are based on transfers (carryings over) of meanings or expressions from one semiotic ‘site’ to another. The article argues that what humans describe as ‘metaphor’ (and believe is something which only pertains to human speech and mind and, in essence, is ‘not real’) is, in fact, fundamental to all semiotic and biosemiotic sign processes in all living things. The article first argues that metaphor and mind are immanent in all life, and are evolutionary, and, thus, that animals certainly do have minds. Following Heidegger and then Agamben, the article continues by asking about the place of animal mind in humans, and concludes that, as a kind of ‘night science’, ‘humananimal’ mind is central to the semiotics of Peircean abduction.
Wendy Wheeler | Evolution scientist | The Third Way of…
Story
What’s the story, morning glory? No, seriously, what is it? Is it us succeeding in traversing the Waste Land, together, finding ourselves Back In The Garden? Or is that story just a pipe dream? What if it is a pipe dream, yet that dream and any others, is precisely what the doctor orders? Or, are we stuck inside of Memphis? All stories, already doctored, all storytellers already bought and sold many times over? Who would you trust? That’s not the right question and you know it. Who would you entrust with your story?If you look up at the stars, do the stars gaze back? This is the only true story of them all, the fact that you are stardust. Everything you call you in a material sense, is from old, long gone exploded supernovas. The question is — what are you going to do about it?
Christer Söderberg :
Hi Bal Simon, Thanks for the question. I’m thinking along the lines of “we’re talking a lot — but are we saying much?”. There is a vast amount of information but is it getting through? So the question, for me specifically to encourage a more meaningful dialogue about the grave challenges facing humanity, is to see if language is perhaps too “rational” and we require a more “heartfelt”, i.e. “from the heart” communication? I am very happy to read in the comments in this thread that there others, like myself, who believe that Art, in all it’s forms, is that language. The question follows; how can we further develop and become aware of Art as Language?
Afterthoughts: Conversation with David Abram, Part Two:…
Bal Simon :
I remembered reading about a theory of art by Gurdjieff in Ouspensky’s In Search of the Miraculous. I found the quote online (easier than leafing through the book — one uses the resources one has, yes?).
“I do not call art all that you call art, which is simply mechanical reproduction, imitation of nature or of other people, or simply fantasy or an attempt to be original. Real art is something quite different…. In your art everything is subjective — the artist’s perception of this or that sensation, the forms in which he tries to express his sensation and the perception of these forms by other people…. In real art there is nothing accidental…. The artist knows and understands what he wants to convey, and his work cannot produce one impression on one man and one impression on another, presuming, or course, people on one level.”
Since I read that some 25+ years ago, it has made an impression on me. It colors what I think of when I work on my own music compositions and my sketches. I view it as an effort to communicate.
So — I”m with you, at least to some extent here.
The thing that I guess I resist is that I feel there is an opposition of sorts to words. If such an opposition exists — a kind of belief that we need to make a choice — then that is unfortunate.
I look for words and art to form a variety of amalgams or alloys. Stronger and more vital than either alone.
If that is what you are asking about in your opener — a way to form deeper, or as you put it, “heartfelt” communication, my answer is that you don’t leave words out. Rather you look for phase shifts between words and wordless forms of expressions — translating flowingly from one to the other and back again.
John Kellden :
http://www.gurdjieff.am/in-search/index.pdf
Bal Simon :
Looks like the passage I quoted is on page 33 of the PDF file. Thx!
Semiosphere Segues and Slingshots
Everything else, is footnotes to supernovas, you adding your own unique twist, between mind and matter. Which brings us to
Heiner Benking :
Christer, for me the “Art of the Arts is communication” and I mean exact&fine arts combined ! We struggle with supersigns (symbold, icon, index) but also that is not enough” there are sensations, pattern, fields, liches, …. but central is position and extension, frames and more …. sometimes it is the resonnnce, the part of the spectrum or the key and tone (in music) which counts also in formations. Or how to manifest it John, maybe you can help find words….
Conversations that Mind and Matter, at Convivial Scale
In order to make sense and make meaning, it can help with noticing patterns. Patterns of interaction, patterns of play. All of the above. As above, below? Your move…You are waiting for my move? Ok, here goes:
John Kellden :
For now
“I don’t know… I think I’d like to say only that they should learn to be alone and try to spend as much time as possible by themselves. I think one of the faults of young people today is that they try to come together around events that are noisy, almost aggressive at times. This desire to be together in order to not feel alone is an unfortunate symptom, in my opinion. Every person needs to learn from childhood how to spend time with oneself. That doesn’t mean he should be lonely, but that he shouldn’t grow bored with himself because people who grow bored in their own company seem to me in danger, from a self-esteem point of view.”
— Andrei Tarkovsky
Sculpting in Time, Andrey Tarkovsky
John Kellden :
21C Enaction: Imagineering…
Can we become paradise engineers? Can we design better minds? Can we make ourselves kinder, more empathetic and more compassionate, so that we may live more ecstatically?
John Kellden :
For those of you who have english as your native language, you just have to watch the video a couple of times more. :)
Sophie Grimbert Tweed :
English natives & others 😉
John Kellden :
Ouais! :)
John Kellden :
21C Unlearning: Playfulness … :)
Philip Lewis :
Omggggg. I need to meet the person that made this! How?!
John Kellden :
You need to learn the moves and dance with, for full unlearning effect. :)
John Kellden :
Playfulness ping Bernie DeKoven
The Conversation Community
add considered, considerate comments on other people’s posts
Tia Carr :
Can you use old language to build new ideas?
John Kellden :
Yes. English is full of empire, yet I’ve made use of it here in the Conversation Community.
A digital place co-evolving with digital conversations. Scaffolded by a prototype digital dynamic knowledge repository.
:::digital dynamic knowledge repository:::
A large finite set pattern pattern language, select parts turned cards, cards fieldtested and co-evolving with conversations that mind and matter.
Among the patterns:
self-awareness, proprioception of thought, interoception, transception, flow, presence, situational awareness, nowness, embodiment, enaction, biosemiosis, biosemiotics, aliveness, intuition, being here now
Patterns of Interaction, Generative Sequences…
Adding comments and liking comments, are perfect moves, perfect transactions inside the Conversation Community. Liking posts at the exclusion of comments, less so. Conviviality as a superset of like button clicking practices. An extending our (bio)semiosis, our enaction, our transcontextual weaving, into digital. Code and aliveness.
- John, why biosemiotics?
- Because a map, code (biosemiotics) towards aliveness (biosemiosis).
- John, why the moving away from liking posts, to liking comments?
- Because adding considered, considerate comments on other people’s posts.
Energy and aliveness follows intention, follows thought. Transactions are guided by intention, by thought. Thinslicing, one of the wicked problems inside proprietary platforms, works against this. Simply put, if you only have one word to share, only have time for clicking the like button and nothing else, you are not here in any meaningful sense of that word. If you are not here, why are you here?
Capturing Collective Conducive to Conviviality
Tia Carr :
The rise of neologisms is a somewhat clumsy attempt at fusing ideas, concepts, zeitgeists, in a bid to communicate evolving moods and momentums. Whether it emerges from one individual who can capture the sense of the collective, if you can’t name it, you can’t claim it. This is where your work excels. The blend of the contributors in Conversations, who are either ‘outliers’ or core instigators to the uprising surge, desperately seeking a lexicon, the need for specific languaging is critical.
John Kellden :
Profoundly true. I remain grateful and hopeful, given the diversity of individual genius and collective intelligence gathered here.
What Scenius, Augmenting Our Genius?
It might just be that is what members can sense — the depth and breadth and generativity of my intention. Tempered by my levity and convivial whimsy. Things are serious, which is why we need to take ourselves less seriously.
Dwarf at Rivendell:
- Is he offering insult?
Gandalf:
- No, he’s offering food!
Tia Carr :
Dwarves…so ready to take offense, I’ve found. It’s the light touch you have, John, that makes it work.
John Kellden :
That’s very kind Tia, thanks! And you’re making an important point — the need for “us” out here in the digital, to coordinate our efforts, making them count, making a difference.
Stuck Inside of Mobile With the Shared Misery Content(ment) Again
Making it count. This requires language, lexicon, glossaries, dynamic knowledge repositories, tag clouds, ontologies, epistemologies and taxonomies.
All of that can as of now be fitted together with a large finite set pattern language. A big thank you to all the Conversation Community members, for being here for years, chiming in, participating. Are we stuck? You betcha! For how much longer? That depends…
How much longer do we want to stay on repeat?
Are we ready to shuffle? New playlists? New mixtapes? Engaging in conversations that mind and matter, at convivial scale, combining individual and collective intelligence, forming new patterns?
Adding a pattern language to a language, allows a great many benefits.
One of the benefits is, our efforts could then scale, all the way from many small text boxes (words, language) to large, next-gen (distributed, self-organizing) formats, networks, practices, platforms: what I usually call digital places (words, pattern language).
:::conversational equation space:::
Magical Mystery Metalogue: Move Meaningfully!
Which means (obviously a simplification) :
Language x pattern language = “…at convivial scale”
With
Code = language x pattern language
Aliveness = conversations that mind and matter at convivial scale
Aliveness(representation) = biosemiotics
Aliveness(enaction) = biosemiosis
There you go, something perfectly actionable. Something that scales. Something that can be coded and built, for the benefit of Mister Kite. The Hendersons will all be there.
Our production will be second to none
Needless to say, the reduction to a simple formula, comes with a great many risks.
Which is why gathering together in digital places, forming a requisite variety of alive human beings with the option of aligning around evolutionary trajectories, is of the essence. In a context of generative review, things can never be allowed to stay forever mapped, modelled, diagrammed: theory. Theory always needs people and practice. Code always needs to remain in service to aliveness. The pattern that connects between map and territory, itself evolving towards a patterning, realigning.
Weasel Wordsmith and the White Boys Colonial
Writing this, I find the english language, being of service, but only up to a point. There remains a great danger, that when others read this, my efforts conveying unfolding wholeness AND how parts (code) can play their unique invaluable part, somehow is lost in the interpretation. It wouldn’t be me writing this, if I wouldn’t have a solution for such interpretation shenanigans and concerns:
A venn intersect of inference ladder(mind, consciousness, awareness) and conversation(intention, interaction, actionable insight, transaction).
[insert your own fave venn here, venns forming folds, movement, spirals, toroids]
No, seriously, do add it! Our circles of confluence inspiring our circles of concern and influence.
:::circles of concern, influence & confluence:::
How?
Conversations that mind and matter, at convivial scale.
What do we mean? What meaning-making-moving-with?
Although the drawing of conclusions is what a great many proprietary platform participants believe they want, it might not be what they need:
- John, it’s all about communication!
- No …? :)
- John, it’s all about code!
- Actually, no. More like, aliveness and code, code and aliveness.
- John, it’s all about the (taxonomy, epistemology, ontology, philosophy, qualia, map theory, model, diagram, whatnot thingie)
- No. Maps and theories, make up precisely one seventh of well-formed patterns. See above. Models and diagrams are good, necessary, and not sufficient.
- John, it’s all about catgifs, selfies, content marketing and uninformed opinion!
- While this makes up around 98% of all content on proprietary platforms, the 2% that is not those four genres, is what makes all the difference in the world.
There might be more to heaven and earth, Horatio, than pithy quotes on pretty pictures. Speaking of which…did I add a nice, shiny to the top of this?
Dent you in return and in kind
- John, it’s all about, [insert your own fave thing here]!
- While that might feel so, from where you are trying to make a dent in the world, you need to take into account, how the rest of the word and world, dent you in return and in kind — cybernetics and autopoiesis. How the feedback loops you instigate, anneals your essential character and sets you on a path towards evolutionary purpose, or not.
- John, effing don’t be like that! I just want you to like my FB page, dammit!
- Sure, I’ll do that. Then what?
- John, I’m only here for the lols and the shiny.
- Go away. No, seriously, do. If you are only clicking on posts, never reading anything and treat others as objects for your tired amusement and (shared) misery — you need to seek ungainful employment of your time, elsewhere.
- John, that was harsh, wasn’t it?
- Was it harsh enough? I can do harsher if needs be.
- John, effing stop being an obnoxious know-it-all, will you?
- No. :)
I Woke Up This Morning (Ten Years After)
The thing is, I gave myself a permission slip, being me and becoming even more intensely human. This can be seen as provocative, or as a permission slip for you as well.
Since we’re still exploring these here digital realms, and are mostly clueless about our destination, no direction home, the rule serves as a help, a boundary condition, a scaffolding our digital, social presence. The rules? The rule:
add considered, considerate comments on other people’s posts
It is also actionable. As in, doable.
- John, are there other rules in the Conversation Community?
- No.
What is really good with “No” is, it provides clarity. What is at times experienced as less good, is, it provides clarity.
Life and Signs, Co-Extensive, Co-Extending — Here and Now — Your Move
Life and signs are co-extensive. It’s complex. Life is complex, signs are complexes. Simplicity and clarity, while at times both wanted and much needed, is not all there is.
We know this already. We understand the complexities involved in life. It’s our mind playing clarity and simplicity tricks on us. For the full sphiel why that is so: Process and Reality, Alfred North Whitehead.
:::process and reality:::
You might argue, that that’s not a simple book to read, and I would agree. However, if your every mind shenanigan can be brought to resolve, your every complex responsive process, re-aligned with and understood, until playing really well with other people, consider your options.
1. Remain inside utter confusion. No, seriously, this is a valid option. Embrace experience.
2. Go read.
3. Planet B. The A Team effed up. Time for all others to step up, providing production value. How? Conversations?
You might find other things to read more to your liking. Which is great. Because…
Life and signs are co-extensive through our reading and understanding Extend? Translate? How? Am I glad you asked! Through patterns, patterns of interaction, patterns of play, pattern languages. Thank you for reading and understanding and engaging in conversations.
