Mind Myopia

Commuting to and from work on a daily basis for the past few years has acquainted me, as with most of us, how people communicate using their vehicles. Major signals, such as a driver’s tendency to tailgate is obvious, yet slighter signals exist that many appear to react rather quickly to. This tendency to quickly react even to minute signals is what brought me to consider a broader understanding of a systemic tendency in us all. The observation is simple (under the assumption that I’m fairly attuned to the language used by most drivers); nearly every time I happen to barely hesitate within as small as a quarter of a second for whatever reason on a busy road, the driver immediately behind me will attempt to get around me whatever way he / she can. This occasionally annoys me a little bit because this person is making a needless move on their part; I’m usually a very steady driver who keeps the flow of traffic, so why can’t this person understand that even though I accidentally slowed down more than I should for a microsecond (literally) that I’m not likely to do it again. The answer of course is obvious, and lies in the other driver’s inability to know who I am and how I typically drive. To them I’m simply a human with no perceivable history of good merit. And so for their survival (since we’re dealing with metal on metal at 50 MPH), my slight abnormalities must be interpreted as potential systemic flaws, and thereby causing endangerment.

My annoyance with this reactionary behavior of course is quite irrational. It comes from an experience and childhood which promoted the subjectivity of humanity; that each person cannot be reduced to a number or variable within an equation. Furthermore, it is even worse if humans find themselves given over to that system, dehumanized in the process and simply acting as variables with little subjectivity once in. That upbringing and history of thought naturally made me consider if there were other areas of life where these kinds of observations were valid; places where it seems humanity does act too far in a direction that ignores history, and the subjectivity of each person.

Through intuition, I came across the oft-observed but never voiced observation that the home out of all places can tend to exist as a location ruled by these ways of thinking. The home has long been an environment of rather focused social engagement. For most in the United States, the social group within a home is almost always one’s immediate family. And despite these factors which lend themselves to history and subjectivity, it seems that certain families still suffer from an inability to take historic considerations into account as they act around one another (as a side note: to be honest, this usually affects boomers and conservative circles, and I do think this is becoming less and less common, but I think it is still prevalent enough to be a worthwhile observation). Observations like the tendency in a conversation to strongly interpret every nuance that a person uses; every slight variation as a completely intentional action that can be applied quite well in understanding a person, even though the person has never shown signs of thinking that way, or is tired, or recently has been having a difficult time sleeping. Despite recent and long historical evidence to the contrary, I’ve found that people will still judge individuals by this harsh criteria. And so like vehicles on a highway, every slight misstep is made into a judgement of epic proportions.

Now I know, from time to time we’ve all been caught up in our little worlds that make us evaluate things without a wider view; a rough day at the office tends to cause one to carry the office’s ways of thinking home, or preparations for a major family dinner gets the hostess carried away with extracting every ounce of time into preparing, but these realities for some families are beyond a temporal bout here or there and they permeate the culture of the household.

Thinking about this blog post while I was writing it, I realized that I didn’t really have much to say beyond identifying the problem. Usually it isn't hard for me to come up with a few examples to solve an issue, but for a reason or not (and probably because it is nearly 2 AM), this is about all I've got. Feel free to leave some thoughts. I'll probably be providing some references in the future that exemplify this issue.

--------------------------------
Update:
Here's a couple of references that discuss the issue more:

• Asymmetry Insight
• Twin Peaks (TV Show). I know...I know, a TV show can't be read online, but it does do a great job at portraying related concepts.

The Presence of Narrative in Non-Linear Experiences

Being exposed from an early age to highly thematic and narrative-based literature and film, my mind is predisposed to understanding the world through linear mediums that seek to communicate ideas intentionally. Since college I’ve been fascinated by non-linear representations of the world, mostly because their apparent lack of cohesive ideas present a challenge to demystify their meaning. This pursuit has mostly just facilitated a better understanding, and thereby respect, of visual art. However, this respect does not envelope all art; forms of highly self-expressive nature are of little value to me. Surely there is meaning behind the works of Dadaists or Abstract Expressionists.

Over the past year or so, a critical outlook towards the medium of games has also emerged, much for the same reasons. Again, the main question is whether games that lack themes or centralized ideas are worth playing. A popular genre that routinely lacks these tend to place the player in a non-linear sandbox. In such an environment the player is often given little story or overarching themes to the world. I find that in these settings, instead of taking actions that gravitate around a meaning or story, I am forced to focus on mechanics and technique. Often this has turned an enjoyable experience into a practice in micro-management. All allure is removed as the game’s relationship to the player is no longer a dialog, but is forced to be game-centric through requiring the player to obsess over technique in order to progress.

Appreciating forms of this nature in games while coming from a narrative-heavy background has been a great challenge. However, I think I was able to find an answer through friends, my own occupation, and a couple of recent sandbox games. While in San Antonio for a time, I was able to get to know a good friend who is a general contractor; a job that requires a lot of physical manipulation and knowledge of how physical systems work. I was also employed as a software engineer, which typically requires one to design and think about software as analogous to objects and tools. The realization is that objects in this genre of game, and in real life, have a level of intrinsic meaning. The specific games that helped the realization of this were Katamari Damacy and Just Cause 2. Previously I mentioned that the typical result of playing these games is to obsess over technique. While recently playing Just Cause 2, the realization came that I could determine a relation between the designer’s crafting of physical objects to the other elements in the game (such as story, music, etc). Since most of the game involves manipulating objects in order to achieve objectives, each object is given certain physical properties, and all objects operate along a common set of physical laws. The variation in the properties present of the objects convey a different meaning when used, much in the way that a sledgehammer can be used in a different manner than a knife. Now, I’m not trying to say that Just Cause 2 uses realistic physics. But rather, that the designer’s embed their choice of meaning through making objects that operate in certain ways, even if those ways seem minute. An excellent example can be seen through the sound queues that arise when picking up objects in Katamari Damacy, which taken with the rest of the game, convey an idea of the futility of material wealth.

Lastly, so as to not convey that I intend on spending countless hours seeking meaning within sandbox games, I don’t believe that I can personally invest large amounts of time in these games and still derive just as much meaning if I were to read a book or have a good conversation. As stated in the beginning, I’m predisposed to other ways of understanding the world. As such, this method is intended merely to assist in interpreting what otherwise tends to appear as chaos. At most, I intend on using it to understand better the designer’s vision and how people find meaning in non-linear contexts, which seems a popular outlook.

Interpreting "Modernism"

Although this realization is rather elementary, recently the answer to a question often asked: "what is modernism, doesn't that just mean, current?", become obvious. This realization came mostly from some readings which eloquently defined the idea. "Modern," meaning "now" or "current" isn't a reference to our time or to a period; doing so is the primarily incorrect way of approaching the term. Rather, since this is a philosophic term, one needs to interpret just the word in how it defines a philosophical outlook. Thereby, the idea becomes more obvious: modernism is the philosophy of the present, the ideal of living in a timeless current or "now" of non-linear experience.

Given this method of interpretation, the term postmodern becomes more clear in its definition and, given more understanding of the philosophy, a humorous label. The term meaning that, first, postmodernism is a reaction to modernism, but that it is historic, or backwards looking. Where modernism defined itself by its timeless objectification of reality, postmodernism defines itself from a more linear experiential stance, where less in life can be quantified, universalized, and objectified.

Models for Keeping Purpose with Intellectual Openness

Now that the Christmas season is over, I can write again, since I haven't written anything since around Thanksgiving. Amidst all of that unordered time that makes it exceptionally challenging to maintain consistency in, and perhaps before then, I have been thinking about how one maintains one's bearings; how one remembers the purposes they are striving towards. These purposes for me are usually encapsulated in a concept or idea that is multilayered and complicated. Since purposes are held within these, how does go about remembering all that is held within? And so, a debate I often come to, and have come to considerably more because of the holiday season, is how to keep aware of these; how not to lose oneself in all the other concepts and ideas floating around that can also be made part of the purposes one is pursuing.

The problem one is avoiding by keeping aware, I feel, for idea-minded people, can be one of the most difficult problems to avoid. Many cases have been voiced of people, who when exposed to too many ideas and too much information, turn to apathy due to an inability to keep track of everything that has been thrust at them. The apathy in turn causes them to determine life as more meaningless than they thought (a form of intellectual nihilism) and this then breeds improper acceptance of all ideas and all emotions.

In my time of considering how to manage this; how to keep one's mind on the purposes one has while being intellectually open, a few models have presented themselves. These can be called in short the following: the Symbolic Encapsulation, a method involving periodic revisit of each purpose's details in the full, a method involving people who remind, interactively, of these purposes, and a careful use of over-information techniques to make thoughts bend toward each purpose without necessarily conscious awareness.

Symbolic Encapsulation, as it is written, is a way to present information such that it references to greater things and thus, upon remembering or seeing the symbol, one remembers the reference to such greater things. Personally, I have not investigated this method much, so I will not comment on how it might be used here. My reasons for avoiding it are likely because there are sufficient examples of people who lose themselves in symbols rather than what the symbol was made to accomplish; a reference to the greater thing, and so in such a state, they derive more greater things from the symbol than the symbol was made to hold. Symbolic stories or symbolic objects are by definition limited conveyors of information; they exist only as referential devices that help objectify in a limited manner, the whole. Another reason for avoiding Symbolic Encapsulation is that it tends to make one more materially dependent, which may just be by bias, I admit. This method, again, I have not pursued due to its potential problems, but it may prove to be a good way of remaining in one's purposes while keeping intellectual openness.

Periodically revisiting the details and layers of one's purposes is a method that I have given some time to. But before delving into my experience and thoughts, one should understand in more detail what this method is. Essentially, one periodically goes back to remembering and thoroughly considering all of the facets that make up the concept. I have tended to do this by revisiting over time large sets of writings which make up the concept's details. In the process of this, one compares one's current life with the purposes outlined in the concepts. It is easy after that point, then to map out one's progress, make potential changes to re-align to the purpose, or to even change the purpose some amount to accommodate new factors (though this is different than really what we're talking about; retention of ideas). From my experience with this method, it has proved to be more time consuming than the Symbolic Encapsulation method, but better as a way to remain free of those symbolic entanglements noted. Another disadvantage aside from requiring more time, is that this method can constrict one to thinking too fixedly through the number of details presented. The Symbolic Encapsulation method does seem more freeing, but only because of potential ambiguity in remembering the correct details that the symbol is referring to. Another potential disadvantage is that this method can make one unable to plan well or utilize memory well; they find themselves getting off course / forgetting so often that they spend far too much time referring back to the details to re-adjust / re-fresh.

Interactively reminding oneself through human relationships is another model that is used, typically by more social intellectuals, it seems. A few periods in my past, experimenting has been done with this, and they seemed largely effectively, but perhaps only due to my personal attachments to anything socially stimulating. Any conservative intellectual will note that this method is dangerous for two reasons that seem apparent to me: dependency on humans that may not hold integrity to the concepts one is relying upon them to remind them of, and that one can too harshly limit the intellectual sharing these people can do outside of the bounds one has set up in order to foster being reminded of one's purposes interactively. Another potential disadvantage is that the humans used to remind oneself of these concepts may become in themselves symbols of the concepts, relating this potential effect to what can occur when using Symbolic Encapsulation.

Over-information was referred to as a catalyst to Nihilism. This is true for many, but not necessarily related by cause. A few times, I have tried to use this model, but have found some difficulty, and so my understanding of it is limited. The way this is typically done, is that exposure to detailed information is highly controlled but used in abundance. The hope in this methodology is to keep one on track in purposes and capable of modification by what seems to be nearly embedding the details into the subconscious; creating a sort of memory that exists out of emotional-pattern retrieval. I realize that my description is quite ambiguous, but I have little understanding of why the model is utilized, though it is apparent that people are using it. Examples, if not aware, seem to exist in what can be seen among college students; the children of the Information Age who seem to be constantly wired to their Internet and music feeds.

In considering what I have personally used in the past, the following list shows what I have used most to what I have used least:
1. Periodic detail revisit
2. Interactive reminding through human relationships
3. Over-information carefully controlled
4. Symbolic Encapsulation

In considering what I have used recently, the following list shows what I have used most recently to what I have used least recently:
1. Periodic detail revisit
2. Over-information carefully controlled
3. Symbolic Encapsulation
4. Interactive reminding through human relationships

Difficulties in Objectivity

So, the other night, I had a hankering for looking further into a series of related topics that I tend to find interesting: globalization, and whether the United States' use of labor from other countries could be modern-day slavery (globalization of labor). This topic seems of paramount importance, simply because the majority of items that the majority of the citizens from the U.S. buy, are from other countries. The scale on which this is done today is likely greater than in any other time in history due to the United States having cheap enough technology and oil to ship imports at low cost. This novelty in history is important, for it bodes the potential to reshape the paradigm of international economics as the United States moves from being an industrial nation, to one that relies on other nations to provide services (a service-based economy). This does not mean that what is occurring is bad, but as in all things novel, care should be taken to watch out for misuse, and potential problems.

However good my intentions were, they did not prevail in bringing a comfortable new level of understanding to the topics. This inability to produce a new level of understanding is very important; for I came to realize two things. The first is of the need at times, to re-adjust one's source of authority; one's source of discernment about the happenings in the world. The second is of modernistic alienation.

When researching online, I generally am able to make new ground in topics because I believe I know how to discern good material from bad material (that which has a good foundation in the pursuit of objectivity; a method I attempt to employ often). This method of research often involves taking what someone is arguing, and to detach the person from the argument they are making, which then results in having an idea that can be taken and applied to more situations other than that which it was originally presented in; the person's original statements of argument. If someone has not presented their material in a objective, academic style, then I am not likely to even consider their idea.

That's enough of my method of research. What I learned from my experience in looking into globalization, is that I lacked greater understanding of globalization to such a degree that I couldn't read through content online and find myself able to understand the depths of what the people were saying. Based on my experience, it takes a very long time to develop an understanding if a layman attempts to read high-level material. One can realize this in practice: take a topic one is not an expert in, say politics. Even in reading a common newspaper article, if one does not have a decent basis of understanding, one will not be able to conclude the importance of why something is written. For example, if I don't understand the history of two countries, then news of them beginning a new trade agreement will not seem important to me because I lack the knowledge to know why it is important. These deeper threads can only be discerned the more one is aware of a topic.

And so, my traditional pursuit of facts can not proceed; I can't thresh out what I want because I don't have a basis to work from to gain the facts that I want. Perhaps that seems impatient, and perhaps it is, but what this has caused, is to realize that in order to, by my practical measures, to come to knowledge, I must change my source authority in my research. I can't seek to go through further mountains of information; it is arguably much more worth it to find a faster way. The change in authority that I found myself moving towards, was that of an existing expert that was willing to provide ample information so that a layman can come to understand the topic well.

Of course, any objective-style-loving person will observe that such a turn to another source of authority allows one to be impregnated with volatile opinion. This is true in many ways; one cannot easily separate the wheat from the weeds until one can see the weeds for what they are. However, such is the necessity of human life. What one can do is two things: observe how much the author submits to writing in an objective style, and then through that assume that what minor opinion exists, will not become too great a future inhibition to seeing the truth behind the opinion. Second, trust standards of authority; there really is no choice here if knowledge is to be gained in a timely manner. I have found myself leaning towards finding an author of a detailed, simplistic, and likely somewhat opinionated work. Essentially, this means a necessity in the greater trust of fellow humans; not something easy for an objectivist pursuit. Yet, I find myself turning this way more and more often. Whether this is is for good, or due to the winds of the culture, it is hard to say.

The second realization that I came to in attempting to research about globalization and labor, was the inherent feeling of an unnaturally high obstacle in trying to understand the nature of the problem. This feeling can be attributed to the concept of modernistic alienation, and it applies here well. The nature of an outsourcing market as the U.S. is having, produces alienation because more and more, the items being constructed are more and more often not coming from local sources, but far away countries. Understanding the validity of this economic system is far more hairy than talking directly to the salesman. One has no easy way to speak to someone who has complete understanding of that which was involved in the trade that resulted in bringing something as simple as a plastic doll over from China. The number of hands involved in its construction and the number of business agreements made to bring such a simple item across the sea is enumerable in appearance, nearly mind-boggling. And so, completely understanding the topic is woefully impossible in today's age of the U.S. being a consumer of global sources.

This causes great inhibition to even beginning to look into the topic; no doubt it stops dead multitudes more simply by its appearance. This causes me to bring to question a few ways to resolve this issue of alienation: begin relying upon something one hasn't before (assume something / rely upon something new as a truth) so that understanding can be grasped, spend much greater time learning the intricacies of the process so that complete understanding might be gained, conclude that the system is bad by its very nature. These three responses likely don't encompass everything, but they seem the most realistic to me.

Interestingly, but perhaps as a side-note for future topics, is that in college, many people seemed to claim apathy towards politics for how woefully complex and alienating the system was. Whether this really means that the system is too complex or that these were immature responses to problems that require time and discipline to solve, is another topic, but important to relate, for its relevancy.

Anyways, the complexities of pursuing a topic that is new as well as massively imposing by the nature of its function, is intriguing to me, and provides important insight into the nature of understanding things of novelty and complex nature.