| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="OldPapers" |
|---|
| | | -- By GregOrr - 17 Apr 2009 | |
<
< | In Robert Musil's The Man Without Qualities, a group assembled from Austrian society is given the opportunity to choose an idea [to spur the world to a better future (or something like 'represent content/value', in the sense of what mountain, probably something like the author's wonder of life, practically/curiously/interestedly/personally/correctly)], and they survey/develop though have difficulty reaching consensus among various things and subgroup perceptions and interests. This provides foreground to personal experience/search/development of the title character, Ulrich, who sees two sides in everything. Situations have different/contrasting components, and even individual components evoke different/contrasting experiences/interpretations, “Like watching someone eat silently, without sharing his appetite: You suddenly perceive only swallowing movements, which look in no way enviable.” | >
> | In Robert Musil's The Man Without Qualities, a group assembled from Austrian society is given the opportunity to choose an idea to spur the world to a better future (or something like 'identify/point to content/value', in the sense of what mountain, probably something like the author's wonder of life, generally/personally/societally/curiously/interestedly/pleasantly/practically/accurately/correctly... ), and they survey/develop though have difficulty reaching consensus among various things and subgroup perceptions and interests. This provides foreground to personal experience/search/development of the title character, Ulrich, who experiences/sees actualities/possibilities and sides of things. Situations have particular/similar/different/combining/contrasting components, and even individual components have parts in this way, “Like watching someone eat silently, without sharing his appetite: You suddenly perceive only swallowing movements, which look in no way enviable.” | | | | |
<
< | He concludes, “Meaning lies roughly halfway between reasoning and capriciousness,” with common forms of capriciousness including “how we privilege particular interpretations through cultural or personal preunderstanding” and “how we unquestionably seek the firm and solid in life as urgently as a land animal that has fallen into the water.” Ulrich further interrogates conditions of semi-certainty by seeking contrary and unaccounted for internal and external evidence in hopes of greater truth. Yet reasoning appears, even in its best light, to be asymptotic, and some level of capriciousness contributes to decisions that are made (or not made) in finite time. | >
> | He observes, “Meaning lies roughly halfway between reasoning and capriciousness,” with common forms of capriciousness including “how we privilege particular contents/interpretations through cultural or personal preunderstanding” and “how we unquestionably seek the firm and solid in life as urgently as a land animal that has fallen into the water.” Ulrich wonders about semi-certainty, considering internal and external material and phenomena, in curious observation and hope/interest of good stuff/truth. Reasoning is often sufficient as well as sometimes asymptotic and/or confounded, with some level of capriciousness contributing to decisions made (or not made) in finite time. Ulrich has/finds/develops/codifies some at least subjectively positive/interesting material as he goes (subjective to me as a reader as well as the character/author, it is a well-regarded book, at least by some), as do other characters, though the book is not concluded, Musil (do you think a muse pun is intended?) died while still writing it. | | | | |
<
< | I intend to further explain the structure underlying these ideas and consider implications. I will consider content and reality, understanding and misunderstanding, people's participation in and creative development through openness and reflection in thinking and communication, and issues of range and parsimony. | >
> | I intend to further explain structure underlying these phenomena/ideas and consider implications. I will consider content and reality, understanding and misunderstanding, people's participation in and creative development through openness and reflection in thinking and communication, and issues of range and parsimony. | | |
Intersubjective Reality and the Communication Problem | |
<
< | In a definition of reality, I would include the objective world (I assume this substratum exists, given its apparent substantiality and consistency) and the subjective worlds of all consciousnesses. Each subjective world contains unique perceptual data and is hence additive to the whole. While there is real material, a large common thoroughfare, experience and reality of good and right at least in some cases/senses, conventional wisdom, common sense, ability to understand and operate internally and between people, because each person only has access to a subset of the whole, however, one naturally operates with assumptions, interests, understandings, and meanings that differ from others’. | >
> | In a definition of reality, I would include the objective world (I assume this substratum exists, given its apparent substantiality and consistency) and all subjective consciousnesses/souls. Each subjective consciousness/soul exists experientially with perceptual data and substance, additive to and part of the whole. While there is real material, a large common thoroughfare, experience and reality of good and right at least in some cases/senses, conventional wisdom, common sense, ability to understand and operate individually and between people, because each person only has access to and is particular to a subset of the whole (possibly pending the Lama's suggestion to Carl Spackler), one naturally operates with situations, assumptions, interests, understandings, and meanings that differ from others’. | | | The machinery of the mind complicates the issue, producing internal inconsistencies and delicate expressions. Within the mind, one’s attempts to generalize fail to achieve complete consistency because perceptual data is contrasting and flawed, tools of rationality are bounded, and views are formed in finite time. Imperfect pre-linguistic notions are given form in language with a further loss of fidelity, attributable to the boundedness of language itself and an individual’s incomplete facility with it. Also, when a person says something, there is usually an element of speculative hypothesis in it looking for confirmation or some other means to resolution. In total, a linguistic representation might always be characterized as a metaphor: a signal that provides a reference that points to the underlying mental condition. Layered on top of this are supra-linguistic cues such as context, structure, tone, and irony, which further refine the message to make it a more precise pointer. Non-linguistic statements, such as facial expressions, body language, and visual arts, may be further added or stand on their own as expressions that can be characterized in the same general way. | | | In this way, interpretations can veer from one thing to another, or from a thing to its opposite. Ideally, open and reflective communication finds its way to increasingly robust understanding. | |
<
< | The Parsimony Problem | >
> | Range and Parsimony | | | A reflective orientation increases one’s range in the spectrum of reasoning and capriciousness, and one’s placement on that spectrum becomes an overarching risk/return tradeoff. On the razor's edge of interpretation, we accept some level of capriciousness in order to make choices when faced with practical needs. The mix of rationality and irrationality always manifests two-sidedness in results, however, and we are sometimes shocked by bigger misjudgments. |
|