Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
This is a deep peep into my thought processes, if anyone cares
I was recently told that I'm kind of hard on folks. After reflection, I have to agree. I have to keep it in mind. I've taken people to task for saying the right thing in the wrong way many times, and I wouldn't want to be hoist by my own petard.
Not that I'm changing, mind you. I've found many ways to say the same things and I don't want to keep adjusting my idiom. . . the things I want to say are more precise, in my mind, said the way I think them. But for folks to appreciate it that way, they'd have to forget some of their assumptions and assume some of mine.
Mo' Metaphors
This is not a "relativity of truth" thing. It's a "relativity of perception, and mistaking perception for truth" thing. This is how it works:
For any blind websurfers and folks like me who surf with the graphics shut off, this is a picture of a red square with a green diagonal line, from the upper left to the lower right. There are observers in the pictures as well, one looking at the square from the corner on the left and the other from the base.
This, on the other hand, is a picture of a red diamond with a green line running from right to left. There are observers in this pictures too, one looking at the diamond from the corner at the base of the diamond and the other from the lower right side.
Now, having draw these startlingly realistic pictures myself, I can guarantee they are identical except for their rotation. In fact, I made the second one by copying and rotating the first one. Yet I, an observer from the outside, am able to describe these pictures in ways that, were you not looking directly at them, would make you assume they had no connection.
Now picture the two guys who watched the line crossing the square ("Square? It was a diamond!") They each describe what happened… the guy on the base of the square says he saw a green point extend to the right and downward. The guy at the corner of the diamond says he saw a line following a level path from right to left (he was behind the square, you see…you didn't know that because you have a two dimensional view).
What does that have to do with anything?
I'm glad you asked.
If the red quadrilateral is the world, and the green ray is the things going on in the world, these little cartoons are a fair representation of all our problems in dealing with the mainstream. The only way those two guys will agree on what happened is if one or both of them rotates his viewpoint, translates his terms into the other guy's. This is not necessary just for discussion, if you enjoy arguing. But to come to terms, it's vital.
I've been discussing things in terms of race, class, culture, all that. I think I have to let you know that I don't believe in any of it. I don't even believe in the terms in which I conceive of the issues internally. I mean, is it a square or a diamond? Does the line slope downward to the right? Upward to the left? Is it level, without slope?
Answer to all the above: depends on your frame of reference.
My real concern is finding a way to translate between the many frames of reference which the various folks I care about use. See, I pretty much understand how things look from my perspective, and I understand it don't look that way to other folks. So if folks want to do what I've done I need to understand what it is they see when they watch me. And they need to see the work I put in before they became aware of me (I've seen several folks hurt themselves bad by trying to do what I do without laying the proper groundwork first). Some folks have to become aware that they are only seeing an aspect of the planet.
Seeing as how most folks believe in race, I've been used race as a frame of reference. So things sound certain ways that don't strike me as the absolute truth. It's more like those gospels "according to"…the same story, told differently because each teller's frame of reference makes a different aspect seem to be the most important, or even the sole, message. And though I wouldn't classify my writings as a "gospel" (particularly since 'gospel' means 'good news', and I haven't really given out much of that), in casting my understanding in terms common to most folks, it looks like I'm a lot more concerned about this race thing than I am.
Posted by P6 at September 6, 2003 10:50 AM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1563Hi Prom,
Two comments:
The two figure diagram characters will also reach agreement at the point of equillibrium where their viewpoints might intersect ( politics of strange bedfellows) even without any translation of terms to establish a common vocabulary.
You'd enjoy the Daniel Goleman book on the psychology of perception - the one he wrote prior to his Emotional Intelligence books
The two figure diagram characters will also reach agreement at the point of equilibrium where their viewpoints might intersect ( politics of strange bedfellows) even without any translation of terms to establish a common vocabulary.
True, but this is about seeing the same things in different ways such that they are thought to be different things by the perceivers. You're talking about seeing different things that overlap.
Very true.
Objectively speaking, the perception isn't reality in either case ( hence the term "perspective" ).
If we extend the metaphor, shouldn't we then limit discussions to "invariants", i.e. only those things that have meaning in ALL frames of reference?
I don't think so. Things that don't have meaning across all frames of reference aren't meaningless. You need the proper context to grok the meaning…which is one of the points of this tirade.
Another point is that the context *is* accessable. Not spelled out is the fact that since all these contexts are perceptual and all our perceptions are human we can translate and hence relate.
All meaning is human meaning, ID4 not withstanding. Any human gesture can be understood by determining what need it fulfills. Discussing all things in this context, rather than limiting discussion to that which crosses all contexts would better serve our needs.