Another look into the screen world which surrounds us all.
The typical computer game logic moves you inwards, inwards, or in the direction you choose to go, it doesn’t stop, really. No really dead ends, I think that hardly exists unless you download a pdf or something.
A creative mode? Not for me, not like that, I think. Maybe later, I don’t know.
The screen is a window towards something, you watch and you watch, you’ll never finish to find out what’s there.
But it is not nature, even if many treat it like it is, they try to research this world, in a way without actually realising it is a manmade universe.
Some say the sense of sight has a special position among the five senses. I don’t know, but it is at least sensitive enough to be dragged towards an open computer with a visible screen.
I am not sure that it is wise to let sight have such a dominant position, at least not alone.
It also has a close connection to muscles and movement of the body. Again, some assume that it has to be like that, that it is a physical fact, but I am once again sceptical. I am not so physical myself, but I know others who are. A lot of things can not be drawn by myself, I can’t fix it, but verbal explanations come easy to me.
I would say there are differences in the ways we function, also in things like these.
I am not sure that it is very wise for society to let go of the word as the lingua franca…the mode everyone must relate to and understand a little of.
The discussions here about learning styles in teaching, for instance, somehow have to relate to this question. It is ok, no, it is absolutely necessary, to let a child develop his or her own curiosity and to have his own ways of thinking too, but kids have to understand what a concept is, everyone should, and be able to use them, it is necessary to function constructively in society. You can subscribe to and live by whatever philosophy or mode you like, this is freedom after the law, but I think words should still be considered the thing we all can’t manage without.
The language…of common knowledge.
There is a lot of movement which goes against this right now, and partly because of the computer revolution, or it happens through the using of computers.
I strongly believe in the right to be different, but also in connecting with each other so that you don’t mess up others’ worlds more than you have to, and make sure that dialogue comes before changes that affect your neighbour, so she can adjust and react to what you say, and tell you whether what you do is ok or not.
Tolerance and knowledge about each other, this is at least two things that are necessary for living together.
This applies to normal coexistence in a neighbourhood, and it also applies to politics.
I think it must be a general principle in social life.
The growing amount of symbols which surround us makes it more possible to move around without really knowing where you go or what you do. In the computer world this is a normal problem, but it exists also in real life.
In the end you can also maybe hardly take in reality except though the screen. One of the kids have already made a new kind of philosophy out of the computer logic. I don’t know quite what it is, but I can feel that it’s there.
I can’t suddenly crash them on such things, they have to rule and make their own lives too, in addition to my meddling, but my task (or their own) will be to connect whatever they are with the real world, or whatever you want to call it, the fog and the blue sky and the face of your friends.
There are already many human worlds in play, this is not new – all kinds of art, science, crafts, engineering, personal or professional philosophy. I just don’t want to end up in the tummy of this machine.
You could make a case for the point that everything that goes on on the screen is pictures, or are made into pictures, that visual rules, laws, principles, that are used for layout and design, rule the day and push away grammar and language to a certain extent.
This illustrates what I think is also right, that the Internet or computerised solutions maybe do not have to be made in any special way, or at least there is a lot of unused freedom there. Things do not have to be like they are today.
I am still not sure in what ways math or natural science thinking really affect us through the work of people who create things on the screen, or maybe there are also other ways of thinking that are more important, more frequently in use.
The ultra sharp picture is one thing, which has an aesthetic side, in addition to what is argued for, that it is close to reality, almost as in real life, which seems to be an ideal.
The tempo in the changes that are going on all the time is another thing that needs to be considered. It stems from largely practical creativity, I believe, a kind of engineering world which is imposed on all of us. A quick look in a textbook for constructing algorithms (or, as the book enthusiastic says, the discovery of them) tells me that a lot happens backstage.
But I don’t know what calculations, if you like, create what visual things on the screen, and what things that are unimportant for the result, for us, except if you are interested in technical things.
How does the thinking of the developers etc come through to us, that’s the question.
Nothing exists, everything is possible. this is also a way of seeing the flexibility of it all. Harry Potter live.
And why do they correct me on things they know too little about?
The rules of written Norwegian has in many ways always been kind of messy, and many decisions on grammar or spelling were left to everyone’s discretion, even when it comes to orthography, the situation has been a little a mild anarchy partly based on the survival of the fittest. The most elegant or just the quickest way of introducing or removing a grammatical or orthographical form wins. Partly.
As things are now, autocorrection frequently gives you a little kick in the ass, and you must be strong if you want to keep your own variant of things, your own way of speaking, actually, writing. This applies probably to other languages too, because freedom of style exists in every language.
The English or vernacular language of computing has also invaded everyday language. All kinds of phenomenons are given new names which are spread through the bath tub which is the Internet, new names which belonged to old concepts too, and no one except the computer nerds really understand all of them in this new world. You could say that they are technical concepts in a world that most of us don’t know too well, but the words are often picked out of the old world, and the new usage differ from the old.
People who don’t know language rules often don’t react.
Programs are often, it seems, messy and unsystematic, and in some ways give us chaos in thought also because of their structure, the way they are built. I think this is partly true.
The systems change all the time.
This is also destabilising our ways of thinking. I hope we will soon recover and get back the capacity of having an overview. The world will have changed in our absence, I guess…
I am sceptical towards much of the aesthetics I see on the screen. Maybe I am oldfashioned. Ok, I’m not up to date with the art world, I have seen only a little of what’s going on in computer art. Obviously cool things are made too, I’ve seen a little.
But all the old art genres are also needed, I would still believe that they are closer to reality (my reality?) – at least they give other ideas about what the world is like which I would not like to see abandoned altogether. So there is a conservative point of vies. If you are really computerised you may argue that everything can be put into a screen, but a screen can also be put into a traditional painting, film or text.
I also welcome all sorts of things coming out of the computers – music, not the least. I am notin favour of prohibiting or squeezing anything, I just don’t want my old world to be completely squeezed, either.
Of course, every art form needs to connect with reality. The good things always do.
Both ways, then.
Of course it is in a way ok that those who cannot liberate themselves from the real world in any other way than with the computer, use it, but I had lots, really loads, of ways of doing this in the old days, ways that are partly left unused today by myself because of this bloody machine which I even have to write this on. Books, music, arts, nature. The city. People. There is a long list of mental escape routes and places to change or reinforce views on anything, none of them being a computer.
If you love machines, and many do, the machines are ok anyway. I think I basically like thoughts and don’t want to lose myself.
Ideas normally feed my imagination more, also in art, and I don’t want to lose it. Definitions and discussions about ideas give me entertainment and connect difficult sides of life and reality. A new app sometimes works the opposite way.
A world of ideas does exist…and is lofty or airy enough for me, I feel no need to dissolve physical laws to any greater extent with other means. I also usually keep my feet on the ground even if my head is in a floor above it.
I grew up to a large extent in a humanist tradition, and the computer world puts into practice a lot of physical or mathematical principles concealed as writing and pictures.
As I have already said, the concept of information in this new world is probably ingenious from a technical point of view, but philosophically I need to step back for a moment and try to understand what is going on. The new phenomenons multiply all the time, a little like Gyro Gearloose’s duplicating machines.
The lack of physical presence leads for me after long and intense use of the screen to nausea. It is a little like being laid on a stock shelf, packed in plastic, or eating, working and copulating on an office desk made of lackered beech and aluminium. I used to have nothing against offices, I enjoyed working in an office, but there was usually an escape from them.
Being flooded with information is also a thing. It is seen as progress, and it is, in a way, but it needs sorting, to put it very simple.
Mass outlaws content sometimes.
An obviously negative consequence for the world is the remoteness which can arise when so many things can be done on a distance, without the immediate physical responsibility for the consequences of your actions, whether we talk about words or bullets.
Automatising can work similar ways, you receive a “request” without anyone really having sent it, someone has only made a machine that sends it to you. I t doesn’t have to come only negative experiences out of it, I came in touch with an old friend in this way, but it is at least highly surprising in the beginning.
The fact that the door towards the world is always open is sometimes trouble, for instance, old friends may be annoyed by the fact that you don’t get in touch, and your habits are still connected to the old world, where the new possibilities of getting in touch didn’t exist.
We have to decide what new social habits to develop.
Loneliness is there, quite a lot, sometimes I am really alarmed by things someone says on Facebook, and I don’t even know him or her well enough to say something, or I act cowardly, I do nothing.
Sometimes it feels like real trouble.
Maybe things are also moving in another direction than towardsloneliness. After all the new technology has immense social possibilities.
Sorry, computer friends, I sound completely negative, but whenever I am sober I am not after mashing this new world, I just want to keep my brain and my soul in control.
As usual, actually, I believe in establishing borders, then you can cross them. This is extremely useful in social connections, safety first, ok, but when you feel reasonably safe, you have a beautiful starting pojnt for establishing connections in any direction you would like.
PS I have to get back to you when it comes to algorithms, but here is another glimpse of something: “Algorithms to solve short-distance-problems” is a quotation from the textbook I mentioned.
I can hear that they talk about something, but I don’t quite understand what it is.
One could imagine that it was already four in the morning, when discussions have reached this point of clarity.