Tweet
Yes, I have been able to gather some thoughts. Well nothing special, just read some books about stuff, for work mostly. About perception of the reality. Interesting stuff, some basic stuff about symbols, language and the system of it all. There's a term for this but I don't know what it is in english.
The very basic idea of this structuralism is that, part of it at least, how reality is constructed from, ehm how should I put it, between meanings we give to things and their relation to each other. An example would be language and the word tree. The word tree itself can not be intuitively figured out by a person, the letters and the combination that makes the word three doesn't make sense alone. So we have assigned the meaning to that combo and also how it sounds, because letter is just a letter, the way it sounds, we made it up and still make it up. And it gets meaning when it is in relation with other combos, meaning words. So that's like a system, so anyway I thought about why I view thing usually very differently.
Of course this structuralism is an idea, there's many besides that. The idea made sense to me but it didn't hit home. How do I do it? Well, I assign OTHER meaning to the original meaning. Well, not exactly strictly other meaning, I mean I get the meaning itself but... I give it features. For example, there are cultural differencies, you can see it by checking out other languages. Tree is "puu" in my language. However, timber is also "puu" in my language. The meaning can change and it isn't final constant, it just means we have assigned other meanings to the combo of letters as well. Or take German, that language has lots of words you can't even translate unless with a sentence or two.
So anyway, I seem to attach features to the meaning as well. There are others who do this, I mean it's like a sickness, I can't help it. I'm obsessive about it. I do it automatically while not even thinking about it. It's good and it's bad. Like tree, I immidiately think of a dark monster bastard. That's a tree to me. That's the feature of a tree. Monster bastard is the personality of a tree usually. I give it human like features.
So to me everything is just a human of a kind. A dog is a gentle human and a loyal one. Because when dogs beg and try to get your attention and that you pity them, they give you that look... you know, the one that breaks your heart and you melt no matter how angry you are. So to me, dogs are gentle humans, except better, because they're also loyal. But no, I don't think about it in dog terms. Meaning the combo of letters dog, that's what I think. So essentially there's also feelings attached as well. I like loyalty, I like gentle, I like dog. The word dog gives me all these meanings at the same time. It is not a construction where one leads to the other, it's quite litelrally an assigned feature for that meaning. And trees are monster bastards. Never trust a tree.
OK this is still pretty common I guess, however, the meanings I assiged to the system is not necessarily very logical to others except than myself. Naturally, because they're personal decisions, based on either unconscious decision making using logic and other observations based on experience, or just on pure feelings.
But the problem starts, because I assign other things to say, abstracts. You give me an abstract, I assign it something. I don't decide that I do it, it just happens. So, there's all kinds of colours, frequencies, forms of existence with abstract thoughts. Or even the way some word is pronounced, it gives characted to it, thus it becomes a feature for that assigned meaning. Abstracts are way worse though, because that **** gets your head spinning. BECAUSE THEY FIGHT EACH OTHER! If the extra features are opposites, to me the intuitive feeling is that the abstracts themselves might be opposites. THis is often misleading and thus requires lots of extra work analyzing the true construction of those abstracts and their nature.
This is the reason I like and also HATE epistemology. It's one of me favourite free time things I like to read and think (yeah, I know, maybe getting laid is now a good alternative?) so you know... plus just all round criticism of criticism and researching science itself. How sciences have developed, because you have to take the history into account. The written word can be deceptive, for example, I've seen many wrong interpretations of some school of thought or what really influenced it, because what happened around tha ttime, that gave it a push was totally ignored. This gives us more insight, plus, it might actually contradict the original claim. Like sexuality for example, I ecnourage you all to read Foucault's History of Sexuality, it's really good actually. Because, and this is partially post structuralist view, these systems of meanings and the way we have gathered them aren't a closed system, and definitely not an "ALL IN", if I may, explanation for the reality of our perception of it. It's just a method, pure and simple.
So anyway, our knowledge and view on something is usually derived from our experiences partially, however, it can be also the information we have from history. That is, our perception of what happened during, let's say 1600s in a particular point of view or event might actually affect to our opinion ... even the opinion we have of ourselves. Now, when we go back to that time and truly do research, it might turn out that it didn't go down that way, that we have a wrong perception. Not necessarily what factually happened, but the reasons behind it and so forth. Like sexuality and Victorian times, we have a strong perception of our own sexuality based on belief of Victorian times as the catalyst for sexual repression and now we think we are sexually repressed because of the Victorian times and what happened then.
So it can actually relate to our true feelings and identity.
I've already considered that maybe we don' tknow much about history either. We know what went down but that's all, we have no meaning or context for it that truly gives us the better picture and thus we are either better off because of it or worse. Does it matter? Not really. But this post is a fat woman's face morphing from angry to happy, ugly to beautiful. It's also an apple at the same time.
The very basic idea of this structuralism is that, part of it at least, how reality is constructed from, ehm how should I put it, between meanings we give to things and their relation to each other. An example would be language and the word tree. The word tree itself can not be intuitively figured out by a person, the letters and the combination that makes the word three doesn't make sense alone. So we have assigned the meaning to that combo and also how it sounds, because letter is just a letter, the way it sounds, we made it up and still make it up. And it gets meaning when it is in relation with other combos, meaning words. So that's like a system, so anyway I thought about why I view thing usually very differently.
Of course this structuralism is an idea, there's many besides that. The idea made sense to me but it didn't hit home. How do I do it? Well, I assign OTHER meaning to the original meaning. Well, not exactly strictly other meaning, I mean I get the meaning itself but... I give it features. For example, there are cultural differencies, you can see it by checking out other languages. Tree is "puu" in my language. However, timber is also "puu" in my language. The meaning can change and it isn't final constant, it just means we have assigned other meanings to the combo of letters as well. Or take German, that language has lots of words you can't even translate unless with a sentence or two.
So anyway, I seem to attach features to the meaning as well. There are others who do this, I mean it's like a sickness, I can't help it. I'm obsessive about it. I do it automatically while not even thinking about it. It's good and it's bad. Like tree, I immidiately think of a dark monster bastard. That's a tree to me. That's the feature of a tree. Monster bastard is the personality of a tree usually. I give it human like features.
So to me everything is just a human of a kind. A dog is a gentle human and a loyal one. Because when dogs beg and try to get your attention and that you pity them, they give you that look... you know, the one that breaks your heart and you melt no matter how angry you are. So to me, dogs are gentle humans, except better, because they're also loyal. But no, I don't think about it in dog terms. Meaning the combo of letters dog, that's what I think. So essentially there's also feelings attached as well. I like loyalty, I like gentle, I like dog. The word dog gives me all these meanings at the same time. It is not a construction where one leads to the other, it's quite litelrally an assigned feature for that meaning. And trees are monster bastards. Never trust a tree.
OK this is still pretty common I guess, however, the meanings I assiged to the system is not necessarily very logical to others except than myself. Naturally, because they're personal decisions, based on either unconscious decision making using logic and other observations based on experience, or just on pure feelings.
But the problem starts, because I assign other things to say, abstracts. You give me an abstract, I assign it something. I don't decide that I do it, it just happens. So, there's all kinds of colours, frequencies, forms of existence with abstract thoughts. Or even the way some word is pronounced, it gives characted to it, thus it becomes a feature for that assigned meaning. Abstracts are way worse though, because that **** gets your head spinning. BECAUSE THEY FIGHT EACH OTHER! If the extra features are opposites, to me the intuitive feeling is that the abstracts themselves might be opposites. THis is often misleading and thus requires lots of extra work analyzing the true construction of those abstracts and their nature.
This is the reason I like and also HATE epistemology. It's one of me favourite free time things I like to read and think (yeah, I know, maybe getting laid is now a good alternative?) so you know... plus just all round criticism of criticism and researching science itself. How sciences have developed, because you have to take the history into account. The written word can be deceptive, for example, I've seen many wrong interpretations of some school of thought or what really influenced it, because what happened around tha ttime, that gave it a push was totally ignored. This gives us more insight, plus, it might actually contradict the original claim. Like sexuality for example, I ecnourage you all to read Foucault's History of Sexuality, it's really good actually. Because, and this is partially post structuralist view, these systems of meanings and the way we have gathered them aren't a closed system, and definitely not an "ALL IN", if I may, explanation for the reality of our perception of it. It's just a method, pure and simple.
So anyway, our knowledge and view on something is usually derived from our experiences partially, however, it can be also the information we have from history. That is, our perception of what happened during, let's say 1600s in a particular point of view or event might actually affect to our opinion ... even the opinion we have of ourselves. Now, when we go back to that time and truly do research, it might turn out that it didn't go down that way, that we have a wrong perception. Not necessarily what factually happened, but the reasons behind it and so forth. Like sexuality and Victorian times, we have a strong perception of our own sexuality based on belief of Victorian times as the catalyst for sexual repression and now we think we are sexually repressed because of the Victorian times and what happened then.
So it can actually relate to our true feelings and identity.
I've already considered that maybe we don' tknow much about history either. We know what went down but that's all, we have no meaning or context for it that truly gives us the better picture and thus we are either better off because of it or worse. Does it matter? Not really. But this post is a fat woman's face morphing from angry to happy, ugly to beautiful. It's also an apple at the same time.
Comment