{"id":22,"date":"2004-12-10T19:24:57","date_gmt":"2004-12-10T19:24:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ljudmila.org\/~savskib\/?p=22"},"modified":"2024-12-28T13:57:26","modified_gmt":"2024-12-28T11:57:26","slug":"zvok_kot_metafora","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/?p=22","title":{"rendered":"Zvok kot metafora"},"content":{"rendered":"

[Original at http:\/\/www.3via.org\/index.php?htm=zvok_kot_metafora\/index<\/a>
\nalso at https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/html.php?htm=zvok_kot_metafora\/index<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Zvok kot metafora = Sound as Metaphore<\/h3>\n

object as concept – space as context
\nformation of an object (construction of conceptual body)
\nwhen does an object become a context (-> object is a space)
\nstory as object translated back to time
\nMyth = meat
\nGod = good
\nMan = mean
\n…
\nby B. SAVSKI<\/p>\n

V tem eseju bom sku\u0161al predstaviti na\u010din dojemanja zvoka v prostoru, s pomo\u010djo katerega lahko sestavimo analogno sliko Narave – nestrukturirane totalnosti in strukturirane parcialnosti – torej “ne\u010desa, kar je samo po sebi” in ne\u010desa, kar se nam (ljudem\/ opazovalcem) “vsiljuje”. Ker gre pri \u010dlove\u0161kem opazovanju neogibno za strukturiranje videnega, se celoti (nestrukturiranemu) le te\u017eko pribli\u017eamo. No, pa saj se niti ne bomo sku\u0161ali, ker v resnici \u017eelimo obvladati le “strukturiran pogled” na kompleksno strukturo, ki je za nas \u017ee sama dovolj trd oreh, saj obstaja “v plasteh”, pogledu pa se bolj spodnje plasti izmikajo, oziroma se ka\u017eejo kot “\u0161um”, ki ga s selekcijo pogleda odstranimo. Strukturiran pogled je v resnici filtriranje, reduciranje. Plasti, ki strukturo sestavljajo, so razli\u010dna diskurzivna polja – torej polja razli\u010dnih spremenljivk – osnovnih pojmov iz katerih so sestavljena polja opisov\/ vrednotenj.<\/p>\n

Zvok kot metaforo so v sociologiji \u017ee uporabili (->Jacques Atali), \u0161e posebej glasbo kot struktuirano obliko zvoka (->Kurt Blaukopf). Relacije, ki vladajo znotraj \u017eanra, se dovolj to\u010dno prekrivajo z relacijami v dru\u017ebi, da lahko re\u010demo, da je tudi glasba odsev dru\u017ebenih odnosov, kot to velja za vse, kar ima za skupni imenovalec delo \u010dloveka, kot osnovnega gradnika dru\u017ebe.<\/p>\n

Pred \u010dasom smo govorili o pojmu “ustrojenosti” \u010dloveka, z namenom, da bi afirmirali obstoj nefunkcionalnih strojev, \u0161e posebej v umetnosti zvoka, ker se zdi, da je ustrojenost lastnost stroja, ne pa njihovega graditelja. Pozornost smo namenili delu \u010dlove\u0161kih dejavnosti, ki jim na prvo \u017eogo lahko re\u010demo nefunkcionalne, ali ne-reprezentativnim skupinam, ki jih lahko glede na glavno rezultanto dru\u017ebe lahko re\u010demo, da so disfunkcionalne (-> Noam Chomsky). Sko\u010dili smo \u0161e v polje psiholo\u0161kega, kjer le\u017eijo dodatne potrditve o \u010dlovekovi pred-ustrojenosti\/ pred-strukturiranosti, kot so sposobnosti oblikovanja v vzorce, kar je pravzaprav osnova \u010dlovekove zmo\u017enosti u\u010denja – sklepanja od posameznega k splo\u0161nemu in s tem oblikovanja kompleksnih podob – miselnih teles, konceptov – objektiviziranih abstrakcij. Omenili smo pojem “svobodne volje”, nismo pa \u0161li v podrobnej\u0161o analizo, ali je v obstoje\u010di pred-strukturiranosti taka ali druga\u010dna odlo\u010ditev sploh pomembna. Nekako se nam dozdeva, da smo na koncu (?) vedno na pravem mestu. Va\u017ena je torej pot.<\/p>\n

RESONAN\u010cNI PROSTOR (metafora logi\u010dnega prostora)<\/p>\n

Za bli\u017enje razumevanje vpra\u0161anj, ki se jih bomo lotili, si bomo pomagali z resonan\u010dnim prostorom. To je prostor\/ posoda napolnjena z zvoki. Kot si lahko predstavljamo, je zvok pojav, ki mu ne moremo zlahka podeliti lastnosti trdnosti ali stalnosti in je kot tak izjemno primeren kot prispodoba za amorfno “dinami\u010dno vsebino”, ki zapolnjuje “prostor”, ki si ga predstavljajmo kot obi\u010dajno dvorano. Ko zvok “prinesemo” od “zunaj” v nek prostor, ga ta neogibno preoblikuje. Zvok je namre\u010d lastnost, ki se \u0161iri (akusti\u010dno valovanje je materialno valovanje – obi\u010dajno je to valovanje zraka: izmenjevanje zgo\u0161\u010din in razred\u010din), ob oviri pa se cepi in ob steni odbije. Odbita in razcepljena valovanja skupaj z originalnimi valovi sestavljajo interferen\u010dno strukturo, ki je tem bolj kompleksna, \u010dim bolj kompleksna je arhitektura prostora, vklju\u010dno z razmestitvijo objektov (in oseb) v prostoru.<\/p>\n

Akusti\u010dne lastnosti prostora prepoznamo, \u010de za vsako mo\u017eno frekvenco zvoka ugotovimo interferen\u010dne vozle. Vozle imenujemo mesta v prostoru, kjer se pri stalni frekvenci zvoka v prostoru zvok najbolj oja\u010di. To je odvisno od dimenzij prostora, frekvence zvoka, od, lege izvora zvoka, od \u0161tevila odbojev, od du\u0161ilnih lastnosti sten in objektov ter njihove lege v prostoru. Pri tem moramo upo\u0161tevati se vsa mo\u017ena trenutna spreminjanja (trenutno dinamiko) vseh teh lastnosti.<\/p>\n

Naj omenim, da stati\u010dno merjenje vseh to\u010dk v horizontalnem preseku prostora (dve dimenziji) ustvari mre\u017easto strukturo, ki je za vsako frekvenco (in za vsak horizontalni presek) druga\u010dna. Tridimenzionalni prikaz interferen\u010dne mre\u017ee torej ustreza neenakomerni “prostorski mre\u017ei” – strukturi sestavljeni iz nepravilnih kvadrov. Ki je seveda za vsako zvo\u010dno frekvenco druga\u010dna. Vse frekvence hkrati so enakovredno prisotne v t.i. “belem \u0161umu”, ko pa se od te “nasi\u010denosti” odmaknemo v smeri proti bolj razred\u010denemu zvoku – proti posameznim zvo\u010dnim objektom – tedaj se resonan\u010dni prostor poka\u017ee kot zanimiva metafora za ob\u010dutek celovitega razumevanja\/ zaobjema delovanja\/ vrednotenja kompleksnega sistema, strukture, medija, organizacije – entitete\/ celote.<\/p>\n

Za resonan\u010dni prostor je zvok vsebina, prostor zvok tudi oblikuje – formira, zato re\u010demo, da prostor dolo\u010da formo – je forma, prostor sam pa naj ne bi prispeval dinamike. Lahko bi si sicer zamislili, da je tudi prostor amorfna tvorba, ki spreminja obliko in lego sten, s tem pa tudi prostornino\/ volumen in torej aktivno prispeva h kompleksnosti dinami\u010dnega zvo\u010dnega polja. To bi o\u010ditno morali storiti in tudi bomo. A zaenkrat bomo verjeli, da “posoda” le vsebuje, ne pa tudi deluje.<\/p>\n

Vsaka sprememba zvoka v prostoru popolnoma spremeni “mre\u017eno” interferen\u010dno strukturo. Pri zveznih spremembah frekvence (“legatih”) je to \u017ee bolj o\u010ditno. \u0160e bolj dramati\u010dne spremembe se zgodijo ob prisotnosti “formantov”, to je zvokov kratkega trajanja, kot so zvoki, ki so posledica materialnih dogodkov. Ti zvoki so \u017ee sami sestavljeni iz razli\u010dnih frekvenc, bolj ali manj modulirani na tak\u0161en ali druga\u010den sli\u0161ni na\u010din. \u010ce (nujno) v tak sistem postavimo \u0161e opazovalca, bo ta subjekt tudi objekt in tvorno sodeloval v ponazorjenem resonan\u010dnem okolju kot \u0161e ena dinami\u010dna spremenljivka, pravzaprav motnja. Tudi sam plavajo\u010d v tako kompleksnem sistemu bo potem lahko “za\u010dutil” dinamiko sistema. To “\u010dutenje” pa nam bo predstavljalo obi\u010dajno neulovljivo do\u017eivljanje “totalnosti” oziroma “celote”. O prostoru bomo odslej razmi\u0161ljali s paradoksalno mislijo na “zamejeno neskon\u010dno”.<\/p>\n

Pred \u010dasom smo \u017ee govorili o medijih, ki jih v osnovnem pomenu ena\u010dimo s pojmi, kot so sistem, prostor, struktura. Vsi ti pojmi predstavljajo abstrakcije, ki se konkretizirajo, ko jim dolo\u010dimo meje (->stene). Kot vemo, lahko pojme v osnovi reduciramo na komplementarne (dualne) veli\u010dine\/ lastnosti; na primer: \u010drno nasproti belemu, lepo nasproti grdemu, pametno nasproti neumnemu in podobno. Na podlagi teh osnovnih kvalitet potem lahko gradimo kompleksnej\u0161e opise; na primer: \u010drno je lepo, belo je pametno. Analiza razvoja pojmov\/ pomenov\/ razumevanja je dialekti\u010dna za nazaj, saj je potrebno kompleksnim (pojmovnim) objektom poiskati njihove roditelje\/ razloge\/ vzroke za sintezo.<\/p>\n

MULTIPLE IDENTITETE (prebadanje prostora)<\/p>\n

V prostor zaprt zvok se torej ne \u0161iri v neskon\u010dnost, ampak se med stenami oblikuje v vzorce. Prostor deluje kot oja\u010devalec in filter hkrati. Za te opisne vzorce lahko re\u010demo, da predstavljajo “identiteto” prostora\/ sistema. Prostor bo torej vsak zvok preoblikoval po svojih (frekven\u010dnih) zna\u010dilnostih. Opazovalec, ki s svojo mislijo pravzaprav ob\u010duti\/ dojema neskon\u010dnost\/ totaliteto prostora, se v resnici ne more izviti iz prostora, \u0161e ve\u010d, njegovo dojemanje totalitete (in vseh prepletenih posameznosti) je subjektivno\/ individualno. A zaradi zamejenosti prostora, ki ustvarja vzorce, je pravzaprav na svojem. Zamejena neskon\u010dnost ponudi mo\u017enost razumevanja, medtem ko nezamejenost ne tvori vzorcev – ne omogo\u010di uvida. Obmo\u010dje uvida\/ razumevanja je torej vedno lahko le zamejeno. Pogled na nezamejeno neskon\u010dnost je morda mogo\u010d le na ravni nejasnega ob\u010dutka, pa \u0161e to najverjetneje le kot na negacija vedenja o zamejeni neskon\u010dnosti. Nekaj se torej nahaja “onkraj” prepoznane totalne strukture. Ali je to budisti\u010dna “praznina”? \u0160ele ob prepoznanju izpolnjenosti\/ nasi\u010denosti s kompleksnimi relacijami v zamejenem prostoru, se odpre neskon\u010dnost\/ praznina. Toliko o tem ob\u010dutku. Nas zanima analiza zamejene totalnosti, ki omogo\u010da kompleksnej\u0161e razumevanje, ne samo znotraj ene ravni (diskurzivnega polja), ampak predvsem pre\u010dno – s hkratnim vertikalnim pogledom, ki z iglo prebode (po na\u0161em mnenju) istozna\u010dna\/ istole\u017ena mesta in jih sku\u0161a enozna\u010dno “uskladiti”. Taki “pre\u0161iti” konstrukti so potem lahko teorije, a za nas zgolj ljubiteljska dejavnost. Teorija namre\u010d kasneje postane \u0161ola, zato je potrebno tudi njo uskladiti z dru\u017ebenostjo – socializirati. Take pre\u0161ite odeje nam niso ljube.<\/p>\n

Kot igla za vertikalno prebadanje nam slu\u017ei metafori\u010dnost kompleksno sestavljenih pojmov posameznih diskurzivnih polj. Vsa polja so seveda logi\u010dne strukture, zato so grajena na osnovi dualnih lastnosti. Kompleksnej\u0161e ugotovitve\/ trditve so posledica ve\u010ddimenzionalnosti takih polj\/ struktur. Bolj obi\u010dajno je, da zamejenim ve\u010ddimenzionalnim poljem podelimo lasten (bolj ali manj umetno zaokro\u017een) prostor in jih potem obravnavamo lo\u010deno\/ izolirano – v tem primeru ostajamo znotraj metodologije znanosti (“ne me\u0161amo jabolk in hru\u0161k”). Za nas je to nedopusten redukcionizem, ki ga \u017eelimo prese\u010di. Ne potrebujemo namre\u010d merljivih rezultatov, ampak ob\u010dutek v stilu “zdi se mi, da ta in ta umetni\u0161ka praksa v ni\u010demer ne presega polja umetnosti”. Spoznavne prese\u017eke dolo\u010da preseganje osnovne forme\/ strukture\/ diskurzivnega polja. Umetnost torej ni forma (forma je vzorec) – za umetnost je nujno vertikalno prebadanje. Umetnost torej razumemo kot interdisciplinarnost\/ intermedialnost, nikakor ne teorijo ali znanost.<\/p>\n

Podobno, kot pomeni za akusti\u010dne meritve prostora “sekanje” prostora na horizontalne interferen\u010dne plasti, lahko trdimo, da pomenijo plasti v katerem koli drugem “prostoru” zaokro\u017eene diskurzivne celote, polja. Naj nas ne moti “plo\u0161\u010datost” prerezov, ki je kot taka modelirana le zaradi enostavnega prikaza nuje po “vertikalnemu prebadanju”. Takoj lahko uvidimo, da prispodoba prostora naka\u017ee druga\u010dno smer razmi\u0161ljanja – od (sicer objektivizirane a) abstraktne celote, na (objektivizirane) posamezne plasti te celote (-> partikularnosti). Posamezne plasti so izolirane\/ diskretne le v toliko, kolikor jih (zaradi lenobe?!, zaradi jasnosti?!) razmaknemo med seboj. Za nas je vpra\u0161anje: kako jih, take kot so, zbli\u017eati in povezati. Pot je seveda s prej omenjenim vertikalnim prebadanjem.<\/p>\n

OBJEKTI V PROSTORU (komunikacija in kontemplacija)<\/p>\n

Ko je prostor “poln” – in prostor je vedno bolj poln, kot se zdi – to pomeni, da v njem bivajo objekti. Objekti so tudi sami abstraktni prostori, ujeti v geometrijo veli\u010din, ki jim dolo\u010dajo identiteto. Identiteta rodi poznavanje, razpoznavanje, pomen. In temu slu\u017eijo strukturirani prostori. Spoznati pomen pomeni \u017ee tudi odlo\u010diti se. Odlo\u010ditve so torej rezultat redukcije sistemov, objektov – \u017ee reduciranih sestavin sveta – na skrajno enostavno formo, ki je osnova tehnologije odlo\u010danja: da\/ ne\/ ne vem (?). Objekt s svojimi vsebovanimi lastnostmi \u017ee vsebuje enakovredno mo\u017enost vseh pomenov, saj je to osnovna funkcija objekta – njegov razlog za bivanje. Zaplete pa se, ko se objekt nahaja v razli\u010dnih diskurzivnih poljih – kontekstih. V tem primeru se opremo na na\u0161 model resonan\u010dnega prostora. \u010ce v prostor poln zvoka dodamo resonan\u010dni predmet (recimo kitaro), bo ta reagirala (interagirala) z zunanjim prostorom in spremenila (kakor koli malenkostno \u017ee) zvo\u010dno sliko v prostoru. Resonan\u010dni predmet je akusti\u010dni oja\u010devalnik\/ filter zvoka in kot tak aktivno sodelujo\u010d v distribuciji skupnega toka (zvo\u010dne slike) – skupnega “komunikacijskega kanala”. Kitara ima lahko sicer tudi druge lastnosti (je stara in lepa, vendar so te lastnosti zunaj dogovorjenega komunikacijskega kanala. Za uspe\u0161no komunikacijo\/ interakcijo se torej omejimo na skupno\/ dogovorjeno (“konvencionalno”)\/ funkcionalno (“dobro” ali “slabo”).<\/p>\n

Funkcionalnost je po mojem mnenju eden od bolj pomembnih opisnih pojmov. Je osnova dogovorjeni realnosti – konvencionalnosti. Nosilci zavesti (in pomenov) se lahko dogovarjamo (komuniciramo) le o dogovorjenem – to je: o objektivnem. Dogovorjeni objekti pa so seveda lahko tako materialni kot miselni. Verjetno med njimi niti ni posebne razlike, saj enostavno prehajajo eden v drugega. Funkcionalni objekti imajo en sam namen – dolo\u010diti pomen. Najbr\u017e so kar vsi objekti tudi funkcionalni, saj bi sicer ne bilo potrebe po njihovi “objektivizaciji”, izgradnji. Torej so matrika, ki naj vedno vrne pomen. Komuniciranje je uspe\u0161no, kadar matrika vrne prete\u017eno podoben rezultat, kar pa ni prav pogosto. Razlog za “nelinearnost” (ozna\u010devalne?) matrike je v razli\u010dnosti kontekstov, znotraj katerih se objekti, matrike nahajajo. Kontekst je torej analogija za prostor, ali del prostora, matriko pa potem takem lahko opi\u0161emo kot koncept – oziroma: kot mo\u010dno poenostavljeno, reducirano strukturo – objekt – pojem. A ne pomen: teh je ve\u010d – seveda glede na posamezni kontekst. O pomenih (in objektivni realnosti) lahko torej \u0161e najve\u010d opravimo na polju uvida v razli\u010dne kontekste. Celoviti pogled na prostor v prostoru (ali tudi: objekt v prostoru; objekt je tudi prostor) je torej nujen za uspe\u0161no rabo prevajalnika “resnice”.<\/p>\n

Nosilci prekletstva neizogibnosti zavesti, torej neprestane potrebe po gradnjah in izgradnji, zunanje ponotranjamo s pomo\u010djo prilagajanja konvencionalnemu (dogovorjenemu), potem pa ponotranjeno vrnemo. A pri prevajalski dejavnosti prevod ni nikoli enak prebranemu. Morda je bila matrika druga\u010dna (premalo dogovorjena?), \u0161e bolj verjetno pa je bil druga\u010den prostor. Ta se spreminja v \u010dasu, z vsebnostjo in interakcijo objektov. Prostor je \u017eiv, dokler se v njem (v “komunikacijskem kanalu”) kaj pretaka. Zanimiv pojem je entropija, ki naj bi v sistemu kazala na notranjo dinamiko, oziroma na postopno uravnove\u0161anje sistema. V termodinamiki velja, a se v izoliranem sistemu toplota s\u010dasoma porazdeli enakomerno – kar pomeni, da tak komunikacijski kanal (toplota) ne ka\u017ee ve\u010d gradientov. Pustimo ob strani nemogo\u010do abstrakcijo o izoliranem sistemu in morda razmislimo o tezi, da morda termodinami\u010dni model ne vsebuje generativnih objektov. Objekti, ki so aktivni, so generativni. Poleg tega morajo biti v svoji aktivnosti tudi avtonomni. To v prvi vrsti pomeni – neusklajeni. Matemati\u010dni pribli\u017eek tej zahtevi so nelinearne lastnosti objektov, spoznavnih matrik – tako v \u010dasu, kot v prostoru (-> v na\u0161em nami\u0161ljenem prostoru). \u0160e bolje, \u010de so objekti \u017ee v osnovi nestabilni sistemi. Recimo: ljudje. Razpeti med neizogibnost tak\u0161nih ali druga\u010dnih trdnih zgradb (pomenov, smisla) na eni strani, in neizogibno psihofizi\u010dno nestabilnost na drugi strani. Idealni gradniki aktivnih, generativnih – “\u017eivih” sistemov.<\/p>\n

Nasprotje komunikaciji najdem v pojmu kontemplacija. Sicer oba nerazvezljivo prepletena v procesu kognicije (spoznavanja, razumevanja, osmi\u0161ljevanja), pa vsak po svoje prispevata k odlo\u010danju. Odlo\u010danje je v tem primeru proces prenosa informacije (komunikacija; \u017eelja po verodostojnem – konvencionalnem ) in predelave informacije (kontemplacija; premlevanje in individualizacija informacije).
\nLets try to observe the sound within space so that we would be able to see the analogueus picture of Nature – of simultaneity of the non-structured totality and the structured partiality – of something that is “on its own” and something that is forced upon us (humans\/observers) as a logical (pre)structure. Since the humans’ perception always structures what is seen, we cannot easily approach the totality (the non-structured). So we will try only to get hold of the “structured view” of the complex structure, which in itself it is a hard enough problem since it exist in “layers”. The lower (or the more subtler) layers are escaping from our “cognitive matrix” – as “noise”. A normal process during the “selective view”. The structured view is a process of filtrating – a reduction. The layers that form the various strata are various discourses – the fields of different variables. The variables are the basic concepts – expressions, terms that construct every evaluation\/cognitive matrix.<\/p>\n

Sound as metaphore was used before – in sociology (->Jacques Atali), especially the music (as the structured sound) (->Kurt Blaukopf). The relations that exist within genres (or between the genres themselves), are quite conformant with the relations within the society. We can say that the music is the reflection of the social relations – and this is valid for any field that has a human activity at the root.<\/p>\n

In a previous text I wrote about an expression, term “human-machine” (the machinistic nature of a human) so that I would be able to affirmate the existance of non-functional (machines), especially in the field of sound (as art). I tried to negate the usual observation that a machinistic nature is the property of the machine and not of its maker. I pointed to the part of human activities that are described as disfunctional (-> Noam Chomsky), or at least non-representative for the resultant of the (idea of the) society. In the psychology there are many affirmations to the claim of human pre-structured “nature”. Among these are the ability to form the patterns, which is the basis of human ability to learn – induction. Also the patterns can be “decomposed” to more basic patterns and reconstructed as a different story (more on stories later) – deduction. These constructed forms are mind objects\/ bodies – concepts, objectivized abstractions. I touched also the expression, term “free will”, but I didn’t go (yet) into analysis whether decisions matter at all. Somehow I don’t feel that they do (given their limited number – yes, no,…).<\/p>\n

THE RESONANT SPACE (the metaphore of the logic space)<\/p>\n

Lets get immersed into “a resonant space”. It is a space\/ room filled with sound(s). As we know the sound cannot easily be given the attribute of rigidity or constancy and is very easily used as metaphore of amorphous “dynamic entity”, that fills up the space – a room or a hall. When we “bring” the sound from outside to the space, the sound gets transformed by the space. The sound’s basic property is to propagate through a material (the air) and it reflects (bounces of) from the borders (the walls). It forms a complex interferential pattern – or better: complex patterns, since we deal with ever changing sound. The complexity of patterns rises with the complexity of the space architecture – the positioning of objects and people included. Every little change of every element matters.<\/p>\n

Observer must necessarily be inluded within such system. A measuring\/evaluating subject is at the sam time an object – yet another dynamic addition. Swimming within the system he\/she “feels” the dynamics of the system. This “feeling” will represent the ever-escaping experience of totality, of the “whole” – but it cannot be quantified. Such space into which we are emmersed will from now on represent a paradoxical expression, term of “limited infinite”.<\/p>\n

The statical measurment of all the points of a horizontal slice in the space (two dimensions) shows a net-like structure – different for any frequency – and any slice. All the frequencies are present in the so-called “white noise”, but when we move from this extreme saturation to reduced sound entities \/ sound objects – the resonant space becomes an interesting metaphore for “a feeling” of totality\/ comprehensive understanding – evaluation of the complex system (entity, structure, medium, of organisation). It must be noted that intrinsically dynamic systems do not provide stable results – and are not practical to use as the basis for stable evaluation\/ decision matrix. They are non-functional.<\/p>\n

For a resonant space the sound is the liquid, the issue – which is being formed by the space. True, the space itself must be understood as a dynamic, amorphous system as well, but since we search the path of human understanding, we must introduce some reduction. This is done by forming descrete representations. And it becomes neccessary to introduce time… or was it the other way around? Did the time introduce discreteness?<\/p>\n

It was noted before that in the basic meaning we can speak of media as system, space, structure, discourse, etc. All this expressions, terms are abstractions that get concrete when they are given their borders (->walls). As we know we make cognitive systems by defining the complementary (dualistic) values\/ properties\/ qualities. By combining basic dualistic systems into more complex multidimensional matrix we are able to form abstract “translation functions” which seem to have a body of their own. The translation becomes abstract and metaphoric: black = beautiful, white = clean, etc. Such complex evaluation forms are often part of local cultures. They act as machines\/ mechanisms for fast decisionmaking.<\/p>\n

They also do not seem to care about the context – on the contrary: they act as contexts – but we don’t know it. These are usually proverbs, stories, local customs, clothes, music, etc. We call them stereotypes – which is nice: it gives these objects a 3D feeling! Stereotypes usually hide their dialectics – the reason for existence. By being highly metaphorical, they do not provide their more basic (parental) elements\/ meanings. One has to work hard… But they successfully perform the function of cultural synchronization – the provide consensus without the need to understand. Ability to cut through these mechanisms\/ layers to the hidden meaning behind is my aim.<\/p>\n

MULTIPLE IDENTITIES<\/p>\n

As noted the sound in space is formed into patterns. Patterns are shapes – objects of some kind. The space acts as filter and amplifier. The patterns are therefore the identity of the system. Here we chose the identification to be the consequence of the system – not the description of the system itself. We chose our model to be limited, since the unlimited does not provide the patterns – does not provide understanding. Understanding = limited. The analysis of “limited infinity” means making a “vertical cut” into co-existing various discoursive fields (“the slices”). The vertical cut should be made so that it links the slices conformantly. This is always so, because the discourses are the products of human nature and culture – they are logically (rationally) preformed. In one vertical cut we can get totally opposite meanings from different discourses on the same subject (or object).<\/p>\n

Every field\/ discourse\/ theory is of course a coherent logical structure built on the dualistic principles. However the objects that form the discourses can have different levels of abstraction\/ complexity. This makes the vertical cut harder – it neccessarily becomes a poetic\/ artistic act. We do not measure once and for all, but work on a feeling instead. Evaluation is made on the basis of the subject (object) surpassing the basic form\/ structure\/ discourse. Art is not a form (form is just a pattern) – art means a vertical cut. Art can be understood as interdisciplinary\/ intermedial action – never a theory or science. Art is therefore recombining the (rationally) comprehendable “slices of representation” back into the comprehensible (all-including) “natural” form. (Hm?)<\/p>\n

COMMUNICATION AND CONTEMPLATION<\/p>\n

When a space is “full” – as it always is (a space is built because the need to define relations among the objects) – it means that there are objects in it. Objects themselves are abstract structures – spaces, fixed into geometry of values serving to define their identity. Identity gives birth to cognition, identification, to meaning. This what the structured spaces serve us. To know the meaning equals to make a decision. Decisions are therefore the result of reductionist systems – objects: and the decisions themselves are the final limit of a reduced complex form – yes, no, i don’t know (?). Decisions are treacherous because the object is always in multiple discoursive fields – in different contexts. A guitar as a resonant object in our space filled with sounds will react (interact) with the sound in space and change (to a small extent) the sound picture. A resonant body is an acoustic amplifier\/ filter and as such an active participant in the distribution of the common spectrum – the common “communication channel”. A guitar has other properties (old and beautiful), but these properties may lay outside our agreed (conventional) communication channel. For a simple and effective communication\/ interaction (transfer of meaning) we must limit ourselves on the common\/ conventional – in order to be functional.<\/p>\n

Functionality is in my opinion one of the more important expressions, terms for a description. It is at the root of the “conventional reality”. The owners of conscience (and the meaning) can communicate only about the conventional – which is: the objective. Conventional object can of course be material objects or\/ and mind objects. Probably there is not much difference between them, since they so easily transform into one another. Objects have only one function – to define the meaning. Objects are a matrix which returns a meaning. Communication is successful when a matrix returns about the same result, but that is not so often. The reason for the “nonlinearity” of the (cognitive, ozna\u010devalne?) matrix is in the diversity of the multiple contexts, which hold the object or the matrix. The context is therefore analogy for space, or part of space, and the matrix can be seen as a concept – or: as a reduced and simplified structure, object, expression, term. But not as an exclusive meaning: there are more of those – according to different contexts. To analyze the meaning (and the objective reality) one must analyze the various contexts. A view that allows for the co-existance of different contexts (or spaces or objects) is neccessary to build a “machine that tells the truth” (the stone of wisdom?).<\/p>\n

Because of the inevitable use of conscienceness – our ever present need for buildings\/ patterns and to build – we internalize the external by adapting to the conventional and then return the internalized. But in every translation something is changed. Was the matrix different (or not agreed enough?), but morelikely the space\/ context was different. It is a dynamic system, changing in time, along with its the changing content and the dynamic interactions of objects. The space is alive when there is a flow within (the communictaion channel). Entropy is supposed to describe the inner dynamics of a system – pointing to the gradual balancing of the system. In thermodynamics the heat eventually distributes itself equally – meaning that the communication channel does not show any gradients anymore.<\/p>\n

But we are not dealing with passive systems, but with dynamic – generative ones. Objects in the system are active – generative. In its activity they are autonomous – on the basic level: not sinchronous. Mathematical model would show them as a system of nonlinear equations of higher orders (-> matrix). It’s best when objects are by their nature unstable systems. Like: humans… Torn between the inevitability of such and such structures (providing the meanings) on one side, and the inevitability of psychophysical nonstability on the other side. The ideal building blocks for generative – live systems.<\/p>\n

CONCEPTS AS STORIES<\/p>\n

Every object always has some meaning. When an object is put into some context (field, array, space) – it speaks out a story. A story is really a specific meaning in action. A story is therefore an object itself – a structure, but especially well adapted to form\/ programme a human mind. Stories as objects that are stretched in time open up a space of cause and effect (causal relations). What was in the past remains in one of\/or many causal transformations also in this moment… and (as a potentiality) also in the future. And true: stories are very close to the wish\/need to form\/control\/predict\/forecast the future. Stories are patterns. Stories as spells. These forms, bearers of meaning, are our partners with the ability for extreme transformations through time – but can also become timeless, when they are taken out from time and made abstract self-sufficient (closed) objects\/ expressions (proverbs, spells, stories). (Relatively) timeless stories are called archetypes and are the basis of culture. Culture is a space (context) which has an extremely tight grip on us. But stories usually form much less stable objects – it’s enough to immerse them into some (any, arbitrary?) context. Here it can get really funny.<\/p>\n

While building (the concept and the material object) the Arms & Weapons miniature (->bazooka, the title came at the end) three stories emerged one after another – not really totally separate, but each one individual and self-contained. First one has to peel off the uppermost (layer of meaning). To peel off the uppermost layer means that the simplest stories form\/crystalize on their own (-> as parasites). They are the most simple interpretations – mere reflections of the conventional\/consensual world\/culture – they do not bring any new meaning – they speak what was spoken form thousand times before (-> they are archetypal). Stories are parasites of meaning. As archetypal they are mythisations and don’t serve the understanding but “the knowing”. Stories as objects need to be stripped off in layers in order to be able to dig out the hidden relations\/meanings. But before that it is still amusing to feel\/observe the power of the sublimated – but noting that it will not bring forth the understanding.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

V tem eseju bom sku\u0161al predstaviti na\u010din dojemanja zvoka v prostoru, s pomo\u010djo katerega lahko sestavimo analogno sliko Narave – nestrukturirane totalnosti in strukturirane parcialnosti – torej “ne\u010desa, kar je samo po sebi” in ne\u010desa, kar se nam (ljudem\/ opazovalcem) “vsiljuje”.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,2,28],"tags":[19,41,17,18,48],"class_list":["post-22","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-archive","category-arts","category-concepts","tag-concepts-2","tag-essays","tag-objects","tag-situations-2","tag-text"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=22"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2084,"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22\/revisions\/2084"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=22"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=22"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turborebop.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=22"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}