This chapter is very interesting because it explores the other means by which peoples communicate. It is easy to assume the communication is relatively specific, involving a transference of knowledge or ideas. This takes a oral or written form, both of which are based on language and/or text, these are necessary at the basic level. Even immediate connections require an understanding of language, you cannot communicate mental pictures so much as you can communicate ideas.
This chapter talks about communication that takes the form not only with verbal bases, but with signals, art, music etc. things that don't necessitate a communal language. This is an interesting concept. For these things to be used as a form of communication they have to become associated with another thing or meaning, this does not require a name or title, simply a meaning or idea or implication
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
A Time Before Deception "Assumption #3"
"Communication may be understood only through analysis"
I don't really follower Cooper's train of thought here, not the assumption he makes or his attempt to refute it. He says that communication is not only understood through analysis. He says this is so because individuals, in this case, Native Americans require a communion with each other and with nature. Fair enough, but it seems as if his argument is inconsistent. Communion and communication are two similar concepts but in the end, different things. The way he puts it, it seems as if communion is a means by which individuals communicate though technically there is no communication involved, thereby making it communion.
Even if we assume that communication and communion are the same thing, or interchangeable or what have you, i disagree with his objection: that they cannot be understood through analysis. He presumes that this analysis comes after said information is transfered, be it via communion or communication. If you think about it, without prior information, knowledge, reason, existence...etc even via communion, information is analyzed. This mental connection is only possible because of prior knowledge, something previously (though perhaps subconsciously) analyzed.
I don't really follower Cooper's train of thought here, not the assumption he makes or his attempt to refute it. He says that communication is not only understood through analysis. He says this is so because individuals, in this case, Native Americans require a communion with each other and with nature. Fair enough, but it seems as if his argument is inconsistent. Communion and communication are two similar concepts but in the end, different things. The way he puts it, it seems as if communion is a means by which individuals communicate though technically there is no communication involved, thereby making it communion.
Even if we assume that communication and communion are the same thing, or interchangeable or what have you, i disagree with his objection: that they cannot be understood through analysis. He presumes that this analysis comes after said information is transfered, be it via communion or communication. If you think about it, without prior information, knowledge, reason, existence...etc even via communion, information is analyzed. This mental connection is only possible because of prior knowledge, something previously (though perhaps subconsciously) analyzed.
Monday, December 10, 2007
The Great Happening of the Universe
By: Andrew Sakach
Topic of Choice: 5
After having the discussion involving immediate communication and 'happenings' it seems that it would be really interesting if scientists tried to find out what goes into the making of a good party or a good team. While I know it seems impossible some people do believe that it could be done to a relatively good degree.
When happenings do occur it does seem like something magical or sacred is going on, but why? Why do these things occur? Some people may say that it's because you knew people in your past lives, or maybe you have connecting zodiacs but that seems so arbitrary. It is interesting to think about higher plans that you may be just a glimmer in. All I know is that I either immediatly click with someone and say to myself, we're going to be good friends, or I don't.
Topic of Choice: 5
After having the discussion involving immediate communication and 'happenings' it seems that it would be really interesting if scientists tried to find out what goes into the making of a good party or a good team. While I know it seems impossible some people do believe that it could be done to a relatively good degree.
When happenings do occur it does seem like something magical or sacred is going on, but why? Why do these things occur? Some people may say that it's because you knew people in your past lives, or maybe you have connecting zodiacs but that seems so arbitrary. It is interesting to think about higher plans that you may be just a glimmer in. All I know is that I either immediatly click with someone and say to myself, we're going to be good friends, or I don't.
The Sacred Net
By: Andrew Sakach
Other Classes: 5
Can profane communication become sacred? In my Internet Law and Policy class we discuss the Internet in all it's complexities and how it is used primarily as a networking source and as a social utility. But can this technology be integrated into the sacred somehow?
In this ever increasing technological world of ours expands it's horizons we tend to see a drift to the secular in most facets of technology. However what if someone tried to create something within the internet that could revel truth or connect us with the sacred through this medium? Our literate society is very much eye oriented so why not? If people ever wanted to make the internet into a sacred place it would have to be on individual networks where people believed the same things, because as it is, nothing is sacred online.
Other Classes: 5
Can profane communication become sacred? In my Internet Law and Policy class we discuss the Internet in all it's complexities and how it is used primarily as a networking source and as a social utility. But can this technology be integrated into the sacred somehow?
In this ever increasing technological world of ours expands it's horizons we tend to see a drift to the secular in most facets of technology. However what if someone tried to create something within the internet that could revel truth or connect us with the sacred through this medium? Our literate society is very much eye oriented so why not? If people ever wanted to make the internet into a sacred place it would have to be on individual networks where people believed the same things, because as it is, nothing is sacred online.
Multiple Ultimates
By: Andrew Sakach
Assigned Readings: 5
The one handout that was given to us about whether Apache sacredness was attributed to the land through the people, an argument by Sartre, or, as the author posits, is gained from the land from an innate sacredness was very interesting.
Sartre's argument is that of social construction of reality, while I believe that this theory is true for the most part it seems that there are very large forces that influence it and are believed to be 'human universals' such as contemplation of the meaning of life, death, birth, food, etc. While these things all people undergo or perceive it seems that if these 'truths' are inherent then why can't other truths be inherent from outside of ourselves in the greater reality?
The author takes the side of the Native American worldview that believes their myths are given to them as the truth and take them as such. After taking many anthropology courses I'm inclined to believe that there is no one 'ultimate truth' when going down to a societal level, even while recognizing that speaking of ultimate truth is a very... interesting subject to say the least. What I mean is that peoples conceptions of the world are not to be judged as right or wrong, they should be taken as truth when dealing with the culture and anything short of that would be comparing apples and oranges.
Assigned Readings: 5
The one handout that was given to us about whether Apache sacredness was attributed to the land through the people, an argument by Sartre, or, as the author posits, is gained from the land from an innate sacredness was very interesting.
Sartre's argument is that of social construction of reality, while I believe that this theory is true for the most part it seems that there are very large forces that influence it and are believed to be 'human universals' such as contemplation of the meaning of life, death, birth, food, etc. While these things all people undergo or perceive it seems that if these 'truths' are inherent then why can't other truths be inherent from outside of ourselves in the greater reality?
The author takes the side of the Native American worldview that believes their myths are given to them as the truth and take them as such. After taking many anthropology courses I'm inclined to believe that there is no one 'ultimate truth' when going down to a societal level, even while recognizing that speaking of ultimate truth is a very... interesting subject to say the least. What I mean is that peoples conceptions of the world are not to be judged as right or wrong, they should be taken as truth when dealing with the culture and anything short of that would be comparing apples and oranges.
Not Many Answers
By: Andrew Sakach
Topic of Choice: 4
One question that had been plaguing me was, Could people live a certain kind of earth based way in the city, or urban areas?
It bothers me because people tend to become complacent if their needs are being met in the present, maybe this is only because this is how our society socializes us, but as a whole people tend to not change if they're more or less happy. Even though happiness is subjective it is also constrained to what we know. How can you know what happiness is if you've only experienced but so much of the world's experiences? While this in itself is an infinite amount of situations how much is enough to be able to judge what should be striven for?
Topic of Choice: 4
One question that had been plaguing me was, Could people live a certain kind of earth based way in the city, or urban areas?
It bothers me because people tend to become complacent if their needs are being met in the present, maybe this is only because this is how our society socializes us, but as a whole people tend to not change if they're more or less happy. Even though happiness is subjective it is also constrained to what we know. How can you know what happiness is if you've only experienced but so much of the world's experiences? While this in itself is an infinite amount of situations how much is enough to be able to judge what should be striven for?
Mountains, Trees and Ice
By: Andrew Sakach
Topic of Choice: 3
After watching the film with the big glaciers in them we discussed the difference between habitus and habitat. Habitat is the environment that is occupied while habitus is the way of dwelling in that environment.
We then talked about how when people become alienated from their environments, such as being separated from the food we eat through stores or by living in cities that are completely artificial environments. By becoming alienated we effectively make the environment that we dwell in a simple background while living. That sort of disturbed me because I constantly felt that, while being on the AT that everything felt so surreal, like I couldn't quite grasp that we were on the very same kind of mountains that I saw in the distance even though that's the closest I've come at living among the land in that kind of intimate way before. Is it because I'm constantly separated that I felt this? Can one really appreciate the land if they live in this kind of separated way we tend to? I really don't think so, unless people can incorporate the world around them into their everyday lifestyle or maybe make 'Haj's' to the mountains every year in order to reaffirm their desire to be connected and their way of life while not connected with the land. Another question was if an apathetic person could precieve the sublimity of a giant glacier or a mountain or a beautiful sunrise? Can someone really experience the sacred within the land if they aren't open to it from the beginning? Mmm questions...
Topic of Choice: 3
After watching the film with the big glaciers in them we discussed the difference between habitus and habitat. Habitat is the environment that is occupied while habitus is the way of dwelling in that environment.
We then talked about how when people become alienated from their environments, such as being separated from the food we eat through stores or by living in cities that are completely artificial environments. By becoming alienated we effectively make the environment that we dwell in a simple background while living. That sort of disturbed me because I constantly felt that, while being on the AT that everything felt so surreal, like I couldn't quite grasp that we were on the very same kind of mountains that I saw in the distance even though that's the closest I've come at living among the land in that kind of intimate way before. Is it because I'm constantly separated that I felt this? Can one really appreciate the land if they live in this kind of separated way we tend to? I really don't think so, unless people can incorporate the world around them into their everyday lifestyle or maybe make 'Haj's' to the mountains every year in order to reaffirm their desire to be connected and their way of life while not connected with the land. Another question was if an apathetic person could precieve the sublimity of a giant glacier or a mountain or a beautiful sunrise? Can someone really experience the sacred within the land if they aren't open to it from the beginning? Mmm questions...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
