Home
FAQ
Contact
Booking
Basic Introduction
to Scientific Flies
Based on the paper Ranulph Glanville: as if (Radical Objectivism)
in: Robert Trappl (ed.)(1994), Cybernetics and Systems '94, vol.I, World Scientific, London
AS IF - Lyrics
(PRELUDE) 1 void (prelude) Before we make experience we are in the void we are the void there is no us we are in the
void there is no
us In making us
we destroy the void.
The void is what we call that which is before us, that which we cannot know that which we
cannot know
that which is (for the us we are always becoming until we reach the unknowable)the unknowable.
Before we make experience we are in the void we are the void there is no us we are in the
void there is no
us In making us
we destroy the void.
It is that from which we come and that to which we may, eventually, return. To be is to continue becoming. Through becoming, always, I am. But, through becoming, I distinguish myself into becoming and thus all else: you, and the distinguishing.
Before we make experience we are in the void we are the void there is no us we are in the
void there is no
us In making us
we destroy the void.
(DISCOURSE) 2 experience(What we have is our experience) That is to say, we are as we feel and as we make sense of what we feel; and we are as we sense and as we make sense of what we sense:
that to be is to experience and to experience is to be. To think is to experience. To dream is to experience. To explain is to experience. To say is to experience. Not the experience of, but experience. For each action, each particular of being, each distinction is experience and is experienced.
we are as we feel and as we make sense of what we feel; and we are as we sense and as we make sense of what we sense:
To utter (this) is to assume much of what is to come We utter to make sense of feeling and assume sensation and (and in) our senses We utter to utter. We utter of meanings without communicating them. We must utter of that which is to come to utter what is not to utter that we can utter. We utter to explain ... utterance, but also let it be. We utter to explain, for utterance is explanation and explanation is .... needed for utterance.
we are as we feel and as we make sense of what we feel; and we are as we sense and as we make sense of what we sense:
Experience of is not experience. To utter an explanation is an experience (of uttering), but is not an experience of that which is explained. When we utter an experience, it is without conjunction: with conjunction it is no longer experience, it is explanation. In these dualities and (paradoxically) co-existent meanings lies the subtlty.
3 reality(We inhabit our experience, which is our reality) That within which we are, that we inhabit is our experience. It is our experience as and how we construct (make) it. We are in our experience and our experience is us. We are that experience which we construct; hence we construct ourselves.
We may call this our world, we may call it our reality. It is real to us, for it is all we are and all we have. That is why it is real to us (our world). That is how it is real for us.
(Our reality is our construction) We ... construct... our ... reality. (Without us there is no our.) Our ... reality...is not given. Without us, ...we have no ... reality, for that ... reality ... is our experience, and our experience requires our presence and our acting. Nor do we take our .... reality ... : there is nothing to take. We make - construct.
We recognize our experience through making it, and through making it as experience (making it experience) we experience. If we do not make experience of it, it is a phantom, it is not ours, it is not (of) us. Experience is not given nor is it taken it is constructed: and without constructing it, it is no experience and hence (in our terms, that is in terms of our experience) it is not.
We
construct
experience by distinguishing it. That makes it both distinct as its self, and distinct as (an) experience. (It appears, afterwards, to be around, but which cannot be around until it has distinguished -constructed-)
That is... our ... reality ... is ours and is not another's. Our ... reality ... requires us: our presence. We do the construction: it is of us and not of another. Hence, it's unique. It is ours and not another's. It requires us because we construct it. Thus, our ... reality ... is our construction, and our ... reality ... is our construction.
4 difference(To know we are, we construct (with) others) How can I believe I am, that I may construct? How did I become so that I can construct?
To be is to continue to become to be To be is continuous, it is the construction and the construction again (and
the construction of the identity that is construction of the equality
of the two constructions, the construction and the construction again) I become into being. I am,
continuing to be. I
become, continuing, to be. How can I believe I am, that I may construct? How did I become so that I can construct?
But to know that I am requires more: to know, and that is I that I know, it is not enough that I continue becoming: I need to become by contrast to what is not me (for
otherwise the construction of the identity is only a construction of
the continuity, a construction and (then) another construction:
identity needs the possibility of difference: to be, to be something,
requires the possibility of being not that something) That is to be me is to not be not-me and not to be the diff(e)rence between (also not-me) me and not-me. That which distinguishes me does so by distinguishing itself from me and not from what is not-me. It collapses its own logic. How can I believe I am, that I may construct? How did I become so that I can construct?
To be me requires that that identity which is constructed might be not-me: it requires you - the not-me that makes its own identity. And it requires the means of differentiation that is also not-me (and/but is not-you). To make the difference (that which makes the difference) I need me and you and that which makes the difference (here there is a triad) - each a role, for each I take to be, to be distinct and thus to have that-which-makes-the-difference and that-which-is-separate but might-be-me. How can I believe I am, that I may construct? How did I become so that I can construct?
And yet to know that it is me requires that I construct me and you and the difference, but that you
do so, too: me as a you to
you, me as me to me, me
as an assumed me to you (an other, which cannot be experienced as a self)
- as you assume I have a you that is you to me: a
reciprocation that makes both you and
me to each and both of us.
For each of us as our own I. It is
this reciprocation that makes
construction, by me and by you possible (by us).
5 observation(We each observe differently) Our construction, which, when we wish to seem
to be looking outwards at, we call our observations, are ours and only ours: each of us observes differently, cannot observe the same as the other. To observe is to be distinct, and to be present: there is no observation (there is no construction) without the constructor.
As each observer is
separate, distinct, (mutually) constructed, each observation and each construction is
separate, distinct, unique and of the constructor. Because we are different and because we
cannot avoid our presence in observing, in constructing, we must have different views.
We cannot remove ourselves from our observation and from the responsibilities they (come to) entail. We are alone.
There is no reality
we can examine "out there" because
there is no reality without me (so there is no objective reality), all realities are constructed (hence,inside), and we cannot approach whatever might be out there, or know of it
without being present and making it ours,
within.
6 utterance(Thus to know ourselves is to know another is to communicate) To have you (that you are), to have me (that I am) is still not to know. For me to know, me (to know that me) is to know another,
and to know that the other knows me. To do this requires communication: you and I acknowledge each other and acknowledge both this acknowledgement and that each is acknowledgin(g).
What we utter is not what is. We take what is experience. We utter.
Our utterances we takes as referring - to that we wish to communicate. What we utter is not what is: there is the experience and there is utterance, and there is the putting together of the two in a relationship we assume to indicate identity (If we utter about other utterances, then these utterances take the place of that which is - our experience - and the utterances about them are the utterances) An utterance can be - perhaps must be - an experience. But it is experienced as an utterance in identity with that which is uttered (about). The explanation is not the experience, although the explanation can (must) be an experience, in and of itself.
What we utter is not what is. We take what is experience. We utter.
What is uttered, while it is, is not that which is to be communicated: although uttering has being, its role as uttering is to transcend that being, to let it stand for another being. (The
situation may be reversed so that the other being stands for it, when
the other being becomes utterance. This reciprocation and symmetry is
essential.)
Thus, to re- present something is to present it: for to
re- present something
is to present it (again?).
7 communication(We communicate by conversation) Communication is (through) a reci procation. The reci procation of being (I and you), the reci procation of presen tation. There is
another reci procation,
that of conver sation.
When I utter, I identify two experiences and use one to communicate the other to you - an other.
Thus, one experience explains (describes, presents) the other. The identity is in and of my construction: relationship enters my constructing.
What I utter to you, you construct in your own way. But, to know you have done this requires that you utter, in response. For the construction of identity is mine, and not of the experience. Communication depends upon the ability of both to construct an (acceptable) identity.
For me to know I have communicated requires that you utter your identity in return to me, and for me to construct for myself your identity, so that I make both your and my identity the same: that is, I identify the identity I first made with the identity I construct from my utterance (I believe) you made from the identity (I believe) you made in response to my original utterance of the identity. If I find I cannot make an identity (schnell) of my utterance from your utterance returned to me with my (original) utterance, I have to utter anew until I have an utterance in response with which I can make such an identity. (This is the circular form of the ngociatory feedback of the conversation)
This process of identification is the basis of semiotics.
The process of identifying the identifications is the basis of conversation.
A conversation is a negociation.
8 shape(We cannot observe what is) My utterance consists in my identi fying two constructions, two distinctions, two experiences, such than
one
may stand for the other. In doing this, it is possible for me to use the one to stand for the experience that I wish to comunicate.
This does not mean I can ever observe what you observe, experience what you experience: these are ours (yours and mine) and cannot be either given or taken.
Nor can we observe an is without our constructing it as an is. There
is no
is without us to construct it as being.
A metaphor: it is as if we look at the screen on which there are shapes in silhouette dancing. it is as if We see the silhouettes and we believe there is something behind them that causes them to dance some puppet (and puppeteer) and some light that casts the silhouette we see (This is the Wayang Theatre of Java) it is as if But we cannot (and must not) see behind the screen: and our vision is formed and made possible because of the screen. it is as if This is what we have invented, what we have constructed. Our way of looking which makes communication possible, makes contact with the supposed puppet behind the supposed screen impossible. it is as if And,
if we cannot look beyond the screen, we have no way to know what is there, whether there is anything at all, or even if there is a behind.
9 reference(We cannot determine whether there is a reality "out there") Our experience may never be taken to be of things. Our experience is constructed as we distinguish. When we distinguish, we may think of (or even call) that which we have distinguished
a thing, give it a name (make an utterance that expresses an identity). Whether or not we are what we (popularly) refer to as things in the real world is beyond our competence, in this understanding.
There is no is until we distinguish it, and whatever we may wish to utter as being
is only our construction. To talk of an "out there" reality
is to exceed the scope of our competence.
We cannot determine it: that is, we cannot claim it exists or it does not, and it should not concern us.
Whether or not we are what we refer to as things in the real world is beyond our competence, in this understanding.
We have reality if we want, in our experience, but we have no recourse to an external and objective existence, free from our involvement. That objective world we have traded
in its figment and fallacy.
But that such things have a semblance we deny at our peril, even if to discuss it is beyond the scope of this paper.
10 meaning(We communicate in conversations) We believe that we can
communicate with and can
understand each other. We believe that we don't
always need to take so long
to negociate all that we wish to discuss.
The convolutions of the conversation's negociatory feedback are not always or very often needed. In practice, we (believe we) do communicate, and communicate quite well. We do this by directing the feedback so that we reduce errors, rather than by just randomly trying again. To direct the feedback, we must talk of understandings as if they were shared.
(We make meanings) What I propose you construct in your own way. You make your meaning. To ask whether your meaning and mine are the same is pointless, without meaning There is no way to compare meanings because they can only be examined through utterances from which we generate them (and not in themselves), because they only exist in the context of our making, and because each meaning is made privately by, for, within each of us.
Meanings are never open to examination. To attempt to examine them is to misunderstand them.
(We share) Yet there are times when we believe we do share, and such is the appearance that we can forget how we construct and utter, and believe there is a reality "out there". Such times when we consider that we recognise the same value,
for instance in judging art. There are explanations for this, many constructions. But these do not affect the feelings. And we do, no matter how improperly,
treat such recognition as if it where some thing (eg, a quality).
We talk of sharing this thing. We talk as if.
(A conversation is not enough) When we think of the conversation, we talk of the conversation about. About indicates that there is an agreed stratum
on which the conversation develops conversation
is not enough.
11 talk(We utter as if of things) There is a wish and a tendency
to treat the word as a concept (its meaning), to identify utterance with experience: to treat utterance as if it were experience. Utterance can be experienced, but it is not experience, or, at least, it is not the experience
that is being uttered about. When the utterance is the experience, it is no longer the utterance in question, used as the experience. (There is another triad here: the two identifieds and the identifying.)
We talk as if: as if the utterance were the experience.
It is not. But it is convenient to treat it as if. Thus we utter as if of things.
There is a wish and a tendency
to treat the (constructed) experience as if shared.
It is not, in the strictest sense, shared. What we may take as an isomorphism
is created by each participant, accepted as adequate,
and distinguished as experience. We then claim
that the experiences are the same, although they cannot be.
12 structure(Our reality is our construction) We face a difficulty
with our constructing, a difficulty
that is found in common expression. The difficulty
is that of the metaphor of the Wayang Theatre. We have a screen, but the screen is only a screen and the silhouette only a silhouette when we assume the puppets and lights (and puppeteer), and the behind. And we do assume them,
to make our metaphor(s) work, and to assist us
in working pragmatically and more effectively.
We describe a world as if:
and we forget that it is as if and contrarily treat it as is.
But we need (and we appreciate) the as if. And so we need to our construction of how we construct, so that we postulate such entities:
entities that explain and let be, without confounding the constructive world, that permit, in their invention, that we can believe as if they exist as common reference points which yet can support the difference in view that we all have -
not just as a matter of choice of a form of description, but structurally,
as a matter of the necessity of their functioning, reflecting our presence in their functioning, just as we are needed to (and cannot escape from) construct(ing) our realities.
We describe a world as if:
and we forget that it is as if and contrarily treat it as is.
Such entities have been designed and formulated.
They are called Objects.
This is not the place to do more than introduce them and to assert that they answer these requirements.
We describe a world as if:
and we forget that it is as if and contrarily treat it as is.
Acceptance of them is the acceptance of a radical objectivism:
an objectivism that is fuelled by the as if,
which supports construction and constructivism, but which marries with our common experience
and with the pragmatics of convenience. It may be indicated as objective
in the sense that it is made of Objects, and it is radical
in the sense that the Objects (and the objectiveness) are constructive
and have history on their side.
We describe a world as if:
and we forget that it is as if and contrarily treat it as is.
(FINAL WORDS) 13 final words I don't pers(o)nally mind about the nature of the world the direction of its projection its object and its objects, whether it is real or ideal.
In becoming simpler, clearer in English towards the end, I hope that the process of the creation of an as if world of radical Objects,
the construction of radical objectivism, is paralleled in the benefits that accrue from its construction.
I don't pers(o)nally mind about the nature of the world the direction of its projection its object and its objects, whether it is real or ideal.
I care that I can communicate, that I can believe I am and that I am distinct. I care that we can communicate, that I can believe I am and that I'm unique. And, in fact, I need to communicate to be able to believe that. I care that I can communicate, that I can believe I am and that I am distinct.
I don't pers(o)nally mind about the nature of the world the direction of its projection its object and its objects, whether it is real or ideal.
I care that I can communicate, that I can believe I am and that I am distinct. I care that I can communicate, that I can believe I am and that I am distinct. I care that I can communicate, that I can believe I am and that I am distinct.
