Blind Sight

(Img source: my dA) Rosen presents an interesting observation in regards to how "images do not necessarily lead to meaning [and that] the information they convey [do] not always lead to knowledge." There is a certain air of ambiguity surrounding images for they leave a broad opportunity for open interpretation. An image may appear simple, yet when graced upon a spectrum of eyes, it may serve as host to a plethora of ulterior meanings. The audience does not conform to become one eye, rather it is comprised of a multitude of perspectives and mindsets. In a way, one image is able to breathe life to a variety of reactions by simply existing. It explains nothing, but rather depends on our very  own consciousness to define and explain it. But, I digress. Images, unlike words, are quite brief. All that's required is a glance to take in the full scope of it. Words or text, on the other hand require different cognitive processes. One needs to first read the words then he or she will need to understand them, and lastly one will need to interpret what was read. That process keeps our attention focused. Yet, the briefness and the lack of a need for any cognitive brunt work that comes with viewing images tends to draw attention for only a short while. There is no need to stop and stare and bore into an image until the eyes water. Everything is already shown to the viewer. There's no need to imagine or conjure up images from words or a need to understand-- unless one truly wishes to do so. The eyes just glaze over the image. One isn't forced to find meaning in the photographs, hence they do not lead to meaning-- unless meaning is desired. They also do not lead to knowledge-- unless knowledge is desired. Whereas, in the written world, seeking meaning and learning are the basis of words. Words are the essence of knowledge. Though one can also say the same for images. They are a universal form of knowledge. Yet, photographs and pictures are often viewed as a vehicle that delivers entertainment rather than one that brings knowledge. A book filled with words would be considered more academic than that of, say, a magazine. Images: empty knowledge, perhaps.

mirror|rorrim

Vlogging is an interesting medium. It allows us to share a piece of ourselves, in all its entirety, to an audience. Yet, at the same time, it also leaves us very vulnerable even when we are in a position where we have full control of what we can share. As Andrew mentioned in his vlog, through this medium we are, in a way, tricked into setting our guard down and removing our masks, revealing who we really are. Because we can't anticipate each individual that makes up our audience, we are denied the ability to cater ourselves a certain way to "please" them. Or in other words, we aren't "acting" for someone. What we are left with is who we are in the raw, unfiltered and unmasked. In a way, he is right in saying that some of the friends made through the internet are more genuine that those in real life. The only thing exchanged is the undiluted essence of us and that is what the "audience" sees and forms their judgment on. Whereas, in real life, we have to put on the mask(s) and play the role society has created for us.

Then again, this is like another form of a mask only the places are switched. We're not the ones wearing it, but rather the audience is. The mask is not quite a mask, but rather a mirror. There isn't really an "interaction" going on when one vlogs. It's only a reflection of us. We stare into the camera and all we see is our own self. There isn't that much of an interaction occurring between the vlogger and the audience. Though, true there are video responses, but there is a certain delay in time. And, I guess, that sort of takes away from a "real" friendship. There's still that physical barrier between the two persons, making it difficult to truly establish a wholesome relationship.

million miles away from here...

 Another off tangent post. I mull over things too much for my own good.

"Escape to paradise..."
"Find yourself once again in paradise..."

The search for this "paradise" does not know the bounds of time. For as long as humanity has existed, there exists the search for a flawless land of bliss where one can forget their pains and sorrows.

Where there exists stress, pain, despair... a paradise will be sought.

There are many means of escape, be it physical or mental. One may turn to quiet meditation to ease the soul of such emotional burden. Perchance, one may also retreat to music. In a physical sense, one may board the most convenient mode of travel to a place that they deem as paradise... a place away from the thing(s) that is the root of their suffering.

Paradise is a different thing to each person. A place one deems as so, may, perhaps, be a place of torture for others. Each has its unique attributes that makes it the paradise it is to the person.

Yet, that feeling of relief is but temporary... whatever demons that are chasing them, will return.

This idea of escaping from these emotions is welcoming. But, the evanescent quality of this escape makes paradise seem sadistic almost. The place that serves as a sanctuary becoming a place of sorrow, for when the time comes for one to leave that place... the demons will creep back into the consciousness, burdening the soul once more.

Perhaps, we should not depend on things "outside" of us for relief. We should rely on the thing we can depend on most, the one that is always with us regardless... we should rely on ourselves.

It is only if we find those demons that lurk in us, that we may truly "be in paradise." This is tantamount to fighting off a fungal infection. A yeast infection, for an example. Yeast, once inside the body, burrows deep within the tissues because of the way they reproduce. Branches called Hyphae serve as roots, anchoring itself in the tissue... so in order for the yeast cells to bud and reproduce. In order to fully rid of the yeast infection, one must attack the Hyphae, the "roots." If the Hyphae are not destroyed, then the infection will persist. Just as we must seek out the "root" of our reason to seek out paradise.

If we find out what the core of the reason is, then the need for paradise will be obsolete. Since... that paradise will be ourselves, for in actuality, that place already resides in us.

What causes that pain, that despair, is our struggle with our demons. To rid the soul of it... that pain would disappear. The constant battle with them would also cease to exist. There would be peace... and that paradise would be realized. Inner peace, would be a fitting term to describe this.

But, alas, this feat is nearly impossible for it is simply just "easier said than done."

consequent consequences.

(Image source: my dA)
I found the title the medium is the MASSAGE to be quite fascinating and enlightening. It's amusing, yet carries a dark grain of truth behind its whimsical exterior. In a way, the medium does "massage" our minds, relaxing it and easing it into this pliable and manipulable "thing." Technology helps us in many ways, simplifying and cutting down processes. Yet, that is our ultimate downfall for if and when it does come to a certain point in time where technological advances become so great that humans need not lift a finger to do anything. We will have relinquished the last remaining strand of control we have left in our lives, by relaxing into the welcoming fingers of advancement. I'm not saying that  the progress of technology should be ceased. I wholeheartedly believe that it should be embraced, but I do not think that we should allow it to become our lives, where a day without, say, a cellphone or laptop is tantamount to the apocalypse. It should be more of an accompaniment... something to aid in our processes, but not necessarily take full reign and complete those said processes for us. Otherwise, similar to what happens to muscles after a massage, our minds will become soft and, perhaps, a bit too relaxed. We will no longer have the ability to think for ourselves or use our cognition for anything in that matter. Technology will use us, instead of us using it.

One quote really stuck with me, even long after finishing the book. "All media are extensions of some human faculty-- psychic or physical." Media, though physically restricts us, allows our human senses to reach places unreachable without it. This attribute of media acts as a double-edged sword. True, through such technology we are able to interact and network with different people near and far, allowing us to interact with  different cultures and mindsets along with exchanging ideas. Yet, we are still grounded to our computers, to our television sets, or iPods. There is a barrier between the two parties. Slowly, face to face interaction will become obsolete. Why bother going out of the way to speak to someone in person when there is Skype or Facebook? It would be much simpler to just interact with him or her through those media. There will be less awkwardness, for we can always say "oh i gtg, ttyl" when we run out of things to say or the conversation becomes uncomfortable for us. The means of escaping that form of confrontation becomes so much easier on the conscience. One tends to feel less guilty when rejecting someone or something when they're not face to face. There is a computer screen or cellphone protecting him or her from the guilt, rendering one from being able to apply moral weight to a situation. The closer we are mentally, the farther we are physically.

All in all, I think media itself should be viewed neutrally. By itself it is harmless.  What is capable of inflicting harm is the effect media produces.

faith, unconscious.

This post isn't related to anything. It's just a personal, but ever so trivial musing.

I don't trust anyone. I just can't trust.

I've heard that phrase thrown around quite often. Even I've caught myself uttering that.

But...

If one steps back and becomes the spectator rather than a playing piece in this twisted game of life, one would realize that the majority of everything we do is based on trust.

To bring an umbrella or not to? We listen to the weather forecast everyday to have that question answered. We trust that what the meteorologist predicts is correct.

Every time one purchases a meal or perhaps a cup of steaming hot something, he/she trusts that no one has slipped anything in it. One wouldn't stick a silver needle in every food item she/he buys. True, there are food regulations and monthly inspections, but how does one know the regulations are being followed or the inspections honest? Trust.

But, why do we trust them? They're all just strangers. Do we trust them because there will be another echelon to enforce them and so forth? But that begs the question the Roman poet Juvenal asked: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who will guard to guards?* How are we sure the ones in the uppermost part of the chain of command are doing what they are supposed to do? They don't have anyone breathing down their necks, watching their actions. We are left with faith and trust.

I can only guess that it's part of human nature to trust. One doesn't become paranoid of suspicious of something unless something has happened to him/her or that he/she heard something happened to someone because of such and such event. One would not arm themselves unless they are threatened by an opposing force. There has to be a trigger in order for those negative attributes to appear.

Yet, though one has experienced the latter, he/she still trusts. Unbeknown to her/himself. one still trusts those who serve their everyday needs and such. Otherwise, it would be impossible to survive. Even if one decides to plant their own food or take those aforementioned matters to their own hands, they would still have to trust that it would work out.

Perhaps, instead of one not being able to trust completely, one is capable of trusting the process and not the persons working it, vice versa.

*Just a bit of randomness: Plato addresses and gives an answer that question in The Republic. He says that they, the guardians, will guard themselves against themselves. "We must tell the guardians a noble lie." That lie will instill the belief that they are better than the rest and therefore hold the responsibility to watch over and protect those who are not.

The Beholder.

I disagree with Postman that we must define all media ethically. Media is but a tool; a vessel to carry out information to an audience. A tool cannot be deemed as being good or bad. More specifically, a tool without a user or something to influence it.

Let's use a stool for an example. By itself, it is harmless; neutral in its influence on the environment around it. It is until a person (a user/influence/mindset) comes into the picture, that the stool is given an identity of sort. It can be "good" in the aspect that it offers the said person something to rest on or someplace to sit and read a book, perhaps. The stool can also be labeled as a instrument of evil, or bad, if the person, rather than sitting on it, picks it up and, say, smashes it on a poor unfortunate fellow's back, rendering him unconscious and then sits the victim on the seat to allow him/her to recover. So, is a stool a good or bad thing?

 (Source: my dA)

As Hamlet said, "... there is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so." It is up to the person on the receiving end to determine the moral weight of something. It is dependent on how he or she views it. Things are not always painted black and white, good or bad. There are different shades of gray in between, especially in the aspect of the media, for it is vast and varied in its forms and may be interpreted in a plethora of ways. One may be more susceptible to being influenced by a certain program or show if he or she is insecure about him/herself, compared to one who has a defined sense of being.

It is much too difficult to separate and sort the media into what is right and what is wrong. There are too many factors separating them.