Erik_Kowal wrote:Che, I believe that your last statement, to the effect that nowadays “individual experience is manifested and interpreted by […] reality generated by personal beliefs and media generated reality”, is broadly but not exclusively correct – not exclusively, because our experience also encompasses, and is affected by, other factors, such as our interpersonal relationships with family, friends, colleagues and so forth. … ‘media-generated reality’ is not a homogeneous entity …The extent to which that media-generated reality is opposed or opposite to an individual's personal beliefs depends rather a lot on the individual.
But these quibbles are not the main focus of my response.
Erik, as is often the case, your thoughtful and insightful response is appreciated. (Of course, there are exceptions to my appreciation of your responses. This is particularly true in those instances when you apply the famous Kowal choke hold to my throat, all the while demanding that I say, “Uncle”, or be asphyxiated.)
Your ability to endow even your quibbles with a profound gravitas and validity, equal to your "main" focus, is a source of inspiration for me. I would prefer to contemplate at length, a single quibble (or quip) of yours, rather than think twice about the multiple main "fauxcuses" of certain other writers. Moreover, the significance of the "main focus" is highly over-rated. In time and with the inevitable development of a language of wholeness and not fragmentation, we may come to view the quibble as linguistics’ quanta
As evidenced by your opening assertion, which has been placed in bold text, followed by your quibbles, your comments are interpretations of individual experiences languaged
as manifestations of your personal beliefs. My quibbles, compared to the substantial weightiness of yours, are diaphanous and ethereal; nonetheless, I will assert them, because I believe them and consequently they generate my experiences. Here are my quibbles:
Our entire physical environment is the materialization of our beliefs. Our sense of joy, sorrow, health, or illness - all of these are caused by our beliefs. Our beliefs form our reality, our body and its condition, our personal relationships, our environment, and en masse our civilization and world. If none of our beliefs, not just our “fortunate” ones, were materialized, we would never understand on a physical level that our ideas create reality. The conscious mind is meant to direct the flow of our experience through our beliefs. They group through attraction, building up areas of events and circumstances that finally coalesce, so to speak, in matter either as objects - or as events in "time". We make our own reality. There is no other rule.
I believe my quibbles, just like yours, are both broadly and exclusively correct.
As for your main focus, which bears repeating,..:
Rather, my purpose is to posit that this variable individual experience also to a large extent both influences and is influenced by our perceptions of the multiple denotations and connotations of words that Phil White referred to in the ‘Confusables’ thread
The only reason we can communicate at all is because, like Venn diagrams, the areas and clusters in semantic space that the word "table" occupies for me overlap with the areas and clusters that it occupies for you. The areas which do not overlap vary between each pair of speakers and provide the space for potential misunderstanding. We agree on the meaning of a word at the intersection of my sets of connotations/denotations with your sets of connotations/denotations (to stick with the Venn diagram analogy).
…it would appear that you and Phil White share at least one belief that is a media generated reality.
That said, I would now state my “main” focus. My purpose is to posit that there is no such thing as, “the only reason we can communicate at all”. We can communicate because there is no reason that truly prevents it. The Venn diagram is at most, a poor analogy for human communication, which comprises far more then language. Our beliefs generate and frame our language. It is not "the intersection of my sets of connotations/denotations with your sets of connotations/denotations", which allows us to agree on the meaning of a word. We are agreeing on meaning when providing or provided with evidence supporting our believing.
The "verbing" of language is what occurs when we attempt to talk about interpretations of our individual experiences while manifesting our beliefs. We are always believing and experiencing. Beliefs are reality-generating verbs. Of course, this is only I, believing what is nothing, is.
Side Quibble: Your beliefs about yourself will automatically attract thoughts that are consistent with your ideas.
In regards to the topic of photographic faking that kicked off this thread, on July 23, and in respect to your highly appreciated quibbles and acceptable "main" focus; the following excerpt from a research paper by Michael Shapiro, published in the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media
, is submitted. If anyone is inclined to read the entire article, we would more then welcome your comments and observations (posted at your convenience, of course).
Media dependency theory predicts that mass media influence on a person's conception of social reality will decrease when a person has personal experience with a phenomenon (Ball-Rokeach & DeFleur, 1976). Although much of the research in media dependency focuses on how the interdependencies between the media and other social systems shape audience relationships with the media (De Fleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1982), the theory also suggests that during individual mental processing people often lack information, which creates ambiguity (Ball-Rokeach & DeFleur, 1976; DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989). The mass media are influential to the extent that they are able to provide information that resolves this ambiguity.
Perry (1987) argues that a person is less likely to be media dependent when he or she is presented with information about familiar situations than with information about unfamiliar ones because the person lacks experience with the unfamiliar.
FindArticles - Media dependency and perceived reality of fiction and news
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Dec, 2004, by Michael A. Shapiro,
T. Makana Chock