| Hypercommunication - Crash Courses - Second-order Systems Theory [ Hyper-Library ] [ Hyper-Lexicon ] [ back ] |
|
|
backward - Page 19 - forward |
|
In the perspective of the interpreting observer, I perceive the consensual realm of observers, i.e. the functions of the objects that appear to me as their meaning or significance. I do not perceive any pixel patterns or shape figures that I would have to interpret, but meaningful objects that I can label with terms or proper names (note 1). So I do not perceive a lot of bricks or a construction of metal beams, but for example a temple, a bridge or the Eifel Tower (note 2). |
|
|
Normally I do not speak about the objects of my perception, because - in the sense of a consensus - everyone already knows what to say anyway. If, for example, there is talk of a thermostat-controlled heating, everyone knows that it keeps the temperature more or less constant at the need of the person heating. As an interpretive observer, I actually only talk about the conditions in which the heating is used, for example about the best price or the advantages of a particular heating.
As an interpreting observer, I speak explicitly about the heating itself when I do not (yet) know what a heating is, or when it does not work, i.e. when the consensus is not given or is disturbed. In the first case, I may not understand the word "heating", or I may not know the matter, in both subcases I potentially gain new meanings.
In the second case I know what a heater is and what function it should have. Then I am interested in the way it works. I can change my observer's perspective and consider the heater as a constructive observer - or I can call a service technician who has the constructive perspective for his job.
As an interpreting observer I do not perceive systems in this terminological sense (note 3). I see systems as a constructing observer, i.e. after I have changed perspective because I am looking for an explanation or because I am interested in how they work. But of course, as an interpreting observer I also perceive the constructing observer and his systems, i.e. the possible change of perspective. I will come back to this in a moment.
|
Think about how you deal with objects whose meaning you cannot immediately recognize |
|
Examples:
|
The interpreting of the interpreting observer is natural, but it is also cultivated where, for example, works of art (even right or wrong) are "interpreted". Works of art have the meaning of being works of art. The fact that they could also stand for something else that can be interpreted shows at best that a lack of meaning is a perturbation of the self-evident fact that I perceive meanings.
|
|
backward - Page 19 - forward |