The answer to the communication puzzle is a two-way dialogue.
The answer to the constant need for aggregation and collation is to just write words down, but the act of fixing them with a formulated phrase causes them to change, to morph.
That is not what I meant; that is not what I meant at all.
“If I look back, I am lost” said the Queen of Editors, as she stepped forward into the narrative.
Consider the communication puzzle. One brain comes up with thoughts
I don’t remember where I first saw the picture. My mind says vaguely that it was from the assigned Saussure reading that James gave me, but that doesn’t sound right. The only pictures that I can find for this are for encoding / decoding schema for computer science problems / linguistic problems.
I look again, trying to fact check, to prove my assertions right. It turns out that it is from media studies
Titled ‘Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse’, Hall’s essay offers a theoretical approach of how media messages are produced, disseminated, and interpreted
“If I look back, I am lost”, she says, starting again with her half finished sentence.
Consider the communication puzzle. One brain comes up with thoughts and turns it into words. It is transferred through a medium to some receiver that then turns it into their own thoughts. The puzzle is how does one brain ever communicate to another with any sort of semblance of the original message?
(she feels a bit silly – using the mathematical construction of “Consider the Following” and using her poor, half-remembered, hella un-certified-by-the-CMS-department-of-MIT words to describe some idea that was apparently developed in 1970s)
The better (read: less pretentious) answer to Hofstadter’s “Strange Loop” puzzle is that “everyone is a very well-described self-parody”
(she thinks that she should probably read the Wikipedia article and saves it for later)
(she refuses to read it now because she is trying to break the habit of aggregation / collation)
“A blog post used to not be something formal to publish. It was just a collection of words that you put out there for anyone to read”
“Thoughts like clouds – they swirl inside me wanting to get out, and so I will write them out”
(watch her steal others’ words without citation. as if she had an original thought of her own)
The problem with that answer to the communication dialogue is that we are usually never given another chance to write the words, to make the right write. A speech, once given, can not be taken back. The text can be picked apart to shreds, subjected to analysis before the original author can even say “But”
(she runs out of steam, the form of clouds used to power our military-industrial-engineering-video-game complex)
(she once wondered, at the first humanities conference she ever went to, why the presenters just read off the page, not so much presenting as reciting, not so much a talk but a poetry recital)
Is this a prose poem?
He gave her a grand unified theory – linking her interests: her interest in duration and violence across media, her interest in humanity as an anti-entropy fighting machine that relentlessly collated and aggregated and yearned for connections in the data, her interest in narratives about narratives, stories about the power of belief in stories, her interest in interactivity and video games and more.
It was a beautiful theory – starting from the narrative of the eternal struggle between entropy and literally everything else, moving to the desire of humans to form a narrative of their actions, culminating in the inevitable clash between new and old forms of media, of stories of belief, and of the inherent violence that comes about of the impossibility of being able to stretch out the duration of that moment for long enough.
She’s still chewing it over