Talking is an interaction.
This is an interaction :
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction
Interaction is a kind of action that occurs as two or more objects have an effect upon one another. The idea of a two-way effect is essential in the concept of interaction, as opposed to a one-way causal effect. A closely related term is interconnectivity, which deals with the interactions of interactions within systems: combinations of many simple interactions can lead to surprising emergent phenomena. Interaction has different tailored meanings in various sciences.
Casual examples of interaction outside of science include:
communication of any sort, for example two or more people talking to each other, or communication among groups, organizations, nations or states: trade, migration, foreign relations, transportation,
the feedback during the operation of machines such as a computer or tool, for example the interaction between a driver and the position of his or her car on the road: by steering the driver influences this position, by observation this information returns to the driver.
The fact is, we are all able to interact with ourselves, on our own, without going crazy;
For example, an author who is writing a book will imagine characters of that book talking to each other.
Think about this :
When a reader is reading that book, he is reading and perceiving :
1. the author
2. the two characters the author created who interact
3. the background story
1. is usually forgotten after a few pages because it’s fiction and the author “doesn’t matter” to the story.
2. the interaction between the two imaginary characters in the story can lead to surprising emergent phenomena
3. is actually part of what that interaction “is” because what the two characters say to each other, as the reader perceives it, also depends on the background story.
Point :
When two people talk to each other and are on the same “wave length” (that’s an expression which means they understand each other).
Said two people can include in the interaction the communication itself, the wave length itself.
ie : when I write you an email and you reply by email, we can both talk about the email itself rather than “I” or “you”
That email provides an objective reference which can allow the two “talking” points merge into one (conceptually).
In “reality” they never do, but it’s possible. Anyway, regardless :
Once two talking people have an objective reference and talk about that reference, they can not and do not “oppose” each other.
When person A opposes something, that gets reflected back at him immediately to himself by himself because of the “mirror” effect of that objective reference.
Same thing for person B.
Which means that the result of that interaction no longer can oppose either A or B unless of course, that “email”, that “objective reference” is one that opposes either one of them.
Here’s the “magic” :
When two people agree to talk about the objective reference alone, even if that objective reference contains qualities that any of the subject can identify (and therefore would feel that if “what is said” in the email is opposing to what “he is”, it would oppose them)
IE : when two people agree to talk about the objective reference alone, without taking into account any sort of subjective presence which could exist in the email which would reflect the “opposing” forces back
They create a new relationship.
The “interaction” is still existing between person A and B, but both A and B and the interaction between them is also tied to the point of reference (the email).
Which (figuratively speaking) creates a new dimension which each person may or may not be aware of and that can also be referenced objectively and talked about.
In such a way, by partially seperating subjective existence and objective existence but not entirely and then sharing two different subjectivities, it is possible to “create” a new subjective existence and a new “abstract object”;
Where “existence” is not defined as a “thing” but is the actual none reflexive state of any entity.
Because when both address that email rather than each other, they are both addressing the same thing.
A thing which did not exist before they started talking and will not remain unless they are aware of it, which can be proven and demonstrated to each other so that they realise it by the very realisation that when they are talking “about” something, they are talking “about” that thing rather than each other.
In society, in order to achieve this, the “personal” (subjective) attributes of whatever “thing” is being discussed need to be ignored from that thing so that that thing can be “seen” and/or “perceived” and then addressed by each agent.
If not, this creates “disorder” in the interaction.
Said creation of disorder which is not caused either by agent A or agent B, but by the “fact” that they are not talking about the “same thing”.
In simple words :
When two people connect, but not perfectly, this creates disorder.
In the case when the two people do not oppose each other, that’s not a problem. But in the case that they do (as polar opposites for example, in a magnetic field), it is, and whether they are able, physically, to remain connected depends on different variables
1. force : which must necessarily be stronger than the force of each person, which “forces” them
2. a 3rd objective reference from which, if both people are intelligent, all subjective properties can be ignored.
3. lots and lots of other variables, some of which we are aware of others which we are not and some which only “may be possible” and we aren’t even aware that they may be possible
So just imagine, for a moment, as a fiction, that you are a prism and so am I.
When light comes through a prism and that prism wants to communicate it to you, that prism needs to be on the same wavelength as you.
A. Depending on the nature of that prism, the light could be broken up into colours
B. Depending on the nature of that prism, the light could be blocked
C. In order to communicate and create an interaction between the prism and the light and you, depending on your nature, “you” need to be on the same wavelength OR a 3rd objective reference point is required for you to focus on.
Like a mirror, like a song, like a movie, like something which represents that light without representing the prism that I am so that any part of what I am which you oppose is ignored and at least the rest can be interacted with.
When two prisms interact with such an object rather than interacting directly with themselves, what happens?
The light in question shines right back on them in a different way.
The light in question also shines on other things in other directions which can be “perceived” by other “prisms” (so to speak).
Here is a 2 dimensional example or “illustration” :
Here is a multi dimensional example that contains 2 multi dimensional examples, each of which AND all of which can itself be used as an objective reference in the case that “someone” is reading what “I wrote. (where “each” and “all” etc depends on what YOU (the reader) focus on)
That relationship, between YOU (the reader) ME (the author of a fiction book or post on a blog) and what I have posted :
is something which we can both conceptualise and use as an objective reference point as a whole even though it contains random (relatively) factors which neither I or you are aware of.
For example, the advertisements that may “appear” when you watch the video which are independent from this relationship.
So what the hell is stopping us? Let’s just do it shall we?
Site Title 