I think that one of the concepts that I am most interested in is the decisions people make about what to say when they talk to each other. The readings I have done for Parasites so far have made me think about how more often people go beyond simple thinking. Say you think of the act of speaking to people as a game, where you plan your moves to have a good conversation as you go and to keep a forward progression going (avoiding awkward silences). Then what you say is not based on answering what they have said, it is about finding the best way to communicate what you mean in a way that shows your intended relationship with the person, continues the conversation, etc. Another level of thought I had recently was how people bring up a lot of similar topics (the most basic being what classes do you have, what is your major, etc.) and how if enough people talk about the same things there starts being a metagame of knowing when and how to bring up these topics to everyone can relate. An example is the phrase "We need to talk" which if said seriously first makes me think "Oh shit!" then makes me automatically start thinking about ways to explain myself or plan a strategy to communicate with someone not happy with me. The result of this kind of thinking is a parasite which infects people to have "safe" words or terms that immediately form a familiar context.
The question comes to mind, why have this more complicated system of expression when the whole idea of being an individual is to be yourself as much as possible to attract people who are similar? Well, this is true but because of how expansive language is there are many different ways to put sentences together to reveal some of the speakers individuality, sometimes more then the message itself. Slang is an example (and also a parasite), giving other people an idea of what you are like even if you are barely saying anything at all, after all how much you care about grammer or swearing is important.
In the reading by Austin, he discusses how philosophers and grammarians know that the definition of a statement or question is difficult to see if thought about conciously. This made me think about how easily the brain can interpret and judge people by very small acts or phrasing on their part, and how little we think about the process itself (like how few understand the internet or computers only more personal).
What came to mind when I thought of the most awkward person ever oblivious to this logic I thought of this:
(although having a talking cat would be pretty awesome).
One way conversations work is that people reveal what they think of themselves or what they think of others by using words like "I" or "You" to preface their comments and show that they are trying to connect (like we discussed in class). However what matters is what they choose first, and this is where the aforementioned parasites come in. Have you ever known people who were such good friends that they could communicate almost entirely with inside jokes? This is an example of as you get to know someone the parasite gets deeper into your understanding of hubs of thought to branch off of in conversation becomes clearer. My closest friends and I can almost speak entirely in quotes from youtube videos, movies, tv shows, etc. because we understand the context that each others lives have. In essence, our words become more valuable and meaningful because we can see the process in which they are formed, which is perhaps the level of understanding that "I" or "You" really aspire for: knowing someone well enough to understand how their brain processes information and filters it through their context or place in life.
Different means of communication also serve different purposes of expression, as it is easier to express other interests or ideas through different means. When it comes to facebook, plurk, twitter, etc. you can talk about things that come into your head that would not normally come up in conversation, or you can show people stuff that would not make sense if you just mentioned it to them.
For example try explaining this video to someone in a normal conversation without sounding crazy:
Words that go out on facebook or the internet in general are different then talking to someone , it is almost as if you are speaking to an entity with no visible reactions whatsoever, and most of the comments you get are going to be good (though not as personal as speaking). This begs the question if you make a post, and nobody comments on it, did it really exist? After all you already knew or believed what you said and if no one else noticed then it never made an impact so its existance is negligable. However, you still do not know if anyone looked at it, or in other words how much communication took place in general, for example say I post this link:
If human curiosity is what it is then that means most people who read this will open it , but I do not know what kind of impact it will have. Maybe someone will spend the rest of the day exploring ytmnd.com or maybe they will not enjoy it and learn to avoid it, either way I was not witness to their thought process so I will never know unless I am told. This relationship between poster and commentor allows people to connect to each others similar ideas and learn what they do or do not like. This goes back to the beginning of the blog (oh so long ago) where it gives a parasite that can be used to discuss things later.
First blog done!.....I'm gonna go Plurk now
-Sam out
Cool blog bro.
ReplyDeleteI guess its up to your viewers, who have the potential to post a comment, to decide whether or not your blogs exist. ;D