have a need to conclude a thought on paradoxical
logic through a sequence of diagrams from what i
propose exists today as logical bias of consideration
(including the pseudo-objectivity of the sciences) and
a proposed model for a more accurate observation
that takes into account a paradoxical state which may
exist and is required for suspension of pre-judgment.
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html
the above diagram is of a paradoxical situation as it is
set up within a biased binary system of judgment, yet
showing there is a middle- or gray-area where there
may exist 'some truth' and 'some falsity' or something
in-between truth and falsity, between - and + charge,
such as a neutral state here represented by a mirror.
if the mirror is taken out of the visual equation it more
accurately portrays the experience of 'reasoning' today,
in that with language privatized based on sex, gender,
class, ethnicity, nationality, or any of the infinite subsets
of human experience, that it juxtaposes one option as
a 'choice' versus another option, yet not on a shared or
balanced grounding-- it has to be based on one or an-
other interpretation and the judgment is, in essence, a
private reasoning which never can escape this state,
except to assume that 'the private' is 'the public' state.
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html
in this way, the mirror or neutral or suspension of judgment
disappears and things can be very simple: on or off, right
or wrong, true or false, black or white, good or evil. this is
often heralded as the greatness of 'the digital' and also is
believed superior if not also benign, the analog gray-area
exists in not-choosing but this is also not a choice, as the
choice is the thought, not the reflection upon the decision.
the truth is in choosing a side, not in the truth of its position
in relation to anything other than its own self-righteousness.
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html
in effect this is to take a paradoxical mirror-condition and
to imagine there is a full range of choice when, with the
observer is never modeled outside of the observation. in
doing so, the bias of observation, supposedly overcome
by the use of numbers (yet never escaping the privatized
psychology, the foundation of the logical bias) still keeps
questioning in a distorted realm, the observer need only
observe what they desire, and this is then reflected back.
then, the entirety of control is in that of private observers,
where the most powerful observers conclude that their
observations must also be, by default, the most accurate
as there is no ambiguity. the observer gets to decide, or
to choose, what is true and false, what is right and wrong,
what is on and off, on their own terms. i.e. this is one trap
in language that can detach itself from actual conditions
and still be assumed accurate, as it is a belief system,
and is consistent within the biased binary logic system.
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html
to approach a more accurate state of representation, the
paradox that stands in the middle of the experience and
its multiple observers would need to be recognized and
included as part of the question. -- the observers would
themselves need to be included in the observation, and
in a paradoxical state which does not decide what is to
be considered true or false, and to move onto another
question, having resolved once-and-for-all questioning,
only to have it flip-flopped by another observer in another
observation, going forward in time, without an empirical
relation between facts, large swaths of gray-area and-or
suspended judgments. that is, a contingency that does
not 'decide once and for all' and refuses to change bias
even if new information arrives or some was edited out,
thus distorted a realism to whatever idealism is at work.
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html
with the observer observed in a model of observation,
it is like watching the flipping of a coin with heads and
tails on either side of a mirror, yet the edge or mirror-
condition is a neutral area where thought takes place
and need not decide, decisively, upon only one side
yet could be similar to an analog space, infinitely wide
between 0 and 1, the false and the true, the unknown,
and to begin judgment without pre-conceptions and-or
pre-judgments which may never (be able to) transcend
the bias entrapment of ideas on one side of thinking.
the model for questioning, then, being a question mark,
and not an answer yet to be chosen, without ambiguity.
this may also relate to 'handedness' in that there is a
right-hand and left-hand, and the brain seems to also
divide functioning (yet inverts them across the brain,
to other sides of the body, it seems) as if a similar type
of mirror conditioning may be at work in some way. if
the human eyesight needs to invert the optical and
electrical signals and flip them 180 degrees to get
a heads-up view of the world, through the brain, it
may also be that the ambiguity of middle states of
experience, or questioning, or thinking and the role
of bias as possibly a natural state or condition to be
adjusted for, may be akin to an ambidextrous (both-
handed, both-sided) sense, to go beyond the limits
of taking one side of a (3+) sided condition and to
make that an expert-system, versus others who are
like professional soccer/footballer athletes whose
skills include the development of using both feet to
outperform biased handedness and abilities of a
physical limit brought about by being only able to
move a ball forward with one foot, in one direction,
to think in only one possibility, instead of not just
another way, but also a middle-option of using of
both feet (or hands) and thus able to go left, right,
and move down the middle field, if opponents are
biased (left foot only, right foot only) it would take
two if not three players, it seems, to challenge the
more agile, mentally and physically, middle-move.
for places, with complexities from private language
and psychologies, may be possible even in extreme
situations if a middle/paradoxical options is made
available- through reasoning based on the shared
needs and goals. though if it is stuck in ideological
biases, the model is only 1/3rd accurate to events,
and that would mean everyone would lose, unless
the paradox is included, then 2/3rds accuracy which
may be a maximum may be an immediate possibility.
e.g. cease-fire of suburban sprawl, say, talks on a
way to instantly pacify an extremely-opposed situation,
such as killing of wilderness by mindless furies of the
machinations of control -- to suspend judgments and
biased-reflex-- valuing fairness of truth beyond power,
to work in a neutral zone to change existing patterns,
to the 2/3rds benefit of everyone who is involved. if,
that is, it is a public realm and public participations,
else, as with biased systems, one private group can
accumulate while others may never have a choice,
bulldozing what is unique in the world for mediocrity.
brian
brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
architecture, education, electromagnetism
http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html