Archive for September 2nd, 2009

I was once told by a blogger that they could tell a shift in my mood by my writing.  This was my “regular” writing, not anything where I was severely affected by an outside stimulus or distressed in any way.

Last night, someone told me via email that they thought it was very interesting how I perceived the world (and the people in it.)  I was very intrigued by this, so I asked for some examples.  The person could not give me any, but simply said, it was by the way I communicated.  Still intrigued, I offered some examples, posed as questions.  It didn’t exactly get me that far.

Finally, it was somehow settled that there seemed to be a fair amount of me being “literal,” “logical,” and “analytical.”  However, I refused to dismiss other points regarding myself that I felt difficult to define.  Somehow, my parameters were off? *

This exchange has made me ponder some things.  We “perceive” (not observe), the world through our senses.  Observation comes later, I believe, as it is a somewhat higher level of cognition.  We need to first have a perception of something before we can make an observation about it.  An observation is more like a formed thought–or at least a kernel or beginning of one.

So, it has been “observed” how interesting PA observes the world.  This person has made their statement based upon their own observation.  Their observation is how PA communicates.  Communication is a much higher order function than an observation.

Further, this person only knows me online.  Therefore, they only know my “communication” through my writing.  I mentioned that takes a great level of linguistic acuity and proficiency in its own right.  That would be the only way for this person to garner their observation of how I see the world, and why they find it interesting.

What if I met this person? What if they found out I was mute and could not speak.  What if I could not communicate in any way at all, yet I still could perceive and observe.  Would my observations still be as interesting? Would they be of any distinctive value if I could not express them?

Because here is where things can get more complicated.  We have someone making an observation about my observations.  Also, it is reciprocal.  I have observed their observations, as well–the observation being returned is irrelevant–only that it exists is of importance.

Again, this is where I think higher order functions need to come into the picture and have a role to play.  That higher order function specifically being communication.  Yet, how exactly will communication play a role? Is it enough to make sense of what may seem like an almost circular process as above? Human communication is still extremely prone to misunderstandings, even in all of its forms: body language, written, verbal etc…

* I think all we can hope for at this point, is to still keep exercising our higher order functions of communication.  Keep flexing them like muscles in our bodies until we get the best results possible.