Does this image suitably convey a point about Asperger's?

[Immediacracy]

[modbreak] This topic has been split from the People with Asperger's less likely to see purpose behind life events thread.[/modbreak]

So I see a gradient:

No teliological thinking -- Antiteliological thinking -- Teliological thinking -- Extreme teliological thinking
Humans with Asperger's        Atheist Humans           Religious humans        Schizophrenics

              ?                     rational and practical      somewhat irrational        totally irrational           

Hmm, a gradient from extreme subjective teleology to extreme objective teleonomy. Why does that sound familiar

For the ?, I would suggest 'pseudoskeptical', reactionary, mechanistic, or robotic.

[Azdgari]

Someone thinks too highly of his own artwork.

[Immediacracy]

Someone thinks too highly of his own artwork.

I'm no artist, I'm just trying to provide an image which I think relates to the discussion. If you have a better map which integrates subjectivity-teleology-essence and objectivity-teleonomy-existence, I'd be happy to use that instead.

[Azdgari]

The problem isn't that your artwork is too poor, Immediacracy.  It's that your opinion of your "map" is so high that you think it'll overcome the unsuitability of artwork for this task at all.

[Immediacracy]

The problem isn't that your artwork is too poor, Immediacracy.  It's that your opinion of your "map" is so high that you think it'll overcome the unsuitability of artwork for this task at all.

Why should artwork be unsuitable for this task? I think it's a red herring to make your opinion (of my opinion of my opinion) seem like a fact. (Just my opinion).

[Azdgari]

A red herring would be if I was using this tangent as a premise to an argument somehow.  Know your fallacies.

Anyway, my opinion is based on the following reasoning:  Your collage has so far failed to express to your audience the meaning you had intended it to express, for whatever reason.  That you keep on trying to use it for that task indicates that you think the root problem with this lack of successful communication resides with the audience, rather than with the method you're using.  Which implies - in my opinion - an unreasonably high opinion of the work in question.  That, or an unreasonably low opinion of the audience.

[Immediacracy]

A red herring would be if I was using this tangent as a premise to an argument somehow.  Know your fallacies.

Anyway, my opinion is based on the following reasoning:  Your collage has so far failed to express to your audience the meaning you had intended it to express, for whatever reason.  That you keep on trying to use it for that task indicates that you think the root problem with this lack of successful communication resides with the audience, rather than with the method you're using.  Which implies - in my opinion - an unreasonably high opinion of the work in question.  That, or an unreasonably low opinion of the audience.

This would only be true if the audience consisted of just you. I'm not sure if there are other people on that thread who might feel differently, so, seeing as how the 'gradient' being discussed is very similar, I see no reason not to have brought it up.

Even if I was sure that nobody on Earth can get anything out of that collage now, I would still post it in case someone finds themselves more open to a different perspective at a later time. The collage has not failed to express anything to my audience. On the contrary, the collage has expressed some very interesting details to me which I had not anticipated. I am the primary audience. I encourage others to share that, but if they don't, I'm neither surprised nor disappointed.

[Azdgari]

This would only be true if the audience consisted of just you. I'm not sure if there are other people on that thread who might feel differently, so, seeing as how the 'gradient' being discussed is very similar, I see no reason not to have brought it up.

I am also going off of Graybeard's commentary.  A small sample size, to be sure, but no poll has been done.  The reason I brought it up is that you have been pushing these images as if they are helping, and I see no reason to suggest that they are.  And there is some small evidence to suggest the opposite.  This isn't to say that your images aren't reaching anyone.  But that was not my conclusion anyway.  My conclusion was that you have automatically assumed that they are.

Even if I was sure that nobody on Earth can get anything out of that collage now, I would still post it in case someone finds themselves more open to a different perspective at a later time. The collage has not failed to express anything to my audience. On the contrary, the collage has expressed some very interesting details to me which I had not anticipated. I am the primary audience. I encourage others to share that, but if they don't, I'm neither surprised nor disappointed.

This is what I'm talking about, Immediacracy.  Of course it's expressing something to you.  The meaning they're expressing is your own - you're the one who composed the collage!  They may work splendidly as a tool to organize your own thoughts.  But they're not an apt tool for communication with the outside world.  A cryptic poem would be similar in that respect - it's an effective expression of one's own thoughts to one's self, but that doesn't mean that another person is being closed-minded if (s)he fails to decypher the same meaning from it.

The bolded text indicates exactly the problem I'd highlighted earlier:  You assume that the flaw lies with your audience, rather than with your chosen tool of communication.  If communication fails to occur, then the fault is assumed apriori to lie with the audience[1], rather than with the artwork's suitability as a tool for that communication.

1.	By "the audience", on this forum, I am always referring to individuals other than the author of a post.  If the author of the post was the only intended "audience" of a post, then the post doesn't belong on a public forum.

[Immediacracy]

...but that doesn't mean that another person is being closed-minded if (s)he fails to decypher the same meaning from it.

I agree, but you are being closed-minded if you presume that your opinion that nobody else will want to or be able to decipher something meaningful out of it is an objective fact rather than your own bias. That's more or less the definition of closed minded.

The bolded text indicates exactly the problem I'd highlighted earlier:  You assume that the flaw lies with your audience, rather than with your chosen tool of communication. 

You assume that I make that assumption. I don't see a flaw at all, in either audience or communication.

If communication fails to occur, then the fault is assumed apriori to lie with the audience

To me, there is no failure, and there is no fault. Trying to communicate the structure of consciousness (through consciousness) has always been a tricky business, which is why hermetic/alchemical explorations have always been notoriously impenetrable. There is no flaw. If people are ready to get it, then they do. If not, that's ok too. Maybe seeing it will trigger a future memory which will help them put things together. That's how it happened for me...

[1], rather than with the artwork's suitability as a tool for that communication.

1.	By "the audience", on this forum, I am always referring to individuals other than the author of a post.  If the author of the post was the only intended "audience" of a post, then the post doesn't belong on a public forum.

There is no way to determine whether there is an audience for art unless you communicate it in public. If artists let their idea of their audience determine the content of their art, there would only be commercial design.

[Azdgari]

I agree, but you are being closed-minded if you presume that your opinion that nobody else will want to or be able to decipher something meaningful out of it is an objective fact rather than your own bias. That's more or less the definition of closed minded.

I can only go by what I see, and what others have said.  I could be wrong, but unless I am given some reason to think that I am, it will be reasonable to operate as if I am not.

You assume that I make that assumption. I don't see a flaw at all, in either audience or communication.

If you attempt to communicate something, and that communication fails, then that failure was the result of something.  That is the "flaw" to which I refer.  If there was no flaw anywhere in the system of communication - no flaw in the message, in the medium, in the audience's attitude, in the audience's mental capabilities, in the "syntax" used, etc. - then communication would succeed, by definition.  If it does not, then there is a flaw.

If your collage is not meant to communicate anything, then there is no flaw, and also no purpose to posting it to an online forum (except perhaps for some non-communication goals, such as ego-stroking).

To me, there is no failure, and there is no fault. Trying to communicate the structure of consciousness (through consciousness) has always been a tricky business, which is why hermetic/alchemical explorations have always been notoriously impenetrable.

You contradict yourself.  "There is no failure" ... "it's tricky business" ... "notoriously impenetrable".  Well, what is it?  If it's not failing, then why appeal to the tricky nature of the business, Immediacracy?  The second sentence of this quote explains why "communicating the structure of consciousness" fails so often.  Very well, but why also state that there's no failure?  That's disingenuous.

There is no flaw. If people are ready to get it, then they do. If not, that's ok too. Maybe seeing it will trigger a future memory which will help them put things together. That's how it happened for me...

Again:  The message here is that if you don't undertand (or "get it"), then the fault (i.e., the reason why you didn't "get it") is that you "aren't ready" (a personal flaw, in this context, since it leads to failure of communication).  The fault couldn't possibly lie with the medium, right?  You have concluded apriori that it cannot.

There is no way to determine whether there is an audience for art unless you communicate it in public. If artists let their idea of their audience determine the content of their art, there would only be commercial design.

That's an interesting perspective, if you consider your posts to be "art".  Should everyone stop operating on the assumption that you are attempting to communicate with anyone?  Should they seriously consider - as I do - that you are not genuinely attempting to communicate?

[Immediacracy]

I can only go by what I see, and what others have said.  I could be wrong, but unless I am given some reason to think that I am, it will be reasonable to operate as if I am not.

I get PM's from people who actually do get it, and thank me for hanging in there.

If you attempt to communicate something, and that communication fails, then that failure was the result of something.

 
It fails for you, but not for others. Not everyone gets calculus or Black Metal. People have different areas of interest and preferences of communication.

That is the "flaw" to which I refer.  If there was no flaw anywhere in the system of communication - no flaw in the message, in the medium, in the audience's attitude, in the audience's mental capabilities, in the "syntax" used, etc. - then communication would succeed, by definition.  If it does not, then there is a flaw.

Your definition of communication is one dimensional then. Mine is not.

If your collage is not meant to communicate anything, then there is no flaw, and also no purpose to posting it to an online forum (except perhaps for some non-communication goals, such as ego-stroking).

That's not for anyone except me to say.

You contradict yourself.  "There is no failure" ... "it's tricky business" ... "notoriously impenetrable".  Well, what is it?  If it's not failing, then why appeal to the tricky nature of the business, Immediacracy?  The second sentence of this quote explains why "communicating the structure of consciousness" fails so often.  Very well, but why also state that there's no failure?  That's disingenuous.

There's no failure because it's the best that can be done under the circumstances. If you can find a more successful graphic representation of this continuum, then I welcome the chance to use that instead. I'm not being disingenuous or contradictory, I'm just saying that if you translate an esoteric set of concepts into a single image, then not everyone is going to get that image without doing some work.

Again:  The message here is that if you don't undertand (or "get it"), then the fault (i.e., the reason why you didn't "get it") is that you "aren't ready" (a personal flaw, in this context, since it leads to failure of communication).  The fault couldn't possibly lie with the medium, right?  You have concluded apriori that it cannot.

Fault is not an issue to me. A classical pianist may not be able to get much out of architectural blueprints, but that's not a flaw or someone's fault.

That's an interesting perspective, if you consider your posts to be "art".  Should everyone stop operating on the assumption that you are attempting to communicate with anyone?  Should they seriously consider - as I do - that you are not genuinely attempting to communicate?

I don't spend much time thinking about what other people's assumptions should be. I tend not to try to tell people about their own opinions of their own ideas, or instruct total strangers on how to communicate. Consider my posts whatever you like.

[Aerial]

Shit now I have to look up teleonomy and teleology...

Could you explain what the artwork means to you immediacracy?
Is it about people seeing the basic elements that make things work, or what they are made from...as opposed to seeing things and interpreting subjectively?

[Aerial]

Teleonomy...life and workings without a meaning or purpose?
Teleology...life and workings with a God or engineer...purpose?

I learned sommin today. 

[Immediacracy]

s**t now I have to look up teleonomy and teleology...

Both are annoyingly abstract words to me, and I generally don't like when I see people use them. Unfortunately, together they make a really specific compare-contrast that's hard to get to otherwise. Teleology puts things in order, teleonomy describes the de facto process of things seeming to be put in order, but are actually the consequence of other layers of unrelated order, or randomness. Consciousness vs evolution.

Could you explain what the artwork means to you immediacracy?
Is it about people seeing the basic elements that make things work, or what they are made from...as opposed to seeing things and interpreting subjectively?

Sure. The artwork was to help make what I was trying to say on this thread more tangible. It's about the range of possible ways that people tend to see/feel/understand/experience everything and how that range corresponds to the degree of exteriority or interiority between the observer and the observed. We perceive those phenomena which appear to be 'deep inside ourselves' to be intangible but meaningful (or nonsense) while those phenomena which appear physically distant or on a very different scale from our own bodies can be characterized as being governed by 'hard facts' - concrete evidence which seems independent from introspective meaning.

The continuum depicted is multivalent (another annoying word requiring definition: having having many values, meanings, or appeals). There are a lot of symmetries represented - interior/exterior. spiritual/material, creative imagination/empirical judgment, top down/bottom up, free will/automation, delusional mania/autistic depersonalization, teleology/teleonomy, etc.

If you want more of this kind of pretentiousness: ACME-OMM Composition Explicated, Part I

ACME-OMM Composition Explicated, Part II

Part III: Left panel

Here's the Expanded Composition, which goes further off the deep end in both directions. Feel free to ask me any questions...

[Emergence]

Ever tried to do a circular map? Like the liner mapping of colors misses an important aspect of visual color perception compared to the color circle, i think that your linear acme-omm map also misses something and that would be - as in the color circle - the 'subjectively perceived' relative proximity to the extreme end of the 'objectively perceptible' spectrum.

In my imagination what you are trying to say should look more like this to reflect my personal interpretation of the map(please excuse my use and restructuring of your original):

[Immediacracy]

Ever tried to do a circular map? Like the liner mapping of colors misses an important aspect of visual color perception compared to the color circle, i think that your linear acme-omm map also misses something and that would be - as in the color circle - the 'subjectively perceived' relative proximity to the extreme end of the 'objectively perceptible' spectrum.

In my imagination what you are trying to say should look more like this to reflect my personal interpretation of the map(please excuse my use and restructuring of your original):

Yeah, excellent observation. I've avoided bringing up the wrap-around aspect here, because it's probably the most far-out implication of the cosmology, very new agey territory, sort of SuperAdamic<=>SubAtomic (I can almost hear the groans, haha). I haven't looked at it graphically before though, so thanks. I like the effects on the bottom that bring together the Earth's curve with the curve of the eyelid - very cool. I suppose it could wrap from the top too or wrap both as a globe.

EDIT: Some interesting new stuff in there from this projection. The two symmetrical spectra - one solar/optical/fiery 'black body' looking and the other cold, ideal and electronically generated. Sun vs star. Warmth vs Electromagnetism.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law predicts intensity output across varying wavelengths as a function of temperature. It describes the "ideal" blackbody radiator. Our Sun is an example of a "real" blackbody radiator. It's spectrum isn't as smooth as the "ideal" and is pitted and bumpy due to real-world conditions (including, but not limited to, absorption of the radiation en route to the earth).

source

Further out on that same ray, the fused cat mirrors the fused particles..contrasting the associative properties (like double meanings) of the mind's network with the associative bonds among particles which precipitate emergent properties. On the adjacent rays, there's an eros vs thanatos theme with the dead trees and skeleton on the bottom and generative themes on the top.

EDIT: Noticing some common motifs -

here's a set of both polars: