Overaccumulation of images

[eMTe]

When I was doing my Cracow guide courses I was deeply moved by words of one of teachers. Weve been standing in front of Wawel Cathedral and he tried to trigger our imagination. Imagine the medieval peasant, he said, who lives his whole life in forest village, he cant write, he cant read, he cant draw, he cant think in abstract way, all he knows is simple everyday, sometimes cruel life: hunting, collecting herbs, making kids, visits of bandits or state tax collectors. Then, some day, he, for some reason must visit town and he travels for a couple of days, gets near and sees the castle, gets even nearer and sees the white eagle near top of the Cathedral tower and this is probably the first time he sees something so deeply monumental. It's easy to transfer your emotions now to peasant, but he probably feels nothing more than mixture of pride and fear from King's power, but anyway, that's some kind of emotion. Maybe it's the first time he sees the masonry. Maybe first time he sees the drawing of any kind. Try to imagine that. Almost impossible.

One of Polish poets and his name is not important here coined a great term, hard for me to translate and I couldnt find the faithful translation in web - "neverending ceremonial amazement". That's my direct translation, but somehow it doesnt sound good for me. Ceremonial or elevated maybe, I lack the vocabulary. He depicts the human mind's state not killed by routine, always free, always ready to experience something pretty or touching, even if it's obvious like smell of grass when you lie on the meadow. Internet almost kills it, because it gives you everything on demand. Almost, because you cant smell the grass. But you can see New York f.e. if you never been there and almost "feel" how it's like. You can watch youtube video of people playing with their labrador - you dont have one, but youre "deeply" touched how "great" these dogs are and you suddenly want the cute puppy. You watch the video of Afghan kids being killed by talibs when walking innocently to their school (yep, there's video on yt and it's hard to watch, really) and you feel sudden urge to kill all those bastards who make harm to others. It's all about images and emotions, but images may sometimes be fake or simply selective and emotions exaggerated. You know, nothing you see is original and all the cutiness and atrocities you see have been occuring for ages. During the time youve spent to read my post some teenager lied on the grass with a girl and made his first kiss, some kid in Sudan just cut his first hand of enemy "pow", somebody just bought his first labrador puppy. I mix atrocities and pleasant emotions for purpose. Internet gives you all that in a minute. You see teenage girl stoned to death in Middle East and, most likely terrified, you switch to something lighter like card-throwing by Rick Smith Jr., the guy who cuts a banana with ordinary playing card. This is internet. You switch between images in a second, but are they real? In terms of emotions.

[Scythe]

Well, you can't deny emotional responses, but you should maybe examine their causes. When you've been out there, stood in the vastness of a great, silent nature, experienced "true widescreen", senses overwhelmed, wind rustling your hair, new details to be picked out every second you stand there... it cannot be replicated. I can be amazed and awed by photos, by descriptions, it can sometimes feel like an approximation of reality, but it's the imagination filling in all the blanks. Not really anywhere close to the actual experience. Especially for situations which you have not actually ever experienced for yourself. Now the imagination doesn't just "fill in the blanks", it invents those blanks for you from your own life experiences, gives you a false facsimile approximation of what it would be like. Depending on your imagination, your mind tries to fool you into being in that moment and that will probably elicit an emotional response. Of course, the opposite is also a possibility - your mind can't really compensate for the lack of information to your senses, or lack of similar experiences, and you're left untouched by even the most touching or vilest of sceneries.

Reproductions are not yet in a state where they're a substitute for going out there and experiencing the world in all its beauty and ugliness for yourself. And the internet is not even close to a substitute, unless perhaps the sum of your experiences is pure routine.

All IMO obviously.

[Chroelle]

The idea might also be to look into responses of people in other life-situations than yourself. Would an Afghan kid threatened on her way to school be as awed as you would by a video of a kid with her new labradorpuppy, would a kid with a labradorpuppy have the same emotion when she watched another kid with a labrador on Youtube? How would a Taleban terrorist view the video of his fellows killing a kid on her way to school? How would the Sudaneese kid watch the video of Telban killings - would he be able to draw comparisons, or would he feel like you? What would his feelings be towards watching a western european kid getting a puppy...
How would we react if cheery music was put on the video of Telban shootings? Would it change things? Emotional response is bound by so many factors that it is hard to say what to expect, and as such the internet gives you lots of diffent facets that you would not experience otherwise. However nothing beats seeing things for yourself. I reckon that I would be appaled for half an hour after watching the Taleban video, and then move on to soemthing else while I would be appaled for life did I see it myself, and I would propably do something about it.

[Pater Alf]

I think you are talking about integral perception (don't know if it the right term in english), a thing that can't be replaced by pure visual perception that the internet offers. On the net you might be able to see things (and maybe even hear them), but as long as you can't comprise them with your other senses (smell them, taste them, feel them) you won't have an understanding what the things really like.

BTW: Lack of integral perception is one of the most important causes for certain noticeable problems young kids have nowadays. In our world that is more and more affected by technical media (like TV or computer), kids tend to get just visual or acoustical impressions instead of integral ones. Just ask around in a big city and you'll find lots of kids that know how a cow or a horse look, but never saw one for real and don't know how it smells or feels or how it reacts...

[Chroelle]

I think you are talking about integral perception

I am yes. And that at least translates correctly to Danish.

I am also talking about social heritage, and perception based on ...after 3 minutes of searching for the word... what country you are from.

Social heritage makes it easy for the farmer kid to relate to the vision of a cow, while he might very well be alot more awed by the cathedral in the big city than the citykid would. Even though they are from the same country they might also have very different reactions to the video of the puppy plus owner. However they are likely to react the same way to the Taleban shootings. An Afghan farmer supporting the Taliban might feel the same way about the catherdral as the other farmer kid, but he might not react so strongly to teh video of the Taliban shooting.

[Pater Alf]

And still he might react in a complete different way if he really would be in the situation, if he sees the real blood, hears the screams of innocent victims and feels the desperation of relatives and friends. It's hard to keep the distance once you realize that there are real people (with a real life and relationships) behind the pictures you see on youtube or on tv.

[Chroelle]

True. I used the word "might" very purposefully, as I wont assume that Afghan Taliban farmers are so inhumane that they feel killing kids is righteous... but if the warriors of Taliban does then maybe he does too... Has this goen offtopic? I am not sure.