Point of view, frame of reference

point of view or frame of reference ?
FOR in the sense of sum of assumptions/information/abilities known+considered by someone
POV in the sense of observation points, there are several inside a given FOR
for me, what I switch is the frame of reference, not the POV
(I see myself from (what I know of) the FOR of the Other, not from the POV of the Other (in my FOR))
which is of course a MUCH more massive switch than only moving to another POV inside my own FOR
like for example taking the POV of one’s dog/child but within one’s own FOR,
which explains how one can feel entitled to one’s own actions, even say “I see your interest”
that means “I see that when you fit the role I built in my FOR I treat you well”
but what is apparent is only one’s own interest within their FOR,
in this case have a low-effort dog/child that one therefore treats well –
or at most, assume two equivalent but opposed POVs within a given FOR like a soccer match ;
while changing FOR means thinking : I don’t mind this noise/taste, the Other does,
or think in the terms of the needs of a plant, for which I have no equivalent in my human body,
and even more of its room for action : grow, resist, die,
but none is a “choice” as it is defined by another being, in another FOR,
to the point that it’s hard to imagine to use the word : choice.
So coming back to the initial point,
when I pile up information about the Other
they are from their FOR, from how they perceive(d) the world,
and not where the Other is in my FOR, neither as ontology, even less as POV,
and I say : even less, because there is no logic in trying to figure out
where the Other would fit in my FOR
because they would not have done it, apart maybe as temporary mental experiment.
Still! how many comments I read are that precisely,
the frustration to have something else than elements in one’s own board game, and instead Others that act according to other schemes
or to have people, but who don’t understand how Better(tm) it would be if they acted according to the role given in someone else’s FOV,
the most visible and unavoidable consequence.

point of view or frame of reference ?
FOR nel senso di sommatoria degli assunti/dati/capacità conosciuti+considerati da un ciascuno
POV nel senso di punto di osservazione, ce ne sono vari all’interno di un FOR
for me, what I switch is the frame of reference, not the POV
(vedo me non dal POV dell’altro ma dal FOR dell’altro)
ed è evidentemente uno switch MOLTO più grande che solo spostare il POV nel proprio FOR
quindi es. prendere il POV del proprio cane/figlio ma rimanendo nel proprio FOR,
che spiega come ci si possa sentire legittimato e perfino dire “vedo il tuo interesse”
che vuol dire “vedo che se corrispondi al posto che hai nel mio FOR ti tratto bene”
mentre quel che si vede è solo il proprio interesse within il proprio FOR,
in questo caso l’avere un cane/figlio che richiede poco sforzo ed è compliant quindi trattato bene –
o al massimo assumere due POV equivalenti ma con interessi opposti in un unico FOR tipo partita di calcio ;
mentre cambiare FOR vuol dire pensare : a me questo rumore/sapore non fa problema, all’Altro sì,
o pensare nei termini dei bisogni di una pianta, per i quali non ho paragoni nel mio corpo di umano,
e ancora di più delle sue possibilità di agire : o crescere, o resistere, o morire,
ma nessuna è una “scelta” paragonabile a quella di un essere in un altro FOR,
al punto che non si può immaginare di usare la parola : scelta.
Quindi tornando al discorso iniziale,
quando accumulo informazioni sull’Altro
sono informazioni del SUO frame of reference, in che mondo-percepito vive(va) l’Altro,
non dove sta l’Altro nel MIO frame of reference, né come ontologia, né ancora meno come POV,
e dico : ancora meno, perché non ha alcun senso logico cercare di capire
dove l’Altro si sarebbe posizionato nel MIO frame of reference,
perché non lo avrebbe fatto, se non al massimo come esperimento momentaneo mentale.
Eppure! quanto i commenti che sento/leggo sono proprio questo,
e la frustrazione di non avere delle pedine nel proprio gioco ma Altri che agiscono con altri schemi
o di non avere delle persone che non capiscono che sarebbe Meglio(tm) se agissero secondo il FOV altrui,
è la conseguenza più visibile e più inevitabile.

Okazaki fragments

My random memory of the day is from university times, when we learned about DNA replication. The double helix gets unwound and each strand gets a new complementary strand. However, the copy can be done in only one direction, because nucleotides carry the necessary energy-rich bond only on one side. This means that from the initial point of unwinding, there is one strand that gets copied in a continuous manner and the other by successive small segments. Those segments are known as Okazaki fragments from the surname of the two researchers who identified them.

It made me think about how things happen in my life and in the world around me in a continuous space-timeline, while the narrative/explanation/understanding/story/summary/meaning proceeds backwards and in fragments that will be merged in a second step. The analogy ends here because the two DNA strands are of the same material and type of information stored, while ontology and narrative are fundamentally different. But it is quite evident that at least regarding the ontology I am aware of, I can’t build a narrative or any other derivative work unless I turn my back to the direction of spacetime, and having tried to do that for four decades, I can’t stand the dizziness and am very dissatisfied by the barely usable outcome.

Somehow it reminds me how I used to read crime novels, simply reading forward, not building any tentative explanation, mostly because I felt no joy in guessing something about a completely made up story that would be explained at the end anyway. I instead feel like a meteorological station sampling rain, sunshine, wind speed, cloud cover with my sensors and meticulously writing it down in chronological order for further examination – enjoying being the hand of hysteresis, leaving more durable traces of the transit of the weather.

Symbol, carrying, ontology

il simbolo, la foria, l’ontologia
il simbolo è quando il materiale di cui è fatto il simbolo non ha valore
la striscia della strada, la mostrina, il disegno, la foto, il presepe, il personaggio fittizio
la foria è il significato portato da un qualcosa che anche senza portarla ha valore, ma diverso da quello portato
il Vajont, le macchine, ciò che vedo e con cui risuono
l’ontologia è il qualcosa con il proprio valore e a prescindere da foria/risonanza
percepito dal corpo, poi verbalizzabile, ma la percezione in sè non mette in nessun presepe
quindi : (un quadrato di Punnett)
ontologia + significato = foria
niente + significato = simbolo
ontologia + niente = ontologia
niente + niente = niente
nel senso che non c’è overlap tra ciò che esiste e ciò che (mi) porta significato

the symbol, the act of carrying, the ontology
the symbol is when the substance of the symbol has no value [or far less value than what it represents]
the line painted on the road, the shoulder strap [of the uniform], the drawing, the picture, the Nativity scene, the story character
foria [the act of carrying] is meaning carried by something that has its own value, different from the value it is carrying
Vajont, the cars [the machines in general], what I witness and with which I resonate
ontology is the thing with its own value, whether carried or resonated with [,]
perceived by the body, then translatable in words, but perception in itself is not putting anything in the scene
which means : (Punnett square)
ontology + meaning = foria/carrying
nothing + meaning = symbol
ontology + nothing = ontology
nothing + nothing = nothing
in the sense that there is no overlap with what exists and what brings me meaning [the only contact between these two is through carrying]

Narrative, body

(I mean narrative as everything that is an abstract project/idea/wish/etc, body as the physical personal human body but also in an extended sense everything of the world that is not part of a discussion because it is unable to listen and to talk)

the body doesn’t participate to the narrative and all its failures to comply are completely unwilling, there is no way to involve it, it can’t follow [the narrative’s] rules and it can’t even perceive them

the distance between body and narrative is maybe at its largest for bodies not included in the narrative, and the temptation to focus on the narrative to be able to keep pace with everyone s.l. has disastrous consequences because at some point the body will crash and there is zero margin to force it to think [, to comply, to bridge a bad time, to forget needs, to postpone anything]

il corpo non partecipa alla narrativa e ogni sua inadempienza ad essa è del tutto inconsapevole, e non c’è modo di coinvolgerlo, sono regole che non può né sottoscrivere né neanche percepire

la distanza tra corpo e narrativa è forse la più grande per i corpi non previsti dalla narrativa, e la tentazione di concentrarsi sulla narrativa per stare al passo con tutti s.l. ha conseguenze disastrose perché il corpo a un dato punto cede e non c’è modo di farlo ragionare

To need, to want

the progressive loss of receiving what I need, already not covering all the needs,
replaced by me having to want to do things (assumed that I am able to cover all my needs plus some extras)
and even now, me having to figure out how to cover my needs
is systematically translated into what I want/choose/etc, assuming that the worst case is livable,
and this is the “wantification” that protects others from being involved
by claiming to protect my agency –
this is what ultimately starves me, not my disabilities and even less so my needs
ma io sono il Vajont, sono il monte Toc,
che sta su o cade non perché “vuole”
e non ha senso fare altro che capire come funziono

Mental racetrack driving

others can’t condemn driving actions to recover from drifting
the same as if they were the ones what cause drifting
(and even less, tell to keep wheels straight while the car is not)
number A because the actions are the same:
the only way to take them apart is to to check if the car is already drifting or not,
if the wheels are already pointing in the required direction or not.
others can’t make comments if they haven’t checked these two conditions first
and I’m tired of people talking before checking anything
and I’m afraid of people who has the upper hand to stop my actions without knowing if it makes things worse for me (or without caring)

which is the same as giving statistical interpretations instead of contextual,
like when I ask “what does this word mean in another language, does it mean $this?”
and the other person doesn’t know, and answers : it could be this, or that
and regardless of the accuracy of my guess, I receive only a probability ;
(same as when I ask : do you know who is the person in this picture ? and the other thinks I can only guess,
unlike the other person is sure about who it is, and it’s the trope of the drumming hand,
it’s the story of the time signature change in the last music piece of Barabàn)
I’m not interested in the initial Bayesian hypothesis,
first of all because I could build it myself,
or worse, the insinuation that Nobody Knows Anyway in some kind of quantic meaning ;
I’m interested in knowledge based on observations more precise/accurate than my own
otherwise I can as well stop asking others

non si possono punire i gesti di contrebraquage per rientrare dal drift
come se fossero i gesti che causano il drift
(né di certo dire di tenere le ruote dritte come soluzione quando la macchina è di traverso)
numero A perché sono gli stessi in assoluto :
l’unico modo di distinguerli è stabilire se si è già in drift o no,
e se le ruote sono nella direzione efficace o no.
non si può commentare se non si fanno queste due verifiche
e sono stanco della gente che parla senza averle fatte
e ho paura della gente che ha il potere di fermarmi senza sapere se stavo peggiorando le cose o no (o senza che gli importi)

che è lo stesso modo di dare interpretazioni statistiche e non contestuali,
come se chiedo “cosa vuol dire questa parola in altra lingua, vuol dire quello?”
e se non la conosce, l’altro risponde potrebbe questo o potrebbe quello
anche se la mia ipotesi è corretta ricevo solo una probabilità ;
(stessa cosa se chiedo: sai chi è in questa foto? e pensare che se io lo so, è solo una mia ipotesi,
a meno che anche l’altro sappia chi sia, ed è la storia della mano che tamburella,
è la storia del cambio di tempo a ottavi uguali dell’ultimo pezzo dei Barabàn)
non mi interessa l’ipotesi precedente bayesiana,
prima di tutto perché la posso fare anche io,
o peggio, l’insinuazione che Non Si Può Sapere in senso quantistico ;
mi interessa informazione basata su delle conoscenze maggiori delle mie
se no posso anche non chiedere più

Flotsam XXXIV – or else and fallbacks

the “or else” for the poor or for the wealthy :
being safe is having fallbacks
which can come from money (or can be obtained with money)
or invisible purchasing power / discounts like the various advantages of wealth
(having hope or taking risks is not a form of fallback, is a form of bet, because there is no usable benefit right away)
(knowing one’s needs and being able to Want are orthogonal to fallbacks and to each other, a XYZ plot)
but what hits me is that problems come from lack of fallbacks, not directly from requests
this is why people may not understand why some specific issue/task is dangerous,
when it’s not the issue but the fact that it leads to a situation of no fallback
like: spending N euros is in absolute terms not much but it’s bad if afterwards there is no money for other needs (needs, not wishes)
I suspect that it’s very obvious but it’s not mentioned that often

Flotsam XXXIII – causes or justifications

I am given justifications [in the realm of narrative/epistemology]
(the other side acted in response of something I did, but it’s not the actual cause, just the mentioned one)
and I use it to build a logic but as they are not causes, they don’t happen again
but it’s not me who misunderstood,
I was literally told “I did this because you did that”

cause e giustificazioni : mi vengono date delle giustificazioni
(l’altro ha agito in risposta a un mio qualcosa ma non è vero, lo dice solo)
e io ci ho costruito una logica che però siccome non sono cause non si ripetono
ma non sono io ad aver sbagliato a capire,
mi è stato letteralmente detto “ho agito così perché tu hai fatto questo”

Ontology, narrative

Ontology dies but the narrative kills :
by decision, by thresholds, by non-ontological power
never for its own survival, always for commerce
(ontology as things and narrative as money, which give the impression of conversion across worlds, but actually not)

l’ontologia muore ma è la narrativa a uccidere :
per decisione, per soglie, per potere non ontologico
mai per necessità propria, sempre per compravendita
(l’ontologia come cose e la narrativa come soldi, che danno l’impressione di conversione tra mondi, ma no)

Intention as colour

words written by others using various colours :
intention is conveyed through colour and not through words.
my perception of those words is a greyscale copy :
best I can do is noticing different greys, according to how light are the colours of the original ;
but 1- that doesn’t mean that “I can see colours”, I have no mapping between colors and greys, I only know that colours exist and how they work in theory
and 2- it requires me to stay at a level of attention that is much over standard visual parsing,
not to mention how far-fetched it is for me to “learn to see colours” or even “act as if I could”

When I write, I write in greyscale,
and many times I guessed that the receiver painted over my words
but it was their action, my output had none –
sometimes painting according to my greys, most of the time following an independent logic –
my greys are greys from the start, they aren’t the copy of a colourful self ;
and often when I end up not writing, it’s to save my message from additional colouring —

this is what I can do.
I ask for my words to be seen for what they are, a greyscale flow,
it doesn’t matter if the other person can also see colours,
I only ask for my words to be seen as greyscale