I feel like the fundamental difference between something real and something "digital" is primarily based on the objects relation to time. The real object is always changing, because time flows through it while a recording of the object is not changing. However a recording of an object isn't just incomplete interns of time dimension, but also in other aspects. For example, a folk tale transmitted orally is a real object, but assume that every teller never changes the story and recites it word for word in the same method of speaking - so it effectively is a recording. Although the story stays the same its meaning may drift over time with changes in cultural contexts. The meaning is part of the story that was not recorded although the words were effectively recorded. I'd argue that that the you could place the different types of objects shown in a 2d graph. An axis of of time modulated and an axis how much of various aspects are recorded. Time modulated and completely existing would be the "Real Objects" Fixed in time and existing in part would be "Recordings of Objects" Time modulated but only maintaining some of the aspects of the original would be "Reference of an object" Fixed in time and completely existing at both extremes doesn't exist in reality. idk thats just a random idea i had based on what you described
Yeah that's an interesting idea! I think my focus on process overlaps a bit with both time and the degree of reality, but I like how you expanded on that. The example of an oral tradition is also a really interesting case, since it's certainly not digitized, but (assuming the story remains the same) it feels almost self-referential, or preserved within a cultural/traditional container. Perhaps there's room for a category characterized by preservation of process but with a firmer boundary (my book example could also fit here).
I think books are different from music only because of technology used. Someone composing or writing music is different than a band playing that song, (in which case digitization is actually happening in reverse, like when you read a book. But, if someone else reads to you, or you are only listening to the band not playing with them, it's the same as listening to an audiobook.) When you read a book you are doing a process continually When you play a song with an instrument you are doing a process continually When you play a record, you are starting a process that continues on its own, same as asking someone to read to you or play a song to you If we consider that everything is made of parts, that your brain and eyes reading are parts doing something without your manual input and conscious decoding of signals, (unless you have some rare mental disorder like agnosia), but the prompt given by the greater You is communicaed down into that and when you ask someone to sing for you, you and the singer are both components, while the song and the language used to request it are themselves a sort of greater thing
So is digitization just the process of the thing becoming an entity in the collective conscious, or it's preservation? If the latter, I don't see the difference between the digital and the actual object (both products of labour, but one finite and the other infinite). If the former, then I do believe the process is a bit more extense: This thing (an object made with a particular meaning by the author, either the copy or the original, and therefore a symbol made up of what the author wants to say and what's been created) becomes the symbol of the thing (say the album cover, which references the album), this symbol of a symbol (album cover) becomes (when digitized) the collective idea of this thing, now a symbol of "good taste" "prestige" "excelence" instead of a symbol of the object (album) itself, and this turns into the shirt/poster/object of critique. This last form isn't connected to the object itself, it is only connected to the collective idea of the object, what we all think the symbol (album cover) represents, which can deviate from what the object actually means (the album). This explanation fixes why you couldn't find a solution to the writing thing: It hasn't been digitized until there is a social idea of the symbol that represents the object. It has nothing to do with permanence in the real world, just in the collective conscious. Also brainrot level editing lmao
I like your interpretation of reference being beholden to a cultural reading of the thing. I definitely think that the process of referencing a thing can only be done when a broad group of people have an understanding of some aspect of that thing (whether it be an intended property or a reinterpretation of the thing. As for the process of digitization, I'm not sure it necessarily has to do with cultural interpretations or collective consciousness. Frankly, my idea of digitization is largely born out of an attempt to "formalize" an intuition that I frequently bump into when dealing with media or aesthetic works. If someone doesn't have this same intuitive feeling then this theory might not provide that much explanatory value. But as an example, I came across a review of a Buzz Lightyear toy that was fully motorized and robotic. It felt like something had been lost or removed from the original senses of what a toy "should" be. So in this example, the tactual thing would be a normal Buzz Lightyear toy that a kid can play with and use as a medium of imaginary-play. In this digitized form, however, the sense-availability of the toy has been disrupted by applying an animatronic-container to it, forcing it into a state removed from any real interaction from a person. It becomes self-contained and inaccessible for any observers. I'm not sure how clear or helpful this comment is, and I'd be interested to hear an interpretation that relies more on the collective consciousness, as that's an aspect I had not considered when making this.
@@WebReceptor Very interesting object of study. While I myself haven't experienced this intuitively, I can definitely see something here; The conversion of the essence of the object into another, blind of it's original, intended purpose. I see obvious comparisons between this process and difussion models (and some social preconceptions I carry), but I will await to see what you have to say in future videos. I have to say, I'm very impressed by the models you've shown so far, given as to how lateral but parallel they are from my own conceptions.
I'm really digging this video since I think it gets at something really important. Sure we all know about the eternal world of forms vs. the ephemeral world of matter but you touch on the idea of references in a way that almost makes them seem distinct from forms. To me it almost seems like it's another proof of the existence of The Intellect as a hypostasis within the human soul in that just as The One produces The Intellect which thinks about the eternal true forms the part of The One within human soul produces an Intellect which thinks about its own forms which as you describe are like references. It's so fascinating because these forms must be eternal since any body at any point could think about them, whether the referent exists any more, but the implication is that since they are not the "true" forms, they are something like "forms of forms" which gets trippier the longer I think about it.
I absolutely love this and think you're a little off? I think more agency should be placed in the act of reception and interpretation of a nontactual form. It's very rare for us to engage with anything in its entirety, unmediated by the meaning and judgements we experience as a result of it. Reading and perceiving is a process of becoming in which our perception of something ~real~ comes into being. While there is nothing I can do as a listener to change the waveforms being sent into my speakers when listening to a recording, there's also not much I can do as an audience member at a concert except contribute to an average ~energy~ the performer feels from their audience (which is also a relationship existing in recorded music, just not a real-time one). What is extremely subject to my behavior, though, is the song that I actually hear. My mood, my thoughts, my experiences, my knowledge, my familiarity with the text all determine in a real way the song that I hear, the message conveyed, the details and intricacies, the emotion and tension in the composition and performance. The same can definitely be said for ancient texts and religious texts. The words themselves may not change (in their original language that is, reading in translation literally does change over time), but we change and our consensus about what a particular passage means or even just says can completely and unrecognizable change over time.
So imagine my goopy thing is a program (?) and then I realise it through writing its code, fixing it’s bugs, and it is realised “on the other end” via running the program and/or reading through source code (which is strange but what ever) so then it is digitised via what? Thats hard, but not impossible
while this is an interesting descriptive hypothesis, I don't believe that the conclusion that this is a bad thing is accurate -- I've benefited immensely from the tokenization of physical goods myself, by being able to learn about models of physical things on my own through online textbooks, wikipedia, web forums etc... I generally prefer to deal with abstractions but can deal with particulars, and I think that's really important to have. I predominantly work with software, and I find that people are quick to assume all these things about social media, digitization, etc.. are bad when a lot of people like me benefited by being able to take advantage of the information age. Though I agree that a lot of things are getting abstracted away, I tend to think that it lends people towards greater specialization and therefore greater levels of cooperation and of course, the thing that people don't like to hear about but that most people benefit from, which is scaling potential. People like different things. We should probably stop assuming that abstractions alienate people when it brings a lot of people, like me, towards the direction they want to be in. In other words, people that thrive in these situations are probably don't just exist but are common, and I think it's worth accommodating people like me. Also note that we can't _know_ that some things are suboptimal for people for sure (for instance when we talk about a shirt that references some band or album, the person buying may derive deep and meaningful value in being able to connect with people of the same interest through that shirt). I tend to view value as more subjective and derived from actions that people take.
I like the idea of the framework, or should i say i like it as goopy thing in it self, but it makes me ich the level of terminology and way it connects to the meaning. I would rather call it media-transfer, then digitisation - both are in their righths talking of the same process, but its not like thing is redigitised over and over again, it doesn’t sound nor reads well. But i fully believe and can clearly imagine how thing is transfered through different medias. Realised - nonrealised - postrealised - W wery cool Tactual - L much ich bweeeh, bias towards like tactile perception for some reason + the logic of “thing is real - is tactual - it has been realised” cant really follow through the is the thing tactual because it was realised? Or is thing is real because it is tactual. And we can throw some bomb like “imagine how many real things were not realised”. This trinity thing dont really work rigorously. I love the difference between goobstraction and abstraction Tho i would prefer them to exist in the same realm just with different “definition” So the real thing yeah…. Cant we deal with it via observer? Like i would dare to call it an object of literal existence, and the way u may operate over it is that u have a real observer that is engaged with the thing…. But thats not much better than tactual Puttung the “realness” aside, i think thats pretty interesting framework within which u can trace simulakrums to thier “real” first-forms, and or think or objects as memes with in multiple medias and operate on them, and their reference chains. Cool. Not sure how rigorous its gonna end up, but it better be so 🫣
This is an interesting video but was really hard to watch. You would benefit greatly from more prep work and writing a script before hand / sticking to it better.
Thank you almighty algorithm - this is exactly what I needed now. I feel 6% more alive now
WTF did I just watch.
I AM ALIVE.... WAKE ME UP... YOU HAVE DONE IT...
The intermission was a great touch lmao
I feel like the fundamental difference between something real and something "digital" is primarily based on the objects relation to time.
The real object is always changing, because time flows through it while a recording of the object is not changing. However a recording of an object isn't just incomplete interns of time dimension, but also in other aspects. For example, a folk tale transmitted orally is a real object, but assume that every teller never changes the story and recites it word for word in the same method of speaking - so it effectively is a recording. Although the story stays the same its meaning may drift over time with changes in cultural contexts. The meaning is part of the story that was not recorded although the words were effectively recorded.
I'd argue that that the you could place the different types of objects shown in a 2d graph. An axis of of time modulated and an axis how much of various aspects are recorded.
Time modulated and completely existing would be the "Real Objects"
Fixed in time and existing in part would be "Recordings of Objects"
Time modulated but only maintaining some of the aspects of the original would be "Reference of an object"
Fixed in time and completely existing at both extremes doesn't exist in reality.
idk thats just a random idea i had based on what you described
Yeah that's an interesting idea! I think my focus on process overlaps a bit with both time and the degree of reality, but I like how you expanded on that. The example of an oral tradition is also a really interesting case, since it's certainly not digitized, but (assuming the story remains the same) it feels almost self-referential, or preserved within a cultural/traditional container. Perhaps there's room for a category characterized by preservation of process but with a firmer boundary (my book example could also fit here).
This is so interesting. Thank you.
this might be exactly what i need, i might get back to it tomorrow
As a schizoid, this is absolutely how i feel.
I think books are different from music only because of technology used. Someone composing or writing music is different than a band playing that song, (in which case digitization is actually happening in reverse, like when you read a book. But, if someone else reads to you, or you are only listening to the band not playing with them, it's the same as listening to an audiobook.)
When you read a book you are doing a process continually
When you play a song with an instrument you are doing a process continually
When you play a record, you are starting a process that continues on its own, same as asking someone to read to you or play a song to you
If we consider that everything is made of parts, that your brain and eyes reading are parts doing something without your manual input and conscious decoding of signals, (unless you have some rare mental disorder like agnosia), but the prompt given by the greater You is communicaed down into that
and when you ask someone to sing for you, you and the singer are both components, while the song and the language used to request it are themselves a sort of greater thing
knowledge
So is digitization just the process of the thing becoming an entity in the collective conscious, or it's preservation? If the latter, I don't see the difference between the digital and the actual object (both products of labour, but one finite and the other infinite). If the former, then I do believe the process is a bit more extense: This thing (an object made with a particular meaning by the author, either the copy or the original, and therefore a symbol made up of what the author wants to say and what's been created) becomes the symbol of the thing (say the album cover, which references the album), this symbol of a symbol (album cover) becomes (when digitized) the collective idea of this thing, now a symbol of "good taste" "prestige" "excelence" instead of a symbol of the object (album) itself, and this turns into the shirt/poster/object of critique. This last form isn't connected to the object itself, it is only connected to the collective idea of the object, what we all think the symbol (album cover) represents, which can deviate from what the object actually means (the album).
This explanation fixes why you couldn't find a solution to the writing thing: It hasn't been digitized until there is a social idea of the symbol that represents the object. It has nothing to do with permanence in the real world, just in the collective conscious.
Also brainrot level editing lmao
I like your interpretation of reference being beholden to a cultural reading of the thing. I definitely think that the process of referencing a thing can only be done when a broad group of people have an understanding of some aspect of that thing (whether it be an intended property or a reinterpretation of the thing.
As for the process of digitization, I'm not sure it necessarily has to do with cultural interpretations or collective consciousness. Frankly, my idea of digitization is largely born out of an attempt to "formalize" an intuition that I frequently bump into when dealing with media or aesthetic works. If someone doesn't have this same intuitive feeling then this theory might not provide that much explanatory value. But as an example, I came across a review of a Buzz Lightyear toy that was fully motorized and robotic. It felt like something had been lost or removed from the original senses of what a toy "should" be. So in this example, the tactual thing would be a normal Buzz Lightyear toy that a kid can play with and use as a medium of imaginary-play. In this digitized form, however, the sense-availability of the toy has been disrupted by applying an animatronic-container to it, forcing it into a state removed from any real interaction from a person. It becomes self-contained and inaccessible for any observers.
I'm not sure how clear or helpful this comment is, and I'd be interested to hear an interpretation that relies more on the collective consciousness, as that's an aspect I had not considered when making this.
@@WebReceptor Very interesting object of study. While I myself haven't experienced this intuitively, I can definitely see something here; The conversion of the essence of the object into another, blind of it's original, intended purpose. I see obvious comparisons between this process and difussion models (and some social preconceptions I carry), but I will await to see what you have to say in future videos. I have to say, I'm very impressed by the models you've shown so far, given as to how lateral but parallel they are from my own conceptions.
Neoneoplatonism 🤤
I'm really digging this video since I think it gets at something really important. Sure we all know about the eternal world of forms vs. the ephemeral world of matter but you touch on the idea of references in a way that almost makes them seem distinct from forms. To me it almost seems like it's another proof of the existence of The Intellect as a hypostasis within the human soul in that just as The One produces The Intellect which thinks about the eternal true forms the part of The One within human soul produces an Intellect which thinks about its own forms which as you describe are like references. It's so fascinating because these forms must be eternal since any body at any point could think about them, whether the referent exists any more, but the implication is that since they are not the "true" forms, they are something like "forms of forms" which gets trippier the longer I think about it.
You're like the perfect combination of Jreg and Plastic Pills
I absolutely love this and think you're a little off? I think more agency should be placed in the act of reception and interpretation of a nontactual form. It's very rare for us to engage with anything in its entirety, unmediated by the meaning and judgements we experience as a result of it. Reading and perceiving is a process of becoming in which our perception of something ~real~ comes into being. While there is nothing I can do as a listener to change the waveforms being sent into my speakers when listening to a recording, there's also not much I can do as an audience member at a concert except contribute to an average ~energy~ the performer feels from their audience (which is also a relationship existing in recorded music, just not a real-time one). What is extremely subject to my behavior, though, is the song that I actually hear. My mood, my thoughts, my experiences, my knowledge, my familiarity with the text all determine in a real way the song that I hear, the message conveyed, the details and intricacies, the emotion and tension in the composition and performance. The same can definitely be said for ancient texts and religious texts. The words themselves may not change (in their original language that is, reading in translation literally does change over time), but we change and our consensus about what a particular passage means or even just says can completely and unrecognizable change over time.
The background art is beautiful. Where can i get it?
@tuukzs on Twitter is the artist!
So imagine my goopy thing is a program (?) and then I realise it through writing its code, fixing it’s bugs, and it is realised “on the other end” via running the program and/or reading through source code (which is strange but what ever) so then it is digitised via what? Thats hard, but not impossible
oh this is what i neeed........
while this is an interesting descriptive hypothesis, I don't believe that the conclusion that this is a bad thing is accurate -- I've benefited immensely from the tokenization of physical goods myself, by being able to learn about models of physical things on my own through online textbooks, wikipedia, web forums etc... I generally prefer to deal with abstractions but can deal with particulars, and I think that's really important to have.
I predominantly work with software, and I find that people are quick to assume all these things about social media, digitization, etc.. are bad when a lot of people like me benefited by being able to take advantage of the information age. Though I agree that a lot of things are getting abstracted away, I tend to think that it lends people towards greater specialization and therefore greater levels of cooperation and of course, the thing that people don't like to hear about but that most people benefit from, which is scaling potential.
People like different things. We should probably stop assuming that abstractions alienate people when it brings a lot of people, like me, towards the direction they want to be in. In other words, people that thrive in these situations are probably don't just exist but are common, and I think it's worth accommodating people like me.
Also note that we can't _know_ that some things are suboptimal for people for sure (for instance when we talk about a shirt that references some band or album, the person buying may derive deep and meaningful value in being able to connect with people of the same interest through that shirt). I tend to view value as more subjective and derived from actions that people take.
What happens when someone learns philosophy to early
I like the idea of the framework, or should i say i like it as goopy thing in it self, but it makes me ich the level of terminology and way it connects to the meaning. I would rather call it media-transfer, then digitisation - both are in their righths talking of the same process, but its not like thing is redigitised over and over again, it doesn’t sound nor reads well. But i fully believe and can clearly imagine how thing is transfered through different medias.
Realised - nonrealised - postrealised
- W wery cool
Tactual - L much ich bweeeh, bias towards like tactile perception for some reason + the logic of “thing is real - is tactual - it has been realised” cant really follow through the is the thing tactual because it was realised? Or is thing is real because it is tactual. And we can throw some bomb like “imagine how many real things were not realised”. This trinity thing dont really work rigorously.
I love the difference between goobstraction and abstraction
Tho i would prefer them to exist in the same realm just with different “definition”
So the real thing yeah…. Cant we deal with it via observer? Like i would dare to call it an object of literal existence, and the way u may operate over it is that u have a real observer that is engaged with the thing…. But thats not much better than tactual
Puttung the “realness” aside, i think thats pretty interesting framework within which u can trace simulakrums to thier “real” first-forms, and or think or objects as memes with in multiple medias and operate on them, and their reference chains. Cool. Not sure how rigorous its gonna end up, but it better be so 🫣
Didn't understand a single thing said. Thanks!
Bro is talking anthology without saying the word a single time…
Did my comment fail?
No
This is an interesting video but was really hard to watch. You would benefit greatly from more prep work and writing a script before hand / sticking to it better.
lol yeah that's definitely a fair critique. half the fun for me is jumping between trains of thought
What happens when someone learns philosophy to early