It seems that some aspects of nature can be observed and the observations recorded. One way to record is in human memory but it is known to be plagued of bias. Memory seems to accommodate preferences and perspectives of each individual. Moreover, the senses have limitations and our personal background supplies context that could distort acquisition and interpretation of nature’s signals.
The important matter of attention has something to say about the resulting record of an event. Attention is related to individual awareness and interest, and it is directed towards specific areas of the environment in response to some internal reaction to external triggers.
With all of these weak links in the chain of interpretation, it is no wonder that witnesses of the same event come up to remember different things about it, including inexistent segments or components. One may be inclined to argue that anxiety, distractions and unexpected occurrences explain the differences, thus more time and a relaxed atmosphere will enable different people to record exactly the same memories about a given experience, event or stimuli.
2 comments:
Suppose that someone suggests that texts contain objective meaning and that readers can share understanding of the text. I wouldn't deny either supposition. However, I would argue that not much is objective beyond the arrangement of visual stimulus. We as a people agree on language and that ascribes value to a particular configuration of dark and light on a page. It is by convention that we recognize "A" as a letter and part of our alphabet. It is by further convention and agreement that "the small brown fox jumped over the tree" means that a small furry mammal moved relative to a growing object in a particular manner. Our conventions help to move from specifics (subjective instances) to the general (ideals) and provide some hope (I would argue small hope) that we might share understanding. In a way, I think it's a 60% solution. In reading a story about King Arthur for instance, some folks have read Le Morte de Arthur, a dark tale of romance and wizardry, others have read T.H White's fantasy rendering. I have read sci-fi tales, historical fiction, seen at least 5 movies, and heard many an audio book each with different yet overlapping ideas about Arthur. When I read a short story about the man/boy/hero/tragic figure, my perspective colors every line of text and makes it unique to my interpretation... but there are shared understandings as well.
What happens when an entire network of readers becomes disconnected (diaspora) or is obliterated (genocide)? Where does the knowledge go? It sure isn't bound by the text. These are the types of things I struggle with in terms of the meaning of text.
Just a scribble.
There are several types of knowledge, including community knowledge, to which you allude. Community gone, knowledge gone, unless it was somehow preserved to withstand time through some media such as books, images, etc. Partial loss happens each time due to individual interpretation.
Information loss and knowledge loss are fascinating issues.
Post a Comment