Childhood Copycat

By: Jonathan Seidel

Interpretative evolution: methodology and ideology (Sontag, 7)

Interpretation is a critical part of human development and moral fabric. How we interpret texts, events and others formulates our perspective on the world. How much do we imply our own biases. How often are we misguided by arrogance and stubbornness.  

Interpretation is based on lived experience. There is rarely a clean slate. Engaging situations with preconceived biases. Perception is skewed by a priori knowledge. While children may be innocent of this prejudice their parental education is embedded in their psyche. Corralled by consistent jargon the way they see the world is blurred by their own knowledge. Continuing traditions of one’s parents is itself a mimicking technique that has yet to detach from the parental mustered pride. Reality is a collage of perpetuated messaging. Tingling the subconscious to deduce truths without personally experiencing them. Spending so much time hearing without actually doing. A byproduct of our birth the child’s fate is sealed. He is but a cultivation of his environment. His innocence is muddied by unknown phenomena. Invading phenomena infesting his mind unaware of their presence. A servant to subliminal messaging. 

The child has little memory of his parents fierce words. The big no-nos in their rule book. It wasn’t specified but he felt the whooping he received. He felt the harsh breath voice raised in his ears. A roaring sound aching his head. The memory was recorded even if the image cannot be recalled. His mind highlighted instances of wrathful intent. Distinguishing between normal and radical behaviour. When did his parents grow extra angry. What set them off. Momentarily he can remember and avoid but in time he will forget. Yet the message beats into him. Feeling sorry for angering his parents he confesses He was wrong and he will do better. Whether he meant it or not he has accepted their frame. Subconsciously he has surrendered. He is at the behest of their way. He is at the mercy of his parental guidance. He sees the world as they guide him. Staying within order. Their words so impactful. In devoted love he follows their phrases. He curses and shouts when he is angry. He is only acting like his parents. Mimicking them in respect not in mockery. 

At first it just words. The child doesn’t really understand what he means. He is a copycat. Trying to fit in. Trying to be accepted. He craves attention. He is no longer coddled and wishes his parents to notice him. He acts like them to show that they have taught him well. It is a ploy but a respectful gift to those who provided for him. He is young enough to not fully grasp the absurdity of the phrases he has uttered. He simply follows by example. Monkey see monkey do monkey get in trouble. Troubled he reflects and learns the difference. He hears his father yell at his mother so he copies but his father scolds him. He replies it was an accident. Yelling at your mother is wrong. Never do that again. The child learns the difference between accidents and intentional. When he hears his father yell at the tv after a failed first down he copies. His father slaps him on the back good job son. Proud of his accomplishment. Different settings have different responses. Context is key. The learning curve is slow distinguishing by variables presented. Flying animals are birds but different birds have different names. Even though they look different they are all birds. 

Educational interpretation is sentimental to the child. Watching his father’s dedication to his favourite team every week yelling at the tv cheering inspires a devotion to the same team. He heart is set. He approaches the sport with routine passion. Valuing their play and capability. Like father like son. His mother watches the news every morning. His mother snarls at the television. Disgruntled from the political fabric. She says president bad. His mother smiles. He doesn’t know what it means but he gradually becomes aligned with her political views. Watching the news with her. The chain from parent to child is sacred. One of ingestion and embodiment. The child incorporates the nuances of what he hears into his worldview. Whether or not he understands what it means. His outlook on otherness is based on his parents’ position. He does not discriminate he only follows their lead. Yet dogmatically he holds to these views. His comprehension is loose but his illustration is exact.  

He accords his views with his education. With the nuances of his mentor objectives. He is innocent and immature. He does not know any better. In a humble acceptance of futility he adorns the perspectives of his parents. He trusts few and those few he mimics. His view is monolithic and sacred. He cultivates an echo chamber. The entire world is boxed in. Only what he sees by a specified few does he incorporate. His outlook is moulded by reliance on these few. These words are dogmatised. It may bore him but he finds them to be truth. It is in his immobile state that he internalises that which is abstract to him. He believes all that is outside himself. All that stands outside his experience has an asterisk. If he cannot dispute it he accepts its fact. His limited knowledge places much of reality in this sphere. It is the things that he can contest that are mitigated. What remains beyond his comprehension he applies to the meta-truth. The level of literal acceptance. His humility to his ignorance is stable. 

The disputable areas are those affecting him. If his parents force him to go bed earlier he may rebel. This trust is only relevant if it doesn’t affect him. His parents may say books are great but he doesn’t find them great. A parent may imply an ideal but he slowly learns how to act. He is habituated in a certain way. In the short run he pushes back but the child is powerless to make any change. Only those irritating aspects like reading a book or going to sleep early does he find a way around. As these are punishments on him but positives are marked with great significance. His perception is guided by how it is placed upon him and what others do. He is not angry that he has to go to bed early but because he is missing his favourite show or because his friend goes to sleep later. The detrimental impact is related to how it’s applied in other cases. His deduction is one-sided. It must be equal everywhere. If he can do it why can’t I. Wanting to be like an adult yet still immature. He doesn’t understand the full picture only what he desires.

Undisputed areas are a shock to him as he grows. He follows the insights of his parents. He has no one to contest or challenge his view. He believes he is right. There was never an alternative or any pushback. Even if he never uttered or understood, his first encounter with the otherness he speaks inappropriately unknowingly. It is only with lacking education or skewed education that the incidental words become internalised rhetoric. Whether or not a parent’s actions are intentional, his words regarding a certain procedure or person may be cynical in a moment that affects the child for his life. Infecting the child’s mind into a crude adult. A parent making a derogatory comment about a certain individual labels that person in a negative light. The image that word subconsciously remains in the child’s mind. A mother crying over a certain individual courses fury through his veins. No remedy means continued belief. Until the parent says otherwise the truth remains. Especially if the same issue persists it emboldens in the child’s mind. 

Children are innocent and ignorant. Easily swayed by action and experience. Events mark their territory in the long term memory bank. These perceptions are cradled into the subconscious cultivating a narrow world view based on adolescent internalisation. The immature audio translates experience into dogmatic belief. A difficulty when encountering the other.  

Silent Commentary

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Narration and audio commentary

 

Burn Notice narrates Michael Westen’s post-spy life. Yet the narration is a little more than the visual on screen. The narration includes a second narration through the storyline. Michael consistently interrupts the plot to explain the situation. This commentary is akin to the commentators of a football game. The infiltration of narrational assistance bemoans the illustration.  

Authors narrate their stories through characters. The author decides how much of the worldview the reader sees. The author’s perspective is scrutinised and limited. The film provides the visual array only imagined in the text. The text can only suppose so much while the visual fills in the missing gaps. The author is the shepherd guiding the reader through the story. A guide leading the volunteers through the maze. A tour guide doesn’t take the tourists everywhere just to specific locations. Other parts of the city exist even if they aren’t screenshot. There are other elements to the story that are irrelevant to the plot. The author could have supplied more details about side characters but felt that deviated from the plot. The author has created the universe and concentrates on a singular theme. Focusing on a character and his journey. Other characters may enter the frame but they are reflected in his perspective. There are other people in the streets but it is the guide’s words that are listened to. The visitors reflect the guide’s outlook. 

An author can enter the protagonists’s mind. What the author wishes to show is the lone wolf hero’s journey. Sometimes other characters make an entrance. Some authors colour their characters others leave them as stick figures. The magnitude of a character’s importance generally rests on their engagement. How much of this second character does the reader learn about? How personal does the reader become with the character? There is a science to introducing the reader to a character. The author holds all the eggs and decides which eggs to give. They don’t allow the tricker treaters to grab from the bin but hand the candy out diligently. Selectively providing information little by little. This character gets a Snickers the other a Kit Kat. The fictional realm of the author is private. Only gradually is more information leaked out. The author intends to hold all the cards until the last turn. Unveiling herself in slow motion. The reader sits patiently receiving the information in small doses. Curious of the next step. 

The Great Gatsby is an interesting tale since it focuses on one character. Nick narrates his adventure from his perspective. It is made clear that Nick has biases but more so that he is not the main character of the story. Nick is the commentator for the tale of Jay Gatsby and the face of Leonardo DiCaprio. Nick is second fiddle to the awe-striking interest to the mysterious noble but it is Nick’s character that gains the most attention. While Gatsby may be concentrated upon in utmost urgency, Nick’s emotions are smeared all over the pages. He journals his experiences chronicling the events as they occur. Nick’s affair with Jordan Baker is overshadowed with Gatsby’s affection. Nick is not short of criticism. While he adores his cousin Daisy he sees her as careless and dramatic. Nick idolises Gatsby for much of the story but is also remiss about his dealings. Though Fitzgerald’s depiction only further places Nick as an observer and film critic trolling along as a paparazzi. The narration hides the true intentions of other characters only periodically hearing their thoughts. Nick is the primary source of information as a premier journalist. 

The film adaptation lends a new perception to the narration. Nick provides his audio commentary as the plot moves along. Similar to the book he is the ‘reliable’ narrator. He is an observer of the events even as he participates in them. Yet while he is a spy for the reader he is a crook for the viewer. The viewer sees the events and doesn’t necessarily need Nick’s voiceover. It only stands to question his legitimacy. The characters are visualised and examined. There is little that Nick can hide from the audience. The audience isn’t looking through a peephole but through military grade binoculars. In the movie if Nick isn’t present in the scene the scene still occurs. There is no reflection nor diary from Nick. Other events happen and the audience sees them. They are not waiting for their spy to return just trying to see the events with their technological abilities. Able to internalise the film’s visual personification. Extending the author’s universe just a little wider. Characters are no longer foreign species discussed but familiar voices. They speak with such profound being. Not puppets of someone else’s romantic drama. 

Burn Notice is heavily more narrated than Gatsby. Michael narrates when he isn’t even in the scene. Michael’s narration accompanies the subsequent event. He anticipates the scene by readying the audience through tactical education. The show’s use of the narration is to explain to the audience Michael’s abilities. The show isn’t trying to teach the audience but to magnify his ability. The narration is solely concerning spy work. How would a spy act in such a situation. These questions are answered by Michael's voice over the action alone. The screen even screenshots the actions in line with his narration. Lining up what he says with what is happening. Sometimes the show pulls a fast one and the action is thwarted by the enemy. Nevertheless, the consistency per episode reminds the audience of his veracity. Michael is a spy with years of experience. Even if it feels overboard it is unique to the show. The message is clear. Educate the audience of Michael’s speciality. He was an operative and despite his current demotion he still has the skill. He can still apply those skills in everyday life. Once a spy always a spy. 

The voiceovers are key to conveying strict intelligence to the layman. Apparently the show runner had a onetime spy as a consultant. Whether the advice was spy science or spy-like, the advice was personable. The audience was hearing straight from a spy how to be a layman spy. No need for covert missions or extravaganza in third world countries but things that could be done with simple gadgets bought from a hardwood store sitting in the garage. The advice was spyware from the master to the student. An educational tactic that honed in on Michael’s excellence. While they interrupted the show for a second they did deploy a curiosity into the audience’s mind. Wow that is cool. The show added a telling aspect that generally are overrun with showing over telling. An author is tasked with showing over telling but a film is by design showing thus the integration of the showing pivotally added nuance to the heavy illustration. Signifying the advice and then zeroing in snapshotting the device before executing the advice. It grew repetitive at times but it did portray a unique tale with expert intent. 

Sports commentators narrate the game. On the old radio the listener was blind to action. The commentator was the listener’s man on the inside. The commentator relayed the action to the listener in real time. Now with television the “film adaptation” the viewers sees what the listener hears on the car radio. The viewer doesn’t need the commentator because he can see the action. He sees the running back receive the handoff running for a short gain before tackled. He sees the crossover and the floater only to be swatted by the big man in the paint. The commentator is just saying what the viewer is seeing. For the blind it is helpful but not for the sighted. It seems unproductive. The opinions on different situations is fare. They have knowledge and perspective. Yet that is different from narrating plays and sequences. Alternating between the two is itself juggling ideas. Sometimes they don’t get their idea through because the play resumes. Needless to say some of their takes are awful. The narration is useless to those who can see. The commentator explains the visual to the visual. Their perception is directly communicated retroactively to the viewer. Since they themselves are viewers at the same time as the fan. It is bound to be repetitive.

There is a silver lining for sports commentators. Their narration is akin to subtitles. The viewer hears the characters speak but enjoys the subtitles for additional accuracy. Using two senses at once is better than using one. Hearing and seeing solidifies the truth. Sometimes the ears deceive and sometimes the eyes deceive. Having both senses activated is synonymous with success. Commentators are helpful for those who don’t understand. Those who are perplexed by the visual. Yet the commentators also provide some flare for the regular fan. Al Michaels broadcasted three decades worth of sports. His voice brings comfort and familiarity. His narration is an audiobook soothing in its continuity. It’s like reading an audiobook on a kindle. Following along in the text while the audio speaks. Dick Vitale is famous for his catchphrases and fun personality. Elevating the passion and joy in the fan’s heart. Sitting alone on a Saturday night in the living room with the lights out is brightened by a powerful voice of excitement. Some commentators say the right thing that encases the phrase for eternity. The slogan is remembered by memory over the visual. Play-by-play sounds tedious but swirled the emotion and gravitas of sports. 

Narration is but a purpose of guiding the visitor. The spectacle is attractive and enjoyed. The guide shows and tells of the great impact. A calming sensation and peaceful transition of internalised knowledge. A sacred dialogue between the teacher and the student. One that begins and ends with the plot but will forever be engraved.  

(K)new Knowledge

By: Jonathan Seidel

Knowledge as externally educated through instruction or experience 

Man is an ignoramus. He alone does not possess knowledge. He is an empty vessel. He is not programmed with knowledge. He is programmed with tendencies and inclination. His genetics formulate his primal nature. He attains more than green eyes and curly hair. He gains analytical and athletic abilities. His base foundation is covered. Each can be altered with practice and strengthened (there are exceptions i.e. diseases). Predetermination is an unavoidable precondition. The knowledge attained thereafter is all externally from the surrounding environment. 

The lack of human knowledge of the brain forbids an honest examination of the self. Does our brain possess a priori knowledge? Can our brain instinctively recall the past or future? Thinking of ourselves as robots who have just been turned on, we may be new but the database creating us is old. The shell is new but the brain is “old”. The possibility of transporting a full brain surgically to another has not been done. Viruses and other immune compromises prevent this possibility for now. Our ignorance questions whether the former person will be them or someone new. If they can interact with the new body. This delves into the question of what makes a person a person. The top science says its the brain (though ironically Descartes say the soul which is in the brain, yet the consensus that such a surgery would be moot due to the mind-body incompatibility may yield the soul as the totality of the person i.e. five levels of the soul). The robot is powered by the core foundation. He is new but he is indebted to his foundation for his creation. He is who he is due to its construction. Freedom is highly regulated to the capabilities given at birth. 

Robotic symbolism procures a fascination into the autonomous reception by its core data. The robot is aware of knowledge by its imported and collected info. Robots learn by mimicking humans. Their ability to grow hinges on human development. Even if they can transcend human finitude, it would be from environmental engagement. Persistent experimentation builds on knowledge. The robotic superiority maintains memory and knowledge better. Better analytical skills and syllogistic reasoning. Suspending human incompetence. More devotion and more crystallisation. Yet this is all due to trial and error. They can only endure through perpetuity. Robots may be faster than humans but concerning knowledge they operate the same way. Knowledge is an objective phenomenon that the mind can only perceive and paradigmatically adduce. The Aristotelians and the Copernicans both saw the same image and conducted an accurate but also inaccurate deduction. Both had a measure of truth that filled the missing portrait. 

Knowledge is inherently external to man. Man meets knowledge in his engagement in the world. The stoic logos deity familiarises with the realistic conceptualisation. Logos is other than the self. Even another person is part of the logos. We are all strung together. Linked to every piece of the universe. The interconnected strings are woven tightly unifying the stillness of nature. The complexity of the organismic uniformity is hidden from view. The surface complexions conceal the deeper details. The visual comprehends the basis of reality. Seeing otherness and categorising their variance. Only through an additional layer of knowledge can there be more division. Observations are profoundly influential but they must be followed up with a hypothesis. Man’s brain racks up data, compartmentalises it and then fuels a response. The human mind seeks distinction in deducing observations. The visual must travel to the cognitive. What does this picture mean. 

Seeking understanding is man’s acknowledgment of his existence. Intellectual collection eases life. It clarifies the nuances and differences. Answering the continuous queries baffling the mind. Unknown’s are scary and annoying. Clarification calms the soul from extensive panic attacks. Man dreams for peace and harmony. Knowledge can be the calming factor. A model of serene faculty. Knowledge is the harmonious present to the human mind. It fills the mind with wonder and ease. It opens new possibilities and moments of recognisable intent. Empirical cultivation seeks to internalise the sensory motivation. Receiving the world into the human mind. Knowledge is a fluid connection with reality. A return to the roots of nature. Man’s basis in nature is to understand it and he is educated by his persistent engagement. A gardener bettering his crops and expanding their life expediency. 

Ambition and dedication flourish to enhance knowledge. Man’s drive innately interacts with the other. The other pounces him with information. Downloading data into his brain. His senses provide the primary tools to capture the data. Data is not merely a quantifiable categorisation but a qualifiable moderation. Data is more than numbers. It is the radical empiricism superseding the strict scientism indoctrinating valued measures. Intelligence is around for man to accept. His intellect telepathically links with the world and records the experience. In the encounter with the outside he grows. It is the external influence that projects a fluctuating trend. His exposure is contextually guided. Nature opens her doors to man. He is awakened in the wild. He is aware of his surroundings. The spiritual sensation on a mountain top away from civilisation is that encounter with true nature. He is unbiased and uncoupled from societal misgivings. He is free and axiomatically struck by nature’s emotions. Liberated to seek understanding. 

The awe-filled encounter is starstruck information. A wondrous intelligence smacking you in the face. A targeted attack to remind of the true presence. Attaining knowledge in the hilltops and roaring rivers fuels the sublime. When knowledge comes, quantifiable data loses its edge. It becomes a needless importance but without the fun. Stealing all the joy of study. The human trek to knowledge must meet it halfway. Textbook knowledge is facts. Such data mars the experience. The endless wonder encircling the mighty creations enhances the psychic link to the moment. A meditative session seeks deeper than appearance. The spiritual prowess is a revelational conduit. It is a oneness with life itself. A recognition of the organismic interconnectedness. The esoteric knowledge is spoken by the mountain to man in intentional motivation. No words just sensational vibrations. A harmonious linkage of natural progression.

The eternal matrix is the precursor to all human knowledge. Man is the intelligent receiver. He is type AB blood, a universal receiver. He gives back with the knowledge attained in nature. He configures the physics of the world to fit an agenda. He combines chemistry to better lived experience. It is what he finds out in the world that he moulds to his own benefit. Consistent research brings lofty results. He falters and subsequently succeeds. Learning as time goes along. He questions and answers. Second guessing and promoting. He is simple but complex. Coordinating to ensure the best life possible. From an empty shell he transforms into an exaggerated puffer fish.