This was my first experiment with Limited Fork theory, and I attempted to explain what I knew at the time purely in terms of a "chain reaction." It involved going from reading, to understanding what was read, and ultimately coming up with a conclusion of some nature. It also dealt with different individuals coming to similar conclusions, but it did not explain how one individuals thoughts could influence another.
I plan on creating a video to examine the effect of breath on vibration and resonant studies. I will attempt to portray the "physical" nature of breath; by this I mean I am going to capture breath in its different forms. I will recite the poem (which I have not yet chosen) in different environments and see how the breath changes in response, and how this change in breath alters how the poem is heard by the audience. Different environments in this study will include hot and cold, amount of breath used to read a stanza, and rate of reading. Check in soon to see the video.
Though I did not follow through with this video, I attempted to show how external influence can change how sounds are perceived. My ideas for this involved reading the poem when it was cold outside, to show condensation of breath; in addition, I planned to read with a hot glass of liquid in front of my face, so the breath would condense on my glasses. However, this external influence would not change the meaning of the poem in terms of pure interpretation.
This video was directly correlated with the discussion in class on that day. The folds in the paper show "memory." Though it can be unfolded, the imprint on the paper is still there, and difficult to remove. This is similar to the breath experiment, but as my understanding of Limited Fork advanced, I realized that there was an aspect of permanence that was missing with the breath study that the folds in the paper can show.
Each week we meet on Tuesdays from 6-9 PM at Design Lab 1 at the Duderstadt Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. But how do we know that this area is DL1, why can it not extend into the nearby atrium, coffee shop, to the Bell Tower and into Central Campus. All of our boundaries are defined by mere convention.
DL1 is not restricted merely to the chairs and computers inside this room, but rather to the thoughts, vibrations and experiences shared by all of those in it. DL1 will continue to exist in my mind as I get on the Commuter South and head to my house. It will continue to exist in your minds as you read this post, and develop thoughts of your own.
In the commotion that is thought, and the greater commotion that is vibration, it is interesting to think that every Tuesday from 6-9 PM at Design Lab 1 at the Duderstadt Center I will see all of you. I may or may not see you during the other 165 hours during the week, but our physical beings will exist in this restricted physical space at this time.
Though I can see you and you can see me at the same location that does not necessarily mean that we are at the same place. Place defined by thought is on a completely different level. We could be staring at each other but still be pondering entities completely independent of each other. This fact was clearly illustrated with the memory experiment last week.
So imagine applying this concept universally. When you are in class at 10 am, you may not be in class. When you are sleeping in your bed at three in the morning, you may not be sleeping in your bed, and though you may be in DL1 right now, you actually may not be, or maybe you are.
This post developed after reading a piece of The Kingdom of Infinite Space by Raymond Tallis. It really made me think about Limited Fork in terms of the interaction between what is physical, and what is thought. My previous explanations of this theory dealt with thoughts leading to specific action. This post helped me discuss the fact that what is thought and what is physical can be independent of each other.
I feel that sometimes in limited fork, the physical manifestations of vibrations are ignored. I would like to recollect on one of the most direct encounters I had with the physical aspect of vibrations.
This happened on Wednesday, October 21st at the Eastern Michigan University Convocation Center during the Jay-Z concert, and the vibrations I noticed were audible and occurred in the "stimulus-response" manner. For example, when the lights dimmed in the auditorium and Jay-Z took the stage, the crowd responded by cheering. When Jay-Z waved his arms from side to side the crowd responded by mimicking his movements. When he pointed the mic towards the fans, they responded by yelling the lyrics to the song.
This is just to say that vibrations can truly take any form, and that the conversion from thought to action and stimulus to response are one in the same.
The previous two posts were regarding Limited Fork in terms of pure physicality. Sometimes discussion regarding the theory is skewed in the favor of thought, but this post was to help reinforce my belief that what is purely physical is just as important. What these posts lack is exclusion of multiple external influence. For example, it takes ONE domino to knock over the next, and it took ONE entertainer to elicit responses from the crowd. This aspect is discussed later. It also further emphasizes the fact that this physical aspect can be completely independent.
My sentiments about the Arts and Bodies events seem to parallel Ian's, especially those ideas focused on pointing out the inefficiency of language. Professor Moss revealed to me after the even that there are over 7000 THOUSAND languages being used in the world right now. The slideshow that was running throughout the event attempted to list all of them, but at the end the list had only gotten through the K's, not even halfway through all languages. This led me to think why is there such a plethora of languages, and if some are so well defined (for example english), how come communication barriers within a language continue to exist? If language is intended to promote the exchange of ideas, how come people with the same ideas have difficulty facilitating this exchange when they speak different languages? I don't know where I am getting at with this thought, but it leads me to believe, like Ian, that comfortability and efficiency can be established with a limited use of CONFORMED sound and an increase in physical action.
This process was clearly exemplified through the Jazz concert aspect of Arts and Bodies, which was an exchange of sound and physical action from musicians dancers. At points, it seemed as if the sound that each musician emitted elicited a certain type of physical response from the dancers, and at other times it seemed as if the dancing was what was influencing the choice of sounds by musicians. Though no words (which are conformed particles of sound) were transferred, the ideas were handed off almost seamlessly. Maybe this is why music tends to be known as the "universal language."
This passage, for me, blurred the lines of communication, and it somewhat recursively goes back to the first post, in the sense that people can get to the same conclusion in different manners. This post differs because though each person may come to the same conclusion, the medium can be completely different. This message also furthers my thoughts in external influence. This influence can actually dictate, and change a supposed predetermined course of action. My previous pondering only dealt with superficial change.
FreeVideoCoding.com
This video really helped clarify the role of external influence, specifically external influence from multiple sources. Each individual read the poem at a different rate, with different emphasis and pronouncement. Each reader can therefore influence the viewers perception of the poem, for example, one reader says Min-EYE-ver, while others say Min-ih-ver. Though Arts and Bodies showed that external influence can change the course of action, this video goes one step further in showing that ultimately, external influence may leave one in the same position that they began, and that one stimulus can reverse a previous one.
These posts are the culmination of my thoughts on limited fork, and I felt that they have advanced over the course of the semester. The beginning ones, though still applicable, were often restricted in scope. The later ones somewhat build on previous posts by keeping similar themes but adding different aspects, like influence, independency and the difference between what is thought and what actually happens. However, these themes cannot be considered on an individual basis if a further comprehension of vibrations is necessary. I discovered that the best way to show the mixing of all these themes is through the examination of internet history. This short clip will show how all of these aspects can exist at the same time. For example, visiting the same website everyday shows independence of thought, while visiting random ones can occur due to a variety of external influences. Visiting a website itself requires physical input, and the information on one website can cause the viewing of another. This example derives its power because of its universality. The internet is something that myriad people use on an almost daily basis for their personal agendas. Certain trends can therefore be examined by comparing the viewing habits of others and compiling them. I'm sure that going to an e-mail client like Gmail or Yahoo! is one of the "constants" but a certain Wikipedia article can be considered "random." Another useful feature of this video is the reciprocal nature of it. One may go to a website in order to find some sort of information, but the information found often elicits a response greater than the one used to see the website in the first place. Finally, I would just like to explain the title of this superpost. It is called the Lichtenberg superpost because of the parallels between my experiences in limited fork, and the Lichtenberg figure. All of these thoughts have originated from one point, my head, and some were premature and had clear definition later, like many of the branches on the figure. In addition, they are all interconnected, like the entire Lichtenberg figure, and I can see a clear path of relation between them. The other similarity is the medium of transfer. The figure is trapped in some material, that material served as the medium for its transfer, from its origins to its ends. Similarly, this blog was my mode of transfer, from my beginning thoughts, to this ultimate project.
FreeVideoCoding.com
IF THIS VIDEO IS NOT SHOWING IN ITS ENTIRETY, IT CAN BE VIEWED AT:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pmurth/Fork%20Final.swf
No comments:
Post a Comment