Subjective Realities, Communication Breakdowns, & the Universal Language (translation, Christ)

[yuvgotmel]

For many years, I was perplexed why all the pictures that my dad would take of me looked so terrible. And too, I, and others, noticed that pictures of me, even from the same timeframe in my life, could look so very different from each other. Years ago, I started thinking that the photographer must be influencing the image (by their own thoughts/feelings)—or similarly, the photographer captures the image that they perceive. It is possible that pictures are a glimpse into another person’s subjective reality. And it is that subjective reality that I would like to discuss.

I have noticed in most everything—from art to language to photography and more—that people seem to hone in on key markers to indicate a particular grounding idea which can be related to a greater audience. The differences in how the realities are translated may appear to be subtle, but they are not-so subtle enough not to be noticed. In fact, I think that the differences could be quite broad-banded using only enough information from a collective field in attempts to convey a message to a larger base.

It seems to be, almost like a frequency range that people choose from to configure/translate/create a field called “reality.” For some people, the frequency range may be in close-enough approximation (to others around) to allow for what may appear as a “collective reality” (for that moment/location/people). If the frequency range widens key markers in speech, art, etc., which are needed to convey a meaningful subjective reality from one person to another, may become more difficult to locate in order to create grounding points.

…This gives new meaning to the phrase “tuning into the other person.” It is kind of like trying to find the right position on a radio, where a slight variation one way or another produces distortion from the proper signal, even if some of the key markers needed to allow for a semi-translatable message can be heard. As the frequency widens, the area distribution for the message may be heard by a larger audience, but the tendency for distortion increases due to the necessity to convey certainties in the form of key markers for grounding points for a collective reality that may be outside the subjective reality of the listener(s).

All this may “sound” like a technical way to explain communication; however, what I would really like to emphasis is that: this is also explaining the way matter/reality is perceived. And I would like to say too that, I believe, people are literally viewing form/matter in different ways. What I am explaining should not be easily dismissed. I am precisely trying to describe that form/reality is being translated so differently between persons that a collective reality is supported only by faint frequency ranges in a collective field.

For example, if I were to paint a picture of my perception of the human form, there will be enough key markers in the painting that will allow a message to be sent. And too, if I were to describe my vacation to the beach, there would be enough key markers in the words in order that the reader might be able to translate the data into something meaningful. However, the language—whether through words or art—appears to fail to accurately describe all content and the differences in translation/meaning.

This is the dispersion at the Tower of Babel, where any idea of a universal language seems to be diminished to merely a small pool of key markers; and so shallow is the pool that the greater host is disjointed.

For those of you who would be interested in joining in an experiment to consciously create a larger information base that would allow for the doors of reality-sharing to be opened, you are welcome to begin thinking on this. I believe this is a part of (what many people refer to as) the coming Christ-consciousness and the New Age of Aquarius—kind of like turning on the Light (wide-bandedness of the electromagnetic spectrum).

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by yuvgotmel

It is possible that pictures are a glimpse into another person’s subjective reality.

It's a fascinating thought experiment, Mel. Are you saying that the photographer is purposely taking, for example, a "terrible" picture, even if it's not on a conscious level, because that is the photographer's subjective reality?

It seems more likely to me that when you say the images were "terrible", that is more from the subjective reality than the actual image, because "terrible" is a subjective judgment.

[yuvgotmel]

Originally Posted by Wandered Off

It's a fascinating thought experiment, Mel. Are you saying that the photographer is purposely taking, for example, a "terrible" picture, even if it's not on a conscious level, because that is the photographer's subjective reality?

It seems more likely to me that when you say the images were "terrible", that is more from the subjective reality than the actual image, because "terrible" is a subjective judgment.

I'm sorry for not responding to your post earlier. Honestly, this is the first time that I've seen it (today).

To answer your question, I believe that the picture is a view of the photographer's world in many ways, including, but not limited to: focus (or lack of), the objects/people included, the pan-width(?) of the picture, etc.

By the way, I used the word "terrible" initially referring to the pictures that my dad takes of me. His pictures--all of them--have an erratic look, out of focus, too busy, etc. My dad, for example, often has no focal point in his pictures (so it seems); rather he gets as many things in a picture as possible, and the "focal point" is usually very small and at a long distance from him. His pictures are "terrible" in that whenever someone else looks through his pictures, they may not know what the picture was supposed to be of. He has Attention-Deficit Disorder too; and I think it comes through in his photography.

[Guitar's Cry]

I often view individuals as worlds-in-themselves. Subjective perception is nearly impossible to share with other "worlds." Our language does all right, but it is never a true picture.

Doppelganger recently started a thread that describes our inner world as the interpretation of the "ink blot" of reality. I like that description! It illustrates how subjective reality can be totally different between individuals. The shared view is only vaguely shared. It's a shallow comparison--usually. (I believe there are examples of people really getting a good picture of another's reality.)

Communication between these worlds is often the start of conflict. It is how two people argue and know they are right--and, indeed, both possibly are--yet can't get the point across. Viewed as a Venn Diagram, I would argue that none of the circles actually touch--except in some cases by the very slightest.

So I think your idea is a good one, Mel! Even the simplest explanation that a person's physical interpretation of the mental world will result in a unique use of light, angles, and contrast works well within this paradigm. It could also be that you yourself are contrasting the picture with your subjective view of yourself; but your personal view includes more than just the image, it includes feelings, thoughts, and mental imagery whereas the camera objectifies it to the best way it can. (Though your interpretation is subjective.)