Material resources and symbols can be used to enforce or reinforce a particular view of ‘what society is’ and permit social life to shift away from complexity to what we will call complication. Something is ‘complicated’ when it is made of a succession of simple operations. Computers are the archetype of a complicated structure where tasks are achieved by the machine doing a series of simple steps. We suggest that the shift from complexity to complication is the crucial practical distinction between types of social life.
I don’t have an issue with this statement. It seems perfectly understandable. I can take it place it in a performance related activity, i.e how you construct an inflection range.
Its a series of simple steps. His hand fed birds/ Birds feed on his hand/ Bird shits and dies.
Plundering my store of symbolic resources step by step, to produce a more complex structure. Its not however fixed, fluid nature of an audience is a complication waiting to happen. Tension here results in alteration and a final momentary form. Its situational, its not a movement from A. to b that will ultimately arrive at C.
I suspect Tim Morton may have been on about the same thing. Not sure as I switched off the video at this point.
Describing a notable feature that happens in the relationship between performer and audience.
To demonstrate a point Tim Morton likes to use his hand as an example, the manner in which the digits move as independent entities, yet its still clearly a hand.
He then likes to deploy the idea that the whole is lesser than its parts. At this point he notes surprise that the audience is unable to get the idea. He takes this to be evidence that our minds in someway have difficulty with these concepts.
I switched of at this point, so did not get the full picture of the theory of mind deployed to explain the vexing issue that is other people.
To me the way academics describe these type of events is very odd. The role you have is to demonstrate, to establish a relationship with something.
What is being demonstrated here?
What does it say about the method of instruction and the relationship and role with an audience?
This is a descriptive fail and it is very clear where the fault line lies in a performance.
The issue is not in the mind of the audience. How you like to describe and what you need to do to make that descriptive leap into the minds of other people are not the same thing. You are not the object of attention here. What you think is not the important part of this processes.
What it may demonstrate about other people is not the important aspect. They are not the one’s doing the describing and the goal of a performance is not to leave with a series of observations on the life of a laboratory animal.
The idea that it is the audience that fail’s to grasp rather than the performer is an alien concept to me.
Not to suggest that Tim Morton’s ideas fail here.
Descriptive distinctions and differences here are drawn from different types of experience, social life and activity.
Its complicated. These are complicated subjects, error is part of the processes.
I don’t feel description is the only factor here. Academic expertise has a particular attitude to error (it is a subject found almost exclusively elsewhere in other ideas), which is very different from craft base learning methods, where it is a vital part of the individual learning processes.
How academics work an idea is different from the way they present that processes. Its easy to get caught up in the performance and mistake it for something else.
It’s the error I am repeatedly making at the moment. I can’t get past the presentation and reach for the ideas.
Subject seems to say one thing while demonstrating something very different.
Frustrating, sure it has something interesting to say. Its just rather difficult to get over the cultural differences here.
Shirley Sturm and Bruno Latour, Redefining the social link from baboons to humans