Zvok kot metafora = Sound as Metaphore

object as concept – space as context
formation of an object (construction of conceptual body)
when does an object become a context (-> object is a space)
story as object translated back to time
Myth = meat
God = good
Man = mean
…
by B. SAVSKI

the three miniatures

Weapons & Tools = Orožje orodje
SKUC Gallery, Ljubljana, february 2004
“object as concept – space as context ”

Electric Jesus = Električni Jezus
TURNING SOUNDS 2, Warzsawa, may 2004
“Myth = meat, God=good, Man=mean”

Dancer = Plesalec
KAPELICA, Ljubljana, february 2005
“the art of dynamic selfbalancing”

V tem eseju bom skušal predstaviti način dojemanja zvoka v prostoru, s pomočjo katerega lahko sestavimo analogno sliko Narave – nestrukturirane totalnosti in strukturirane parcialnosti – torej “nečesa, kar je samo po sebi” in nečesa, kar se nam (ljudem/ opazovalcem) “vsiljuje”. Ker gre pri človeškem opazovanju neogibno za strukturiranje videnega, se celoti (nestrukturiranemu) le težko približamo. No, pa saj se niti ne bomo skušali, ker v resnici želimo obvladati le “strukturiran pogled” na kompleksno strukturo, ki je za nas že sama dovolj trd oreh, saj obstaja “v plasteh”, pogledu pa se bolj spodnje plasti izmikajo, oziroma se kažejo kot “šum”, ki ga s selekcijo pogleda odstranimo. Strukturiran pogled je v resnici filtriranje, reduciranje. Plasti, ki strukturo sestavljajo, so različna diskurzivna polja – torej polja različnih spremenljivk – osnovnih pojmov iz katerih so sestavljena polja opisov/ vrednotenj.

Zvok kot metaforo so v sociologiji že uporabili (->Jacques Atali), še posebej glasbo kot struktuirano obliko zvoka (->Kurt Blaukopf). Relacije, ki vladajo znotraj žanra, se dovolj točno prekrivajo z relacijami v družbi, da lahko rečemo, da je tudi glasba odsev družbenih odnosov, kot to velja za vse, kar ima za skupni imenovalec delo človeka, kot osnovnega gradnika družbe.

Pred časom smo govorili o pojmu “ustrojenosti” človeka, z namenom, da bi afirmirali obstoj nefunkcionalnih strojev, še posebej v umetnosti zvoka, ker se zdi, da je ustrojenost lastnost stroja, ne pa njihovega graditelja. Pozornost smo namenili delu človeških dejavnosti, ki jim na prvo žogo lahko rečemo nefunkcionalne, ali ne-reprezentativnim skupinam, ki jih lahko glede na glavno rezultanto družbe lahko rečemo, da so disfunkcionalne (-> Noam Chomsky). Skočili smo še v polje psihološkega, kjer ležijo dodatne potrditve o človekovi pred-ustrojenosti/ pred-strukturiranosti, kot so sposobnosti oblikovanja v vzorce, kar je pravzaprav osnova človekove zmožnosti učenja – sklepanja od posameznega k splošnemu in s tem oblikovanja kompleksnih podob – miselnih teles, konceptov – objektiviziranih abstrakcij. Omenili smo pojem “svobodne volje”, nismo pa šli v podrobnejšo analizo, ali je v obstoječi pred-strukturiranosti taka ali drugačna odločitev sploh pomembna. Nekako se nam dozdeva, da smo na koncu (?) vedno na pravem mestu. Važna je torej pot.

RESONANČNI PROSTOR (metafora logičnega prostora)

Za bližnje razumevanje vprašanj, ki se jih bomo lotili, si bomo pomagali z resonančnim prostorom. To je prostor/ posoda napolnjena z zvoki. Kot si lahko predstavljamo, je zvok pojav, ki mu ne moremo zlahka podeliti lastnosti trdnosti ali stalnosti in je kot tak izjemno primeren kot prispodoba za amorfno “dinamično vsebino”, ki zapolnjuje “prostor”, ki si ga predstavljajmo kot običajno dvorano. Ko zvok “prinesemo” od “zunaj” v nek prostor, ga ta neogibno preoblikuje. Zvok je namreč lastnost, ki se širi (akustično valovanje je materialno valovanje – običajno je to valovanje zraka: izmenjevanje zgoščin in razredčin), ob oviri pa se cepi in ob steni odbije. Odbita in razcepljena valovanja skupaj z originalnimi valovi sestavljajo interferenčno strukturo, ki je tem bolj kompleksna, čim bolj kompleksna je arhitektura prostora, vključno z razmestitvijo objektov (in oseb) v prostoru.

Akustične lastnosti prostora prepoznamo, če za vsako možno frekvenco zvoka ugotovimo interferenčne vozle. Vozle imenujemo mesta v prostoru, kjer se pri stalni frekvenci zvoka v prostoru zvok najbolj ojači. To je odvisno od dimenzij prostora, frekvence zvoka, od, lege izvora zvoka, od števila odbojev, od dušilnih lastnosti sten in objektov ter njihove lege v prostoru. Pri tem moramo upoštevati se vsa možna trenutna spreminjanja (trenutno dinamiko) vseh teh lastnosti.

Naj omenim, da statično merjenje vseh točk v horizontalnem preseku prostora (dve dimenziji) ustvari mrežasto strukturo, ki je za vsako frekvenco (in za vsak horizontalni presek) drugačna. Tridimenzionalni prikaz interferenčne mreže torej ustreza neenakomerni “prostorski mreži” – strukturi sestavljeni iz nepravilnih kvadrov. Ki je seveda za vsako zvočno frekvenco drugačna. Vse frekvence hkrati so enakovredno prisotne v t.i. “belem šumu”, ko pa se od te “nasičenosti” odmaknemo v smeri proti bolj razredčenemu zvoku – proti posameznim zvočnim objektom – tedaj se resonančni prostor pokaže kot zanimiva metafora za občutek celovitega razumevanja/ zaobjema delovanja/ vrednotenja kompleksnega sistema, strukture, medija, organizacije – entitete/ celote.

Za resonančni prostor je zvok vsebina, prostor zvok tudi oblikuje – formira, zato rečemo, da prostor določa formo – je forma, prostor sam pa naj ne bi prispeval dinamike. Lahko bi si sicer zamislili, da je tudi prostor amorfna tvorba, ki spreminja obliko in lego sten, s tem pa tudi prostornino/ volumen in torej aktivno prispeva h kompleksnosti dinamičnega zvočnega polja. To bi očitno morali storiti in tudi bomo. A zaenkrat bomo verjeli, da “posoda” le vsebuje, ne pa tudi deluje.

Vsaka sprememba zvoka v prostoru popolnoma spremeni “mrežno” interferenčno strukturo. Pri zveznih spremembah frekvence (“legatih”) je to že bolj očitno. Še bolj dramatične spremembe se zgodijo ob prisotnosti “formantov”, to je zvokov kratkega trajanja, kot so zvoki, ki so posledica materialnih dogodkov. Ti zvoki so že sami sestavljeni iz različnih frekvenc, bolj ali manj modulirani na takšen ali drugačen slišni način. Če (nujno) v tak sistem postavimo še opazovalca, bo ta subjekt tudi objekt in tvorno sodeloval v ponazorjenem resonančnem okolju kot še ena dinamična spremenljivka, pravzaprav motnja. Tudi sam plavajoč v tako kompleksnem sistemu bo potem lahko “začutil” dinamiko sistema. To “čutenje” pa nam bo predstavljalo običajno neulovljivo doživljanje “totalnosti” oziroma “celote”. O prostoru bomo odslej razmišljali s paradoksalno mislijo na “zamejeno neskončno”.

Pred časom smo že govorili o medijih, ki jih v osnovnem pomenu enačimo s pojmi, kot so sistem, prostor, struktura. Vsi ti pojmi predstavljajo abstrakcije, ki se konkretizirajo, ko jim določimo meje (->stene). Kot vemo, lahko pojme v osnovi reduciramo na komplementarne (dualne) veličine/ lastnosti; na primer: črno nasproti belemu, lepo nasproti grdemu, pametno nasproti neumnemu in podobno. Na podlagi teh osnovnih kvalitet potem lahko gradimo kompleksnejše opise; na primer: črno je lepo, belo je pametno. Analiza razvoja pojmov/ pomenov/ razumevanja je dialektična za nazaj, saj je potrebno kompleksnim (pojmovnim) objektom poiskati njihove roditelje/ razloge/ vzroke za sintezo.

MULTIPLE IDENTITETE (prebadanje prostora)

V prostor zaprt zvok se torej ne širi v neskončnost, ampak se med stenami oblikuje v vzorce. Prostor deluje kot ojačevalec in filter hkrati. Za te opisne vzorce lahko rečemo, da predstavljajo “identiteto” prostora/ sistema. Prostor bo torej vsak zvok preoblikoval po svojih (frekvenčnih) značilnostih. Opazovalec, ki s svojo mislijo pravzaprav občuti/ dojema neskončnost/ totaliteto prostora, se v resnici ne more izviti iz prostora, še več, njegovo dojemanje totalitete (in vseh prepletenih posameznosti) je subjektivno/ individualno. A zaradi zamejenosti prostora, ki ustvarja vzorce, je pravzaprav na svojem. Zamejena neskončnost ponudi možnost razumevanja, medtem ko nezamejenost ne tvori vzorcev – ne omogoči uvida. Območje uvida/ razumevanja je torej vedno lahko le zamejeno. Pogled na nezamejeno neskončnost je morda mogoč le na ravni nejasnega občutka, pa še to najverjetneje le kot na negacija vedenja o zamejeni neskončnosti. Nekaj se torej nahaja “onkraj” prepoznane totalne strukture. Ali je to budistična “praznina”? Šele ob prepoznanju izpolnjenosti/ nasičenosti s kompleksnimi relacijami v zamejenem prostoru, se odpre neskončnost/ praznina. Toliko o tem občutku. Nas zanima analiza zamejene totalnosti, ki omogoča kompleksnejše razumevanje, ne samo znotraj ene ravni (diskurzivnega polja), ampak predvsem prečno – s hkratnim vertikalnim pogledom, ki z iglo prebode (po našem mnenju) istoznačna/ istoležna mesta in jih skuša enoznačno “uskladiti”. Taki “prešiti” konstrukti so potem lahko teorije, a za nas zgolj ljubiteljska dejavnost. Teorija namreč kasneje postane šola, zato je potrebno tudi njo uskladiti z družbenostjo – socializirati. Take prešite odeje nam niso ljube.

Kot igla za vertikalno prebadanje nam služi metaforičnost kompleksno sestavljenih pojmov posameznih diskurzivnih polj. Vsa polja so seveda logične strukture, zato so grajena na osnovi dualnih lastnosti. Kompleksnejše ugotovitve/ trditve so posledica večdimenzionalnosti takih polj/ struktur. Bolj običajno je, da zamejenim večdimenzionalnim poljem podelimo lasten (bolj ali manj umetno zaokrožen) prostor in jih potem obravnavamo ločeno/ izolirano – v tem primeru ostajamo znotraj metodologije znanosti (“ne mešamo jabolk in hrušk”). Za nas je to nedopusten redukcionizem, ki ga želimo preseči. Ne potrebujemo namreč merljivih rezultatov, ampak občutek v stilu “zdi se mi, da ta in ta umetniška praksa v ničemer ne presega polja umetnosti”. Spoznavne presežke določa preseganje osnovne forme/ strukture/ diskurzivnega polja. Umetnost torej ni forma (forma je vzorec) – za umetnost je nujno vertikalno prebadanje. Umetnost torej razumemo kot interdisciplinarnost/ intermedialnost, nikakor ne teorijo ali znanost.

Podobno, kot pomeni za akustične meritve prostora “sekanje” prostora na horizontalne interferenčne plasti, lahko trdimo, da pomenijo plasti v katerem koli drugem “prostoru” zaokrožene diskurzivne celote, polja. Naj nas ne moti “ploščatost” prerezov, ki je kot taka modelirana le zaradi enostavnega prikaza nuje po “vertikalnemu prebadanju”. Takoj lahko uvidimo, da prispodoba prostora nakaže drugačno smer razmišljanja – od (sicer objektivizirane a) abstraktne celote, na (objektivizirane) posamezne plasti te celote (-> partikularnosti). Posamezne plasti so izolirane/ diskretne le v toliko, kolikor jih (zaradi lenobe?!, zaradi jasnosti?!) razmaknemo med seboj. Za nas je vprašanje: kako jih, take kot so, zbližati in povezati. Pot je seveda s prej omenjenim vertikalnim prebadanjem.

OBJEKTI V PROSTORU (komunikacija in kontemplacija)

Ko je prostor “poln” – in prostor je vedno bolj poln, kot se zdi – to pomeni, da v njem bivajo objekti. Objekti so tudi sami abstraktni prostori, ujeti v geometrijo veličin, ki jim določajo identiteto. Identiteta rodi poznavanje, razpoznavanje, pomen. In temu služijo strukturirani prostori. Spoznati pomen pomeni že tudi odločiti se. Odločitve so torej rezultat redukcije sistemov, objektov – že reduciranih sestavin sveta – na skrajno enostavno formo, ki je osnova tehnologije odločanja: da/ ne/ ne vem (?). Objekt s svojimi vsebovanimi lastnostmi že vsebuje enakovredno možnost vseh pomenov, saj je to osnovna funkcija objekta – njegov razlog za bivanje. Zaplete pa se, ko se objekt nahaja v različnih diskurzivnih poljih – kontekstih. V tem primeru se opremo na naš model resonančnega prostora. Če v prostor poln zvoka dodamo resonančni predmet (recimo kitaro), bo ta reagirala (interagirala) z zunanjim prostorom in spremenila (kakor koli malenkostno že) zvočno sliko v prostoru. Resonančni predmet je akustični ojačevalnik/ filter zvoka in kot tak aktivno sodelujoč v distribuciji skupnega toka (zvočne slike) – skupnega “komunikacijskega kanala”. Kitara ima lahko sicer tudi druge lastnosti (je stara in lepa, vendar so te lastnosti zunaj dogovorjenega komunikacijskega kanala. Za uspešno komunikacijo/ interakcijo se torej omejimo na skupno/ dogovorjeno (“konvencionalno”)/ funkcionalno (“dobro” ali “slabo”).

Funkcionalnost je po mojem mnenju eden od bolj pomembnih opisnih pojmov. Je osnova dogovorjeni realnosti – konvencionalnosti. Nosilci zavesti (in pomenov) se lahko dogovarjamo (komuniciramo) le o dogovorjenem – to je: o objektivnem. Dogovorjeni objekti pa so seveda lahko tako materialni kot miselni. Verjetno med njimi niti ni posebne razlike, saj enostavno prehajajo eden v drugega. Funkcionalni objekti imajo en sam namen – določiti pomen. Najbrž so kar vsi objekti tudi funkcionalni, saj bi sicer ne bilo potrebe po njihovi “objektivizaciji”, izgradnji. Torej so matrika, ki naj vedno vrne pomen. Komuniciranje je uspešno, kadar matrika vrne pretežno podoben rezultat, kar pa ni prav pogosto. Razlog za “nelinearnost” (označevalne?) matrike je v različnosti kontekstov, znotraj katerih se objekti, matrike nahajajo. Kontekst je torej analogija za prostor, ali del prostora, matriko pa potem takem lahko opišemo kot koncept – oziroma: kot močno poenostavljeno, reducirano strukturo – objekt – pojem. A ne pomen: teh je več – seveda glede na posamezni kontekst. O pomenih (in objektivni realnosti) lahko torej še največ opravimo na polju uvida v različne kontekste. Celoviti pogled na prostor v prostoru (ali tudi: objekt v prostoru; objekt je tudi prostor) je torej nujen za uspešno rabo prevajalnika “resnice”.

Nosilci prekletstva neizogibnosti zavesti, torej neprestane potrebe po gradnjah in izgradnji, zunanje ponotranjamo s pomočjo prilagajanja konvencionalnemu (dogovorjenemu), potem pa ponotranjeno vrnemo. A pri prevajalski dejavnosti prevod ni nikoli enak prebranemu. Morda je bila matrika drugačna (premalo dogovorjena?), še bolj verjetno pa je bil drugačen prostor. Ta se spreminja v času, z vsebnostjo in interakcijo objektov. Prostor je živ, dokler se v njem (v “komunikacijskem kanalu”) kaj pretaka. Zanimiv pojem je entropija, ki naj bi v sistemu kazala na notranjo dinamiko, oziroma na postopno uravnovešanje sistema. V termodinamiki velja, a se v izoliranem sistemu toplota sčasoma porazdeli enakomerno – kar pomeni, da tak komunikacijski kanal (toplota) ne kaže več gradientov. Pustimo ob strani nemogočo abstrakcijo o izoliranem sistemu in morda razmislimo o tezi, da morda termodinamični model ne vsebuje generativnih objektov. Objekti, ki so aktivni, so generativni. Poleg tega morajo biti v svoji aktivnosti tudi avtonomni. To v prvi vrsti pomeni – neusklajeni. Matematični približek tej zahtevi so nelinearne lastnosti objektov, spoznavnih matrik – tako v času, kot v prostoru (-> v našem namišljenem prostoru). Še bolje, če so objekti že v osnovi nestabilni sistemi. Recimo: ljudje. Razpeti med neizogibnost takšnih ali drugačnih trdnih zgradb (pomenov, smisla) na eni strani, in neizogibno psihofizično nestabilnost na drugi strani. Idealni gradniki aktivnih, generativnih – “živih” sistemov.

Nasprotje komunikaciji najdem v pojmu kontemplacija. Sicer oba nerazvezljivo prepletena v procesu kognicije (spoznavanja, razumevanja, osmišljevanja), pa vsak po svoje prispevata k odločanju. Odločanje je v tem primeru proces prenosa informacije (komunikacija; želja po verodostojnem – konvencionalnem ) in predelave informacije (kontemplacija; premlevanje in individualizacija informacije).
Lets try to observe the sound within space so that we would be able to see the analogueus picture of Nature – of simultaneity of the non-structured totality and the structured partiality – of something that is “on its own” and something that is forced upon us (humans/observers) as a logical (pre)structure. Since the humans’ perception always structures what is seen, we cannot easily approach the totality (the non-structured). So we will try only to get hold of the “structured view” of the complex structure, which in itself it is a hard enough problem since it exist in “layers”. The lower (or the more subtler) layers are escaping from our “cognitive matrix” – as “noise”. A normal process during the “selective view”. The structured view is a process of filtrating – a reduction. The layers that form the various strata are various discourses – the fields of different variables. The variables are the basic concepts – expressions, terms that construct every evaluation/cognitive matrix.

Sound as metaphore was used before – in sociology (->Jacques Atali), especially the music (as the structured sound) (->Kurt Blaukopf). The relations that exist within genres (or between the genres themselves), are quite conformant with the relations within the society. We can say that the music is the reflection of the social relations – and this is valid for any field that has a human activity at the root.

In a previous text I wrote about an expression, term “human-machine” (the machinistic nature of a human) so that I would be able to affirmate the existance of non-functional (machines), especially in the field of sound (as art). I tried to negate the usual observation that a machinistic nature is the property of the machine and not of its maker. I pointed to the part of human activities that are described as disfunctional (-> Noam Chomsky), or at least non-representative for the resultant of the (idea of the) society. In the psychology there are many affirmations to the claim of human pre-structured “nature”. Among these are the ability to form the patterns, which is the basis of human ability to learn – induction. Also the patterns can be “decomposed” to more basic patterns and reconstructed as a different story (more on stories later) – deduction. These constructed forms are mind objects/ bodies – concepts, objectivized abstractions. I touched also the expression, term “free will”, but I didn’t go (yet) into analysis whether decisions matter at all. Somehow I don’t feel that they do (given their limited number – yes, no,…).

THE RESONANT SPACE (the metaphore of the logic space)

Lets get immersed into “a resonant space”. It is a space/ room filled with sound(s). As we know the sound cannot easily be given the attribute of rigidity or constancy and is very easily used as metaphore of amorphous “dynamic entity”, that fills up the space – a room or a hall. When we “bring” the sound from outside to the space, the sound gets transformed by the space. The sound’s basic property is to propagate through a material (the air) and it reflects (bounces of) from the borders (the walls). It forms a complex interferential pattern – or better: complex patterns, since we deal with ever changing sound. The complexity of patterns rises with the complexity of the space architecture – the positioning of objects and people included. Every little change of every element matters.

Observer must necessarily be inluded within such system. A measuring/evaluating subject is at the sam time an object – yet another dynamic addition. Swimming within the system he/she “feels” the dynamics of the system. This “feeling” will represent the ever-escaping experience of totality, of the “whole” – but it cannot be quantified. Such space into which we are emmersed will from now on represent a paradoxical expression, term of “limited infinite”.

The statical measurment of all the points of a horizontal slice in the space (two dimensions) shows a net-like structure – different for any frequency – and any slice. All the frequencies are present in the so-called “white noise”, but when we move from this extreme saturation to reduced sound entities / sound objects – the resonant space becomes an interesting metaphore for “a feeling” of totality/ comprehensive understanding – evaluation of the complex system (entity, structure, medium, of organisation). It must be noted that intrinsically dynamic systems do not provide stable results – and are not practical to use as the basis for stable evaluation/ decision matrix. They are non-functional.

For a resonant space the sound is the liquid, the issue – which is being formed by the space. True, the space itself must be understood as a dynamic, amorphous system as well, but since we search the path of human understanding, we must introduce some reduction. This is done by forming descrete representations. And it becomes neccessary to introduce time… or was it the other way around? Did the time introduce discreteness?

It was noted before that in the basic meaning we can speak of media as system, space, structure, discourse, etc. All this expressions, terms are abstractions that get concrete when they are given their borders (->walls). As we know we make cognitive systems by defining the complementary (dualistic) values/ properties/ qualities. By combining basic dualistic systems into more complex multidimensional matrix we are able to form abstract “translation functions” which seem to have a body of their own. The translation becomes abstract and metaphoric: black = beautiful, white = clean, etc. Such complex evaluation forms are often part of local cultures. They act as machines/ mechanisms for fast decisionmaking.

They also do not seem to care about the context – on the contrary: they act as contexts – but we don’t know it. These are usually proverbs, stories, local customs, clothes, music, etc. We call them stereotypes – which is nice: it gives these objects a 3D feeling! Stereotypes usually hide their dialectics – the reason for existence. By being highly metaphorical, they do not provide their more basic (parental) elements/ meanings. One has to work hard… But they successfully perform the function of cultural synchronization – the provide consensus without the need to understand. Ability to cut through these mechanisms/ layers to the hidden meaning behind is my aim.

MULTIPLE IDENTITIES

As noted the sound in space is formed into patterns. Patterns are shapes – objects of some kind. The space acts as filter and amplifier. The patterns are therefore the identity of the system. Here we chose the identification to be the consequence of the system – not the description of the system itself. We chose our model to be limited, since the unlimited does not provide the patterns – does not provide understanding. Understanding = limited. The analysis of “limited infinity” means making a “vertical cut” into co-existing various discoursive fields (“the slices”). The vertical cut should be made so that it links the slices conformantly. This is always so, because the discourses are the products of human nature and culture – they are logically (rationally) preformed. In one vertical cut we can get totally opposite meanings from different discourses on the same subject (or object).

Every field/ discourse/ theory is of course a coherent logical structure built on the dualistic principles. However the objects that form the discourses can have different levels of abstraction/ complexity. This makes the vertical cut harder – it neccessarily becomes a poetic/ artistic act. We do not measure once and for all, but work on a feeling instead. Evaluation is made on the basis of the subject (object) surpassing the basic form/ structure/ discourse. Art is not a form (form is just a pattern) – art means a vertical cut. Art can be understood as interdisciplinary/ intermedial action – never a theory or science. Art is therefore recombining the (rationally) comprehendable “slices of representation” back into the comprehensible (all-including) “natural” form. (Hm?)

COMMUNICATION AND CONTEMPLATION

When a space is “full” – as it always is (a space is built because the need to define relations among the objects) – it means that there are objects in it. Objects themselves are abstract structures – spaces, fixed into geometry of values serving to define their identity. Identity gives birth to cognition, identification, to meaning. This what the structured spaces serve us. To know the meaning equals to make a decision. Decisions are therefore the result of reductionist systems – objects: and the decisions themselves are the final limit of a reduced complex form – yes, no, i don’t know (?). Decisions are treacherous because the object is always in multiple discoursive fields – in different contexts. A guitar as a resonant object in our space filled with sounds will react (interact) with the sound in space and change (to a small extent) the sound picture. A resonant body is an acoustic amplifier/ filter and as such an active participant in the distribution of the common spectrum – the common “communication channel”. A guitar has other properties (old and beautiful), but these properties may lay outside our agreed (conventional) communication channel. For a simple and effective communication/ interaction (transfer of meaning) we must limit ourselves on the common/ conventional – in order to be functional.

Functionality is in my opinion one of the more important expressions, terms for a description. It is at the root of the “conventional reality”. The owners of conscience (and the meaning) can communicate only about the conventional – which is: the objective. Conventional object can of course be material objects or/ and mind objects. Probably there is not much difference between them, since they so easily transform into one another. Objects have only one function – to define the meaning. Objects are a matrix which returns a meaning. Communication is successful when a matrix returns about the same result, but that is not so often. The reason for the “nonlinearity” of the (cognitive, označevalne?) matrix is in the diversity of the multiple contexts, which hold the object or the matrix. The context is therefore analogy for space, or part of space, and the matrix can be seen as a concept – or: as a reduced and simplified structure, object, expression, term. But not as an exclusive meaning: there are more of those – according to different contexts. To analyze the meaning (and the objective reality) one must analyze the various contexts. A view that allows for the co-existance of different contexts (or spaces or objects) is neccessary to build a “machine that tells the truth” (the stone of wisdom?).

Because of the inevitable use of conscienceness – our ever present need for buildings/ patterns and to build – we internalize the external by adapting to the conventional and then return the internalized. But in every translation something is changed. Was the matrix different (or not agreed enough?), but morelikely the space/ context was different. It is a dynamic system, changing in time, along with its the changing content and the dynamic interactions of objects. The space is alive when there is a flow within (the communictaion channel). Entropy is supposed to describe the inner dynamics of a system – pointing to the gradual balancing of the system. In thermodynamics the heat eventually distributes itself equally – meaning that the communication channel does not show any gradients anymore.

But we are not dealing with passive systems, but with dynamic – generative ones. Objects in the system are active – generative. In its activity they are autonomous – on the basic level: not sinchronous. Mathematical model would show them as a system of nonlinear equations of higher orders (-> matrix). It’s best when objects are by their nature unstable systems. Like: humans… Torn between the inevitability of such and such structures (providing the meanings) on one side, and the inevitability of psychophysical nonstability on the other side. The ideal building blocks for generative – live systems.

CONCEPTS AS STORIES

Every object always has some meaning. When an object is put into some context (field, array, space) – it speaks out a story. A story is really a specific meaning in action. A story is therefore an object itself – a structure, but especially well adapted to form/ programme a human mind. Stories as objects that are stretched in time open up a space of cause and effect (causal relations). What was in the past remains in one of/or many causal transformations also in this moment… and (as a potentiality) also in the future. And true: stories are very close to the wish/need to form/control/predict/forecast the future. Stories are patterns. Stories as spells. These forms, bearers of meaning, are our partners with the ability for extreme transformations through time – but can also become timeless, when they are taken out from time and made abstract self-sufficient (closed) objects/ expressions (proverbs, spells, stories). (Relatively) timeless stories are called archetypes and are the basis of culture. Culture is a space (context) which has an extremely tight grip on us. But stories usually form much less stable objects – it’s enough to immerse them into some (any, arbitrary?) context. Here it can get really funny.

While building (the concept and the material object) the Arms & Weapons miniature (->bazooka, the title came at the end) three stories emerged one after another – not really totally separate, but each one individual and self-contained. First one has to peel off the uppermost (layer of meaning). To peel off the uppermost layer means that the simplest stories form/crystalize on their own (-> as parasites). They are the most simple interpretations – mere reflections of the conventional/consensual world/culture – they do not bring any new meaning – they speak what was spoken form thousand times before (-> they are archetypal). Stories are parasites of meaning. As archetypal they are mythisations and don’t serve the understanding but “the knowing”. Stories as objects need to be stripped off in layers in order to be able to dig out the hidden relations/meanings. But before that it is still amusing to feel/observe the power of the sublimated – but noting that it will not bring forth the understanding.