Desert Snake
Veteran Member
No, it's not.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ambiguity
- Thread starter crossfire
- Start date
No, it's not.
I'll clarify the rest of my statement:
Ambiguity opens new avenues of thinking--"no separation between subject and object" leads to process philosophy and systems thinking.
No separation between subject and object gears the mind towards holistic thinking--subject and object are both part of a larger interactive process.
Process philosophy:
Process philosophy (or ontology of becoming) identifies metaphysical reality with change and development. Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, philosophers have posited true reality as "timeless", based on permanent substances, whilst processes are denied or subordinated to timeless substances. If Socrates changes, becoming sick, Socrates is still the same (the substance of Socrates being the same), and change (his sickness) only glides over his substance: change is accidental, whereas the substance is essential. Therefore, classic ontology denies any full reality to change, which is conceived as only accidental and not essential. This classical ontology is what made knowledge and a theory of knowledge possible, as it was thought that a science of something in becoming was an impossible feat to achieve.[1]
In opposition to the classical model of change as purely accidental and illusory (as by Aristotle), process philosophy regards change as the cornerstone of realitythe cornerstone of the Being thought as Becoming. Modern philosophers who appeal to process rather than substance include Nietzsche, Heidegger, Charles Peirce, Alfred North Whitehead, Robert M. Pirsig, Charles Hartshorne, Arran Gare and Nicholas Rescher. In physics Ilya Prigogine[2] distinguishes between the "physics of being" and the "physics of becoming". Process philosophy covers not just scientific intuitions and experiences, but can be used as a conceptual bridge to facilitate discussions among religion, philosophy, and science.[3]
Systems thinking:
Systems thinking is the process of understanding how things, regarded as systems, influence one another within a whole. In nature, systems thinking examples include ecosystems in which various elements such as air, water, movement, plants, and animals work together to survive or perish. In organizations, systems consist of people, structures, and processes that work together to make an organization "healthy" or "unhealthy".
Systems thinking has been defined as an approach to problem solving, by viewing "problems" as parts of an overall system, rather than reacting to specific part, outcomes or events and potentially contributing to further development of unintended consequences. Systems thinking is not one thing but a set of habits or practices[2] within a framework that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system can best be understood in the context of relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation. Systems thinking focuses on cyclical rather than linear cause and effect.
The rest of my statement:
How you handle ambiguity helps you to learn more about yourself and your own mind.
Why such hostility towards multiple interpretations? Have you asked yourself that, and explored that part of your mind? Ambiguity can be a great tool in assisting with this, if this is something you might choose to do.
Humour leads to this?
(not sure about the religious practice either really!)
Have you ever wondered why people laught at politically incorrect humor?
Maybe they laugh at the homophobes who can't stand the gay character. Or maybe they laugh at the gay character for daring to think that he deserves attention at all.
Once I noticed that, I realized that humor, useful as it is to defuse immediate tension, may muddle the waters of understanding as well, by making situations appear more settled than they really are, paving the way for more explosive situations in the future.
As for religious practice, the core example is people deciding that they believe in God and that ought to overcome their disagreements. It actually doesn't, because their conceptions of God and His desire may very well be at odds with each other, leading them to assume a common purpose that they lack, perhaps drastically so.
I would say that vagueness is the opposite of clarity.
Ambiguity can point towards different possibilities, and can reinforce interconnectivity through the importance of context/environment in regards to the different possibilities expressed through the ambiguous presentation.
The mention of the Tao Te Ching reminded me of that. But that is a sort of special case, isn't it? Most times ambiguity leads to confusion and misunderstanding instead of heightened understanding.
How can one go beyond uncertainty without facing it first?
One can't, but ambiguity does not imply facing uncertainty. It may just as easily, if not more easily, hide it.
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
I'd like to explore ambiguity--specifically the different reactions an ambiguous text may bring forth.
I've seen a whole gamut of reactions ranging from joy and delight to downright hostility as a response to an ambiguous phrase or text. Why is this reaction in response to verbal communication, and not to other ambiguous things, like this picture of the Rubin vase, which can be interpreted as a vase or the silhouette of two faces?
Does anyone experience frustration to the visual ambiguity?
What do you think about ambiguity, verbal or otherwise?
I think ambiguity is an interesting thing to ponder, especially how people deal with it. We as human beings love explanations. Wherever/whatever we look at we tend to need some reason for it, and will prefer a bad explanation over none at all.
I think that if there’s something ambiguous, the more ambiguous it is the more gaps there are to fill in by the brain and more chance that you project meaning that’s likely not there. So if something is quite evocative emotionally, perhaps through some part of the content, or contextual info, then you are much more likely to project those emotional dispositions onto that ambiguous situation as an explanation.
Language being our primary means of communication means it holds significant power over our minds. We take special notice of words over similar random shapes or patterns. The difference with the visual example you provided is that its content and medium is very unimportant to us on an emotional level. We aren’t that hard wired to care much about it. Also the interesting thing about these visual illusions is that their whole point is to expose how u can see something in 2 different ways, that’s its novelty, so your already predisposed to be ok with its dual interpretation, because that’s actually its explanation, making it not that ambiguous after all.
When people respond differently to say some religious text, then they don’t humour the novelty of multiple meanings in the same way as the visual illusion above, and if they respond one way, they arnt likely to have experienced/considered the others side of things, so don’t see that there’s multiple ways to interpret it. They don’t arrive at the ambiguous text indifferent, but predisposed to see it in a certain way, with an emotional weight sufficient enough to blind them to other possibilities, or to admit that they might be wrong. All the contextual information and subtle cues surrounding the content ensures it plucks at the emotions, dispositions and deep concerns that individual has, eliciting their charged response and when we talk about religion, that’s something religion has managed to perfect.
The funny thing is, the stuff thats totally ambiguos in the world we will often ignore, or not even notice because it is so devoid of anything recognisable, or meaningful. We actually need some 'hook' to catch our attention, some starting point, from which we can expand from.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Well, humour is a whole other topic, but I find that it can sometimes speak to a truth in a less threatening manner than a more 'direct' unambiguous approach. But what do I know? - I like Laurel and Hardy.
Not often frustrating, unless it's deliberate obscurity. More often, I find it delightful.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
How can one go beyond uncertainty without facing it first?
"At the bottom of great doubt lies great awakening." - Hakuin.
You've really never run into someone who uses ambiguous weasel wording as a form of lying? As a way of dodging personal responsibility? As a way of manipulating others for their own selfish ends? You've truly never run into this?
Wow. I envy you.
It isn't just used in the graphic or plastic arts, but in dance as well.
I once choreographed a piece that was titled "?" that was staged several times about 15 years ago. At that age, I was very unaware of the impact of creating a piece that I intended to mean nothing have on the audience. But because the piece itself had many inane and humorous movement to it, overall the audience gave a positive reaction.
What was very interesting was how the audience's feedback in our production's meet & greet offered perspectives on everything ranging from political discourse to creation myths to addictive personalities. When I unveiled the intention of creating a piece without inherent meaning, the responses varied again, from pure joy to harsh criticism on how "juvenile" my piece was. Inevitably, it won two different awards by local adjudicators and was re-staged several times over, and each production run came with the same process of feedback.
It was awesome. I learned a lot about people, including myself.
I once choreographed a piece that was titled "?" that was staged several times about 15 years ago. At that age, I was very unaware of the impact of creating a piece that I intended to mean nothing have on the audience. But because the piece itself had many inane and humorous movement to it, overall the audience gave a positive reaction.
What was very interesting was how the audience's feedback in our production's meet & greet offered perspectives on everything ranging from political discourse to creation myths to addictive personalities. When I unveiled the intention of creating a piece without inherent meaning, the responses varied again, from pure joy to harsh criticism on how "juvenile" my piece was. Inevitably, it won two different awards by local adjudicators and was re-staged several times over, and each production run came with the same process of feedback.
It was awesome. I learned a lot about people, including myself.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Koyaanisqatsi is one of my favourite films. It is intentionally ambiguous, and therefore, should one choose it, a very thought-provoking film. If one is spoon-fed, where is the need to contemplate?
An adult version of "the hokie pokie?" Oh, that sounds like so much fun! Awesome!It isn't just used in the graphic or plastic arts, but in dance as well.
I once choreographed a piece that was titled "?" that was staged several times about 15 years ago. At that age, I was very unaware of the impact of creating a piece that I intended to mean nothing have on the audience. But because the piece itself had many inane and humorous movement to it, overall the audience gave a positive reaction.
What was very interesting was how the audience's feedback in our production's meet & greet offered perspectives on everything ranging from political discourse to creation myths to addictive personalities. When I unveiled the intention of creating a piece without inherent meaning, the responses varied again, from pure joy to harsh criticism on how "juvenile" my piece was. Inevitably, it won two different awards by local adjudicators and was re-staged several times over, and each production run came with the same process of feedback.
It was awesome. I learned a lot about people, including myself.
Koyaanisqatsi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Music by Philip Glass. I'm definitely gonna have to check this out. Thanks!
Koyaanisqatsi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Music by Philip Glass. I'm definitely gonna have to check this out. Thanks!
I need to check it out too, since Fricke's film Baraka is one of my own favorites to watch. :yes:
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Indeedy. I would also recommend Powaqqatsi. The third of the trilogy I have not seen but gets rather mixed reviews.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Thanx, but complimenting me isn't necessary.