Heidegger says “the meaning of a particular thing is enabled by the web of implicit meanings we call the world” (170) He means that to really understand something, we have to know all the background information involving it. An example I might use is a can of coke. We understand what that means, because we have all seen it. To explain it, you would have to explain what a can is, which then needs an explanation of aluminum, how to open the pull tab, etc. For the pop itself, you would need to explain carbonation, caffeine, and all the way to liquid. This is relevant to the third order of order because an item might mean different things to different people depending on their background with it. Say, if I always got a can of coke every time I visited my Grandpa, I would probably connect that can of coke with my grandpa, but the average person wouldn’t. With the 3rd order of order, I could tag that can of coke with grandpa, and someone else can tag it with summer beverages, or anything else that connects them to it.
Sort of like what you’re saying with Coke, I associate Dr. Pepper with a friend of my family’s because he always had that around when we visited him. Hmmm, Dr. Pepper and pachinko; probably not things that most people link together (or maybe they do…). It’s funny to consider how much of a pain it is to actually explicitly define things. If you’re working under the assumption that your audience doesn’t have any implicit meanings to work with, you really need to get into the nitty-gritty like you were saying about aluminum and pull tabs. With the third order we can order things in the ways that make the most sense to us and work with the implicit associations we already have.
ReplyDeleteThat’s an interesting song (I hunted it down on Youtube and listened to it), and a really good map of meanings; it tells a lot about the associations without needing much text. Itty-bitty font for the lyrics(?) though.
I like your diagram! It associates really well, but are there any cross associations? or is it mostly linear? I think we think in a more spider-web way like they highlighted in some of the video's, but maybe we filter out what we have already thought of as we go along, whereas a computer might not do that
ReplyDeleteI wanted the lyrics to be really small, they were more of a decoration, than meant to really be read. I'm a musical theater nut, and into the woods is one of my favorite shows, I wasn't sure how many meanings I should put on my web, since there is so much connected, that can't really be explained, like the feeling you get when you listen to it. No computer will ever be able to comprehend the tune getting stuck in your head, or the feelings assosciated.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a good case to be made that computers could figure out why tunes get stuck in people's heads - the tunes that tend to get stuck in people's heads tend to have certain characteristics in common, but that any computer is going to be a bad predictor of which tunes will get stuck in any one particular head, largely because of all of the social/cultural/historical/personal levels of connection with the lyrics/beat, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe example of the coke illustrates your point well, simply put. To continue off of Toms point, It would be an amazing advancement if computers could take every "social/cultural/historical/personal" construct and somehow simulate it in procuring someones interests on a socio-cultural level threw the computer.
ReplyDeleteThe song web you made was interesting, thought the "douchebag boyfriends" tag was pretty funny. Your web definitely explains that everyone is going to represent that particular song in a certain way. Some people's representation I was able to understand what they were thinking, but with yours I wasn't. Which means the meaning that went along with it is much deeper than just pictures.
ReplyDeletehaha ya i figured people wouldn't really get it, basically in high school, i went out with a guy that everyone thought was really nice, but turned out to be a jerk, so the "nice is different than good" line really spoke to me then.
ReplyDeleteThe Coke example is a good one. The important thing w/ the 3rd order is to remember that the fact of everyone tagging means the their own implicit becomes, in some way, explicit. The more implicit made explicit, the smarter (in theory) machines can become. Alicia's question about your linear map is a good one.
ReplyDelete