“What I heard last night, which may be incorrect, is ‘Symbols exist. We are interlocutors, who insert our perception into a web of pre-existing ‘thingness’ or rather ‘thouness.’ It’s an attractive notion, fitting neatly into Wittgenstein’s “Concrescence’ as the coming into being of every individual moment as the thouness of every previous moment “
“The current definition of pareidolia applies to everything we attend to — Pareidolia (/ˌpæriˈdoʊliə/, US also /ˌpæraɪˈ-/) is the tendency for perception to impose a meaningful interpretation on a nebulous visual stimulus (so that one sees an object, pattern or meaning where in fact there is none).”
“Currently we apply pareidolia in the same hyper-rationalist manner we apply placebo, weaponized words, to defend against the weird, the unknowable, the 10’000 eyes (Brad Warner Trigger Warning!)”
“Pre-pareidolia is to acknowledge, the thouness of the symbol and its existence separate from our narrow I/It self. My best guess of what the JF Interlocuter’s meant"
“Human Agency May Have Been Overstated”
That’s it for today y’all. A response piece to last night’s “Art and Contemplation.” If JF Martel and Jeremy Johnson offer it again I highly recommend it.
