Knowledge, Proximity, Imagination

November 6th, 2007 Fred McVittie

‘Imagination is our capacity to organise mental representations (especially percepts, images, and image schemata) into meaningful coherent unities.’ (Johnson. 1987: p.140)

In ‘The Body in the Mind’ Johnson reminds us of the Platonic categorisation of modes of cognition, in which the validity of knowledge is seen to vary according to how one approaches its collection. Most valued is knowledge acquired by intellection (noesis), in which the unchanging ‘essence’ of the knowledge is grasped. At the bottom of the scale of knowing is imagination (eikasia) in which only ‘images, shadows, reflections’ (p.142) are apprehended, not the essential knowledge itself.

This structure of distinction, it can be noted, also arranges knowledge across the spectra of proximity and the senses, locating the essence of knowing close to the body where it can be ‘grasped’, and the less secure knowing offered by the Platonic imagination placed at some remove where only its surface appearance, or even only traces of that appearance such as a shadow, can be apprehended. Interestingly, there is no suggestion within this scheme of the later association of closeness/’feltness’ with subjectivity, or of distance/visibility with objectivity. In our current understanding,as revealed through the metaphors we use, we give a great deal of credence to objective knowledge described in visual terms and located figuratively at a distance in interpersonal space. We correspondingly give less credence to subjective knowledge described in tactile terms and located up close and personal (even though we may intuitively ‘feel’ this subjective knowledge as more ‘real’ than the objective knowledge of intersubjectively validated visual knowing). This modern value distinction between the subjective and the objective does not appear in Plato’s categorisation.

Posted in Essence, History, Imagination, Knowledge, Metaphor, Plato, Proximity, Space, thesis | No Comments »

Enlightenment from Sensory Collapse

November 7th, 2007 Fred McVittie

The attainment of Enlightenment (or something like it) may be aided by the process in which visual and auditory sensory experiences are transformed into tactile or proprioceptive experiences. This shift in sensory engagement from the seen to the felt collapses the (conceptual) space which radically separated seer from seen, replacing it with contact. When the connection between subject and object is conceived as direct contact (or even immersion) then the separation between these concepts disappears and non-duality is achieved. In metaphorical terms this collapse involves a remapping of concepts from sources based in the visual (and auditory) to sources which are located next to, or inside of the body, rather that ‘over there’.

Posted in Enlightenment, Metaphor, Non-duality, Proximity, Sense | No Comments »

Light and Space

January 17th, 2008 Fred McVittie

The key role that light plays in our metaphorical conceptualisation of knowing is linked to other elements or entailments of the overall schema KNOWING IS SEEING. Seeing is dependent upon the medium of light for its functioning, and closely related to this is the space which the light occupies and which allows for both the separation and the containment of the object of vision. In order to see something that thing must exist in a brightly lit shared space with ourselves, it must be separated from us within a prescribed distance, and it must not be obscured or occluded by other things. Only when all these conditions are met can the act of seeing take place. The relationship between the components of this schema, light and space, is such that they are inextricably linked; we cannot divorce the space from its illumination. A space which is totally dark, in visual terms ends at the surface of our eyeballs. A visually extended space, on the other hand, is defined by the extent to which it is flooded with light. The conscionable space ends at the limits of the light, and while we might suspect the space continuing into the shadows there is a distinctly different ontology to such a space; it is ambiguous, impenetrable, filled with the absence of lightness.

The conceptual metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING which derives from the phenomenology of sight similarly echoes this tangled relation between light and space. To know something is to recognise its existence out there in the illuminated space beyond our eyes, and we invoke the metaphor whenever we say ‘I see’ when we really mean ‘I know’. Also, the limits and entailments of the metaphor transfer to our conceptualisation of what knowing is. If the object of our knowing is too close to our self the elision of the spatial separation also banishes the light and we can no longer claim to have this kind of visual knowledge. An object held against the heart ceases to be visible, and similarly with objects of knowing, when we are too personally involved the object ceases to have the objectivity which light and distance conferred upon it. It is barely an object at all and seems to be part of our selves, part of our subjectivity.

Alternatively, if the object is too metaphorically distant from us we may have great difficulty seeing it at all. We may sense that it is partly hidden in shadow and it may even inherit an eldritch strangeness from the darkness toward which it leans. At such a remove the object of knowing becomes part of occult knowledge, secretive, hidden and the property of the gnostic.

Posted in Darkness, Knowledge, Light, Metaphor, Proximity, Space | No Comments »

Here is Knowing.

January 18th, 2008 Fred McVittie

You are standing at the centre of a space and at the centre of a pool of light. The light is all around you and may even be inside of you. You may even be the source of that light. Because of the light and the space you are able to ’see’ objects which are within that pool of light, although they cannot be too far away. Beyond a certain distance they grow indistinct, shadowy, and vague. At some remove, within a certain proscribed range, these objects are clearly visible, not only to yourself, but also to others who are near you in this illuminated space.

Should this object pose any kind of threat, because of the distance and the space between yourself and this object of sight you are in no immediate danger. The sight of it may suggest a threat in the future or may be a precursor for some other kind of reaction but this sight alone cannot harm you. No-one ever died from just looking at something. Similarly, the object cannot profit you just by its being simply visible. At that distance you cannot eat it, drink it, have sex with it, shelter under it, wrap yourself in it to keep warm, or use it as tool of any kind. It’s existence may be interesting or informative but it can not be life-preserving. There is therefore no urgency about the object; no life or death decision rests on its precise identification or the appropriateness of its naming. The object is perennially ‘over there’ in the communal space beyond the touch of a hand and the press of skin.

This is not a static space however. Objects can move and we ourselves can also move and as we do so the proximity we might have to objects changes. And with those changes in relative location come other changes in relationship, in salience, and in sensory availability. As we approach the object it moves from being removed to being within our grasp, and we might make use of this availability and place our hands around the object. Here it is man-handled and its affordances are measured against our grip, a larger object may give its weight to our hands and arms and be difficult to embrace and even harder to move. It is now up close and personal, and we would be advised to pay closer and more personal attention to its properties and its motives. It may fall and crush us; it may poison us on contact; we may be eaten alive or pushed over the edge of a cliff. This is the distance at which accidents happen and that which we can touch is not something we can be blase about. If we can touch it then it may touch us, possibly in ways which are unwelcome and life-threatening. Alternatively it may respond to the touch of our outstretched fingers with the softness of a lover’s cheek, thrilling us to the core and drawing us closer. It may, at this distance, release perfume at our touch; the tang of orange and the heavy scent of musk, and again we would be foolish to ignore these tender pleadings. Instead of being dangerous there is the promise of rapture. Whether attractive or repulsive, the source of pain or delight, at the range of touch these objects become significant in a way which is ours and ours alone. No onlooker is offered these promises and threats; there is no sharing of this proximal and intimate space and only by standing on these shoes, at this exact spot in the centre of space and light, and only by being this close to the object can this exact experience be obtained. The salience of the moment is mine and mine alone.

Inside the orbit of our arms the object is not only within our grasp but also beyond our last defence. Any opportunity we may have had to ward of this entity is gone; the blow of an enemy, the unwanted sexual advances of an undesirable fellow human, the slings and arrows of fortune both outrageous and exhilarating, and impact with the body is certain. The space between the object and ourselves is now completely elided and there is only the darkness of direct contact. It is here, at the level of the skin, that all of the drama of human being takes place. Any entity which cannot protect its boundaries from invasion and intrusion is dead in the water. Any being which resists merging with the objects of nourishment and reproduction is similarly stultified. All life is here, and this surface, this superficial envelope should be a major focus of attention and care. What touches, what goes in, what comes out, is a matter of life and death and is not the subject of inconsequential, interpersonal, rarified, distanced debate. In fact there can be no debate; no matter where you stand and however well lit you are you cannot feel these blows and penetrations. They are mine and only mine.

Some of this contact, this pressing, is strong and shakes my balance, moving me away and relocating the centre of myself, my space, my light. Other contacts are more to the point and puncture the skin with surgical precision. Still others both consume and are consumed, passing behind the boundary and making contact with inner spaces and inner sense. Once inside I can feel these objects, if I can feel them at all, only with my gut and the with my heart. They may have a taste which is salty or sweet, and they may weigh heavily inside me. These entities have become entirely secret and no other person can truly know of their existence at all. Even I myself may lose touch with them in the space inside. They are not clearly bounded and seem to merge with the internals of my own body so that I no longer can be sure where I end and they begin. In fact I may start to wonder if I am in total no more than a collection of interior objects, forgotten and assimilated, like the fruit I ate last month which is now transformed into skin cells, but which nevertheless feels like my skin, and the milk I drank as a child long ago became bone and is now far away in the shells of sea creatures; my bones, my self. Internal space, dazzlingly dark

Posted in Grasp, Light, Proximity, Space | No Comments »

Cross-modal sensory mapping.

April 13th, 2008 Fred McVittie

The analysis of texts which use sensory mode based metaphors, i.e. that refer to ‘touch’, ‘taste’, ’see’, in a non-literal way, shows that there are a number of consistent patterns within this usage, including patterns of relations between the sensory modes. For example, Shen & Cohen (1989) demonstrate that within poetic texts there is a predictable and coherent use of what they refer to as ’synaesthetic’ metaphors, in which the properties of one sensory modality is mapped onto the other. They give the example of phrases such as ’sweet silence’, and point out that in phrases such as this the modality which they refer to as ‘lower’, i.e. closer to the body, in these cases the sense of taste or touch, is mapped onto the ‘higher’ or less proximal sense. Also, the ‘higher’ sense which forms the target of this metaphor is usually less accessible, less easy to ‘grasp’. So, in the case of ’sweet silence’, the higher and more ethereal auditory quality of silence is referred to using the more delineated, accessible, and proximal sense of taste. Although it is not stated in this article, it is hard to miss the metaphor of elevation which is also being deployed in order to give form to our understanding. Not only are the metaphorical senses ordered across the dimension of proximity and distance, (with the access that such proximity entails), and not only are they distinguished in terms of substantiality, with some being easy to grasp whilst others are harder to get a handle on, but they are also arrayed vertically, with some metaphorical sensory modes appearing more elevated than others. Tasting and touching happen locally and at ground level, sight gives us a wider, but less tangible view, and audition (including listening to the sound of silence) extends that view backward and forward and into the future and the past. Shen and Cohen do not make mention of the part played by olfaction in this schema, but it is likely that given the ubiquity of phrases such as ’strong smell’, or ’sharp odor’ demonstrate that it also figures within the overall structure. In these two possible examples the olfactory experience, which has the characteristics of ephemerality and extension which make access difficult, is understood in terms of the tactile, base-level, and proximal senses of strength and sharpness.

Shen, Y. and M. Cohen (1998). “How come silence is sweet but sweetness is not silent: a cognitive account of directionality in poetic synaesthesia.” Language and Literature 7(2): 123-140.

Posted in Cognition, Grasp, Hearing, Knowledge, Metaphor, Proximity, Seeing, Sense, Silence, Smell, Space, Synaesthesia, Taste | 2 Comments »