A model of communication as waves

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I.

1.
In every medium, the content is formed not by the arrangement of symbols by in the interference patterns between the self/intent of the author and the self/intent of the audience. The symbols are the waveform put out by the author, and are meaningless and blank until the audience allows the interference pattern to form, which gives it meaning.

2.
The interference pattern between the ego of the author as author and author as audience is null -- the intent will cancel and the message will be meaningless; in the context it will seem to mean everything in the author's self.

3.
Over time, an author and an audience changes, because the messages so absorbed have their effects on the self. Solitude will expand single simple messages out to block out all else -- a jamais vu -- but without solitude, the interchange of messages causes a change in all involved, the interference patterns causing the illusion of complexity. In this way, an author can become a receptive audience for his previous self.

4.
Since the initial wave has no meaning without context, any meaning implied by context is valuable as a reflection of both parties and their environment. The message says as much about the audience as it does about the author, and likewise says as much about their respective situations and prior influences.

5.
The illusion of complexity is an illusion in the strict sense: it has no proof. To go by the identity of indistinguishables, as the illusion of complexity cannot be disproven to be complex, it is in effect complex. There is no complexity that is provably not illusitory.


II.

1.
The ego is the interference pattern between the ego and the other. As such, the ego changes through communication.

2.
The whole of the ego is not explicitly apparent in the other. The interference patterns, although ostensibly complete, appear incomplete. Pieces cancel which may or may not signify. Only through change of ego can those pieces become apparent.

3.
The shadow is signified by its echo. The self hides the shadow by self-cancelling with its own attempts at ego modification, but a resonance with the shadow will make it appear either by an exaggerated wave inversion or by the overpowering of the persona's waveform by the shadow. In this way does the shadow manefest.

4.
The interference pattern of the self and the self is the amplified self. The interference pattern of the self and the inverted self is the void. The interference pattern of the ego and the shadow is the self.

5.
The self, by imperfectly echoing, can propagate changes to the ego and the shadow. The self, by perfectly echoing, can only self-destruct.

III.

1.
Time passes in an apparent fashion not separate from the ego, but in terms of changes to it.

2.
The internal dialogue and the dream state is the imperfect communication between the self as author and the self as audience. The noise is theraputic.

3.
Without dialogue, there is no apparent time. Without qualitative changes to the self, there is no apparent time to the self, but there is a change in amplification.

4.
Dialogue, as the exchange and mutual absorbtion of interference patterns between the self and the other, is the system by which both apparent time and apparent autonomy is reached. From arbitrary initial forms, the waveforms self-order. Feedback within the system supports this.

5.
The internal monologue is an illusion. The internal monologue is an internal dialogue. A true monologue is not communication since it is not bidirectional; a true monologue involves a static source which itself does not change in response to interference. Though it may affect the audience differently as the audience changes, it itself cannot adapt, so the data it contains is finite unlike that which can self-modify. It is a string of symbols disconnected from its source, and as it cannot dynamically adapt, it cannot retain its ability to cause others to adapt without a dynamic support network.

IV.

1.
A monologue seeks to replace the waveform of other selves with itself, but it never will. In order to do so, it must have a second dynamic self and the interplay of the two must normalize the differences by repeating both the interference pattern with the self and that with its inversion infinitely. Therefore, a monologue can never perfectly overwrite the self.

2.
Although the self initially is programmed with echoes of the random and the accidental, it gives itself form by interplay with others. Without interplay, it cannot organize and remains not static but fundamentally unstable.

3.
The human is fundamentally different not in its ability to engage in dialogue but in its willingness to use both dialogue and monologue in support of each other. Time binding is not the monologue itself, but the interplay of dialogue and monologue -- the symbols in the monologue are meaningless unless their meaning can change by their interplay with changing selves.

4.
The time-binding instinct allows the static and the dynamic to have interplay by which the monologue can become dynamic despite remaining static. The symbols do not change, but their meaning changes as the audience interacts with new symbols in new contexts. In this way, the static appears to move and its apparent movement becomes a metric for apparent time.

5.
The time-binding instinct is therefore well-named, since by staying objectively static and subjectively dynamic only in respect to apparent time, it gives the only reliable measure of apparent time.

V.

1.
The monologue cannot put the dialogue in stasis, and it cannot itself remain subjectively static. It fails at imparting immutable meaning.

2.
Since the monologue is objectively immutable and subjectively mutable constant with the flow of apparent time, the change in its meaning is a reasonable approximation of apparent time. However, the monologue, thus subjectively dynamic, itself adds to the flow of apparent time. In this way, the monologue becomes a dialogue with itself.

3.
The dialogue between the monologue and itself is facilitated by the dialogue between various impressions or interference patterns with the monologue in terms of secondary impressions, which likewise influence the monologue itself.

4.
The illusitory mutability of the monologue is therefore the main strength of the monologue in that by being static, it causes itself to become dynamic.

5.
Thus, this document as a monologue changes meanings each time you read it. Interaction with the other will likewise change this document's meaning moreso, and even its organization will interact with its meaning if these associations are primed and triggered. You, the audience, cannot unread this document. You have been changed.

There is no new info here. Move along.

[Kai]

none?

[MMIX]

I read your piece

If this is a poem you need to edit more
If this is a serious piece you need to study more
If you are using you need to quit cos that shit is eating your brain
And you don't get to throw shit in my path and then tell me "There is no new info here. Move along."
I can see for myself there is no new info and you don't get to tell me that after you wasted my goddam time reading your sophomoric shite

I looked for an illustration which seemed appropriate to the topic

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW http://tiny.cc/t8HRw

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I read your piece

If this is a poem you need to edit more
If this is a serious piece you need to study more
If you are using you need to quit cos that shit is eating your brain
And you don't get to throw shit in my path and then tell me "There is no new info here. Move along."
I can see for myself there is no new info and you don't get to tell me that after you wasted my goddam time reading your sophomoric shite

This is actually some BS I wrote while trying to mimic the style of The Society of the Spectacle. I realize that it's sophomoric, which is why I mentioned that it contained no new info.

I thought that it might be worth building upon, which is why I posted it. If not, no big loss.

[MMIX]

I read your piece

If this is a poem you need to edit more
If this is a serious piece you need to study more
If you are using you need to quit cos that shit is eating your brain
And you don't get to throw shit in my path and then tell me "There is no new info here. Move along."
I can see for myself there is no new info and you don't get to tell me that after you wasted my goddam time reading your sophomoric shite

This is actually some BS I wrote while trying to mimic the style of The Society of the Spectacle. I realize that it's sophomoric, which is why I mentioned that it contained no new info.

I thought that it might be worth building upon, which is why I posted it. If not, no big loss.

Thank god for that

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

none?

I am unsure whether or not a model of communication content and of certain aspects of jungian psychology is new. Even if it is, it may not be useful. I wrote it as a bullshit session, and then gave it the benefit of the doubt as being potentially useful later. To err on the side of caution, I said it contained nothing new.