RE: NOVELTY. DOES IT REALLY "EXIST"?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Hey, should I say "good morning" to you?
hmm ... we define simulation differently, I think. For me, simulation tries to copy a process as accurate as possible. Also, a situation of either the past or the future. Like the example with the Hudson River landing (simulation of what "had happened") or the simulation for the future, for example weather forecastings, of what "will happen".
What you presented are situations in which people are confronted with sensory impressions of subjects and objects, "cathedral", "pictures", "sounds". Those, I would say, are influential factors, not a simulation of something but a real experience in which a human is moving right then.
I walk into a cathedral. I feel the greatness of the room, I hear the echo of my steps, I smell a certain odor, I perceive an atmosphere of silence because I hear people in the very far end whispering, and so on. That is real life experience, not a simulation.
I also would not necessarily name it "manipulation" but "influence". It can either have a pleasant, a neutral or an unpleasant one. Manipulating would take place when the cathedral builder wanted me to have particular his thoughts, while walking the isles. But that does not happen. So it's not manipulating, other than you define "manipulation" as a neutral expression, than we are probably on the same page here :)
I haven't watched the video, so maybe I missed something which put your answer into context of it.
Specifically "pictures" and "recorded sounds" ARE definitely simulations.
A picture of your family is not your family, and yet it is a simulation that triggers a strong (subconscious) emotional response.
Looking at old photographs is a simulated experience.
:-D haha, it's funny how different we deal with those scenes. I guess, the reason why I put "pictures" and "sounds" into the same category, is, that I created a whole scenery in my imagination in which it is not just a moment of seconds without any give context but an experience, IN WHICH I hear music and start dancing, a situation IN WHICH I look at a photograph while I show it to another person.
But you are right, if I just take the mini scene, music and a photograph can be seen as simulations of something I already experienced and which then comes back as memories or emotions.
The situation in the cathedral is not a simulation for me. It's a real time experience.
The cathedral is like a (painting or) photograph in the same way that a sculpture is like a photograph. A cathedral is a sculpture you can experience from the inside. Sort of a sculptural envelope. A "new world" (VR).
Here I found an answer two months ago, which I forgot to forward it to you :)
I beg to differ. A cathedral is a cathedral. A painting a painting and a photograph is a photograph. I can't experience any of it in the inside, if I haven't experienced it already in real life.
I can only make comparisons if I have two things to compare to one another. One real, one virtual.
A man, who grew up in the jungle and never in his life has seen a ship won't know it's a ship. He could not make any virtual connection to its purpose, function and parts.
The real thing is not in any way similar to the virtual. If you think about it in depth, there is no such thing as similarity.
100% THIS.
Also, if you like that feeling you get from a cathedral, you might like this,
I watched the whole video. Creepy. Gigantomania in its purest form. Thanks anyway, I've only ever seen abandoned shopping malls on the net and some photographs of them. I would be surprised if a new investor were found for the project, since the future of normal consumers is supposed to be online and meeting in real space in such large areas is apparently a thing of the past.
I was wondering how things are in Las Vegas right now. Are they all sitting there in masks in front of the slot machines or has Sin City closed?
I thought just the sheer structure and scale of the thing was awe inspiring.
It is funny that Las Vegas hasn't seemed to be mentioned in "the news".
I'll have to look into that.
Imagine a purely "natural" world with no detectable "artificial" (human) influence.
Now imagine that "feeling" you get from a cathedral.
Where would you get something like that?
Perhaps in an enormous rock-faced canyon?
Perhaps looking up into a deep, dark sky filled with shimmering stars?
Would you experience a sense of awe and wonder?
Would you hear your feet tapping on the stone floor?
A cathedral is a HYPNOTIC DEVICE, just like a swinging pocket-watch, or a single flame in a darkened room.
A cathedral is a piece of technology designed to replicate (on demand) the sense of awe and wonder that has been historically the exclusive domain of the natural world.
Yes, good points. In a world where I barley get in touch with the stars above and the natural wonders like water falls and high cliffs, if I do not happen to live near them, the technological substitutes serve a somewhat similar purpose. Though I'd say they often don't even come close to bring the awe or calmness.
Remember the two monks I recently talked about? Sitting on top of a mountain?
∴
The architects who designed (and the financiers who sanctioned and commissioned) the cathedral intended, very specifically to instill a sense of awe and wonder in its visitors and to communicate the awesome power (and innate value) of its officers (individuals who merely occupy its offices).
This has been demonstrated by the "voluntary" outpouring of support from many non-members (even atheists) for the restoration of Notre-Dame de Paris for example.
I don't consider it bad to come into the state of awe. I nevertheless can make the connection to the church officials who planned on this to impress and rule the people. Once a person gained insight in the fact that architecture was and is always a means to demonstrate power, the power loses. Then it's just a building which can impress me. But I will not further on will be impressed by its builders and plans they might have. I see through the power game.
I can ask myself the question: Could I live without churches and buildings impressing me? My clear answer is "yes". Though I probably would miss to have a church experience as I rarely have the chance to enter a natural cave of similar quality.
I agree. I have an almost instinctual nostalgia for that first cathedral experience. It's a very impressive technology.