A Different Kind of Language

Rag / Jasper Johns

The Korean flag clearly has a background and foreground figures. 

The American flag has no background/foreground separation where the stripes are.  And where the stars are, the background is deep navy with white stars, reversing the traditional background color to be the color of the foreground figure making the reading fluctuate between positive (figures floating in the background space) and negative figures (navy blue surface punctured with star-shaped holes). 

- Our mind easily and eagerly turns anything we see into a spatial reading

- That is why it is not easy to draw "nothing" (having no antecedence, no reference to other things but itself). 

- Even when you leave a blank canvas, it "looks like" infinite space. 

- If you have a grid, as in the red and white stripes in the American flag, it is possible to draw nothing (no outside reference) and keep the mind in the here and now. 

- Structure is the visual common language. Without a common language, there are no seeing, hearing, perceiving, knowing, or understanding. Information cannot be delivered to the brain without language. 

- Structure of things is sort of a language in the sense that it lets us convey / receive information. 

- Structure of things is different from conventional language in the sense that it has no antecedence; it does not point to other things; it points to itself; it is self referential; it is. 

- We do use the mind's tendency to understand order (ex. Math) when perceiving structure. This does not mean structure is pointing to mathematical truth. No, mathematical truth is a tool that helps us understand structures such as a grid. 

- when we see a grid, we do not think of mathematical truths. No, quite the opposite. Mathematical truths help us see the grid and our mind stays where the grid is. 

- When we see a picture of something, say an apple, our mind is no longer on the paper. It has flown to the apple in someone's kitchen or a grocery store. But a true painting, with the composition and brushstrokes and colors and textures, puts the attention of a viewer onto the surface of the canvas and holds it there. The mind never leaves the canvas. The canvas has become a totally unique creation. 

The Right Kind of Questions

"Those who wish to succeed must ask the right preliminary questions."
ARISTOTLE, METAPHYSICS, II, (III), I.

"When a problem is properly stated, in our epoch, it inevitably finds its solution"
LE CORBUSIER, TOWARDS ARCHITECTURE

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/mark_applebaum_the_mad_scientist_of_music.html

The wrong kind of questions focus on the appearance; they are superficial.  

- "What is music?"  "What is art?"  "What is democracy?" etc.
- "What's the answer?"
- "How do you fix this?"
- "How do we make more money?"

These questions are devoid of will and passion.  These questions only seek approval, but do not care for truth.  Because these questions do not think much of truth, there can be no life to these questions.  Answering these questions changes nothing.  The result is lifeless.

The right questions are directly related to who I am / we are:  our weaknesses, our desires, our passions, our vulnerabilities, our lives.  

- "Is it interesting to me?"
- "What do I really want?"  "Why do I want it?"  "Why do I like it?"
- "What will make me grow?"  "What is hindering my growth?"
- "What is the problem?"  "What is the need?"
- "What works?"  "What doesn't work?"
- "How should we spend our money?"

The right questions are interested in the true nature of things.  The true nature makes one feel naked, embarrassed, and vulnerable.  Yet, because it is true, it breathes life into everyday living.  And if one is alive, one shall grow.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/brene_brown_on_vulnerability.html

The Four Questions

I remember learning that a sound philosophy must answer four basic questions:

- Why am I here? (Metaphysics)

- How do you know? (Epistemology)

- What is good? (Ethics and Morality)

- Where am I headed? (Destiny)

I was reminded of these four questions when watching Simon Sinek's TED Talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html

Sinek points out that the most important question to answer is the questions of "Why?".  He goes on explaining that many times people mention what they are trying to do and how they will achieve it but fail to answer why they do it.  He makes his point mentioning that people get it only when you explain why you are doing it.

I performed a very simple experiment on my 3-year-old recently.  He does not like brushing his teeth.  Normally I would tell him what to do ("It's time to brush your teeth~") and how to do it ("Come here David~.  I'll help you brush your teeth~.  I'll make sure it doesn't hurt~").  However, I was never clear why he had to brush.  The only explanation to why he should brush was the word cavity, which did not have much meaning to him.  He would run away saying "I don't like brushing".

After seeing Sinek's TED talk, I showed my 3-year-old an image of what cavity looks like, told him how cavity hurts, and how brushing prevents cavity by washing away the little tiny bugs that make the teeth go black: the reason why we brush our teeth.  My son opened his mouth immediately, willingly, as wide as he could.  

He wants to brush his teeth ever since.  

Learning from History Begins

During one of our meetings at the office, our dear fearless leader mentioned a quote.  I can’t remember exactly how it went, but in effect it was similar to the following quote I found online.

"We learn from history that we never learn anything from history."

- Hegel -

We were all challenged to break this pattern of human folly and try to learn from the histories of our own lives.  This will be an ongoing list of lessons I am learning from my normal everyday life. (I feel extremely vulnerable exposing this list!)

1. Life - dignity, sustenance, and enjoyment - is the ultimate purpose.  Life is the highest priority.  Saving life is more important than being right.
2. Growth is the proof of life.  If you're alive, you grow.
3. Failure and Pain are indispensable to growth.  Do not avoid them.
4. When I make the same mistake again and again, that is because I like making that mistake.
5. I am what I like.  What I do when no one is around reveals what I like.
6. Change is possible only when what I like changes.
7. I cannot do things alone.  I need other’s help in just about anything.  
8. I can only do what I can do.  What I cannot control, I cannot control.  Worrying anxiety comes about when focusing on what I cannot control.  Peace is focusing on what I can do, and not caring about uncontrollable results.  Efficiency is knowing what I cannot control and being able to forget about it.
9. The ability to listen is better than knowing a lot.  An individual’s knowledge is limited.  When you are able to listen, the possibility of understanding is almost boundless.  
10. Silence is crucial in getting to where you want to go.  When you are silent, you are able to look around and look inside and realize where you are.  Silence is awkward, though.
11. Stopping what you always have been doing is necessary for growth, and requires courage because there is the risk of losing security. 
12. Trial and error is the best way of finding a solution to a really complicated problem. 
13. Starting simple and adding complexity is generally better than the other way around.
14. When a lot of things are not right, it is better to start over rather than trying to fix it up.

"Hedonistic Sustainability"

Bjarke Ingels is the head of the architectural practice Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) in Denmark.  His firm is an international phenomenon in the architectural design world.  His ideas for designs are bold and clear.  He conveys his ideas in a very effective, easy-to-understand fashion, but not condescending or patronizing to the general audience of his work.  He inserts wry humor to every point he makes.
(Watch his TED talk:  http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/bjarke_ingels_hedonistic_sustainability.html)

He proposes what he calls the "Hedonistic Sustainability".  I personally agree with what he is attempting to say in regards to sustainability.  Sustainability in the building industry is commonly - and unfairly - associated with high cost and design restrictions.  What Ingels wants to say is that sustainability can be great fun: fun for the stake holders, and fun for the designers as well as the users.

This emphasis on fun or pleasure as a prime standard has some limitations.  For example, for the people deeply involved in the oil industry, it would not be so fun to think about sustainability.  In Canada, many people are making extreme amount of money by means of Tar Sands Mining at the cost of devastating the pristine boreal forests.  Boreal forests are one of the largest greenhouse gas absorbing natural mechanisms that exists on the planet. Enormously vast swaths of this precious and beautiful forest land are turned into toxic wast lands for the Tar Sands Mining operations (http://www.ted.com/talks/garth_lenz_images_of_beauty_and_devastation.html).  The tricky thing is that it is not only the corporate executives that benefit from the Tar Sands Mining operations.  Many otherwise low wage workers come to work at the tar sand mines and earn a decent living.  Being sustainable in this context means nothing else than stopping the operation, and that would be no fun for those earning a good living from the tar sand mines.  Common sense tells us, however, that it is quite clear what is the right thing to do.

In many cases, fun can be the solution.  Yet it cannot be the ultimate standard.  When "fun" and "right" conflicts, what does common sense tell us to do?

The issue becomes a fascinating topic when we compare two books that explore two extremes.  In '1984', George Orwell warns about a society of absolute control.  However, in 'Brave New World' Aldous Huxley warns of a world devoid of standards.
Social critic Neil Postman provides a piercing insight in this very topic in the foreword of his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death.  He writes:

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World,they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us."

We are familiar with the fear associated with the world of '1984'.  We do not want limitation to our freedom, and we want to control our lives to avoid pain and gain as much pleasure as possible.  That is why 'Brave New World' and its message is all the more relevant.  We are so fiercely running away from '1984', we sometimes forget that we might be going too far in the opposite direction.  We only focus on the problem of pain and how we could avoid it.  The bigger problem is, in fact, that there is weariness at the end of pleasure.  If we only wish for the pain to end and imagine that pleasure or fun is the ultimate goal, and in the end achieve all the fun and the pleasure we seek and become weary of it, that would be a truly tragic ending, because in pain you at least have hope of relief; in the weariness of pleasure there is no more hope to pursue.
Famous British writer and intellect G. K. Chesterton says, "Meaninglessness does not come from being weary of pain.  Meaninglessness comes from being weary of pleasure."

I would like to propose a slight modification to the new paradigm in sustainability: I propose a "Sustainable Hedonism", or maybe it would be better to called it "Sustainable Joy"!
How we achieve a sustaining joy, and by what means we do so is something we all have to figure out and share.
If you have an idea that works, please let me know!