![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The way cameras are worked, cuts, film transitions in general. Some named methodology? Cinematography? Consider the difference in technique between Ken Burn's "The Civil War" and Elia Kazan's "On the Waterfront." How are adjectives about "mood" and "tone" and so on distilled from the pattern of cuts? Film isn't "the moving image" as much as it is a different kind of slideshow. A series of related images stitched together. Movement increases the power of an image, movement evokes the real-
►►
Facial expressions. How much do they reveal? Eye contact leaps out with profound importance. Disconcerting to realize that I only rarely consider my own expression. The whole body then must be considered. When I do consciously control my bearing I can't escape a sense of dishonesty. The lie is apparent especially in the most honest circumstances: When I am consciously deciding to act in accordance with prevailing norms. Scenario: You see that someone is sad. Maybe you are the kind of person who generally comforts sad people. In the act of comforting, your demeanor takes on a suite of characteristics like a quieter voice, intonation changes, leaning in and lowering your chin, patterns of eye contact, hand motions of reaching out, gentle physical contact. Vast difference between this act of comforting that seems to come "naturally" to you and the conscious decision to act in that way. In the latter, you think about the situation(person is sad) and decide(I'm going to be comforting on purpose) to behave according to a plan. (This reminds me of the main character in R. Scott Bakker's "Disciple of the Dog. ")
Behaving on purpose in the same way you would behave without thinking about it seems deceptive. Why? Faking. Because the only way to lie is to be keenly aware of what you're communicating. Most interactions(casual greetings, commercial transactions, arguments, wedding vows, and so on) happen on autopilot. Is this it? Since that keen awareness is so necessary for lying it is associated in general with deception, even when used honestly.
►►
Traffic. What story would it tell? Monitor every intersection in a city, each vehicle a tap on the telegraph, a bit. Is there a system there? Some active symbolic organism passing cellular messages along miles of highway, the congested urban areas as vast webs of information encoded in gasoline and tire tracks. Could we learn a language like that from the inside? Or would it be as obscure to us as our own neurons are now? What sort of experiments could be devised to serve as analogues of early neurosurgery? Terrible traffic accidents, sudden detours...
►►
Facial expressions. How much do they reveal? Eye contact leaps out with profound importance. Disconcerting to realize that I only rarely consider my own expression. The whole body then must be considered. When I do consciously control my bearing I can't escape a sense of dishonesty. The lie is apparent especially in the most honest circumstances: When I am consciously deciding to act in accordance with prevailing norms. Scenario: You see that someone is sad. Maybe you are the kind of person who generally comforts sad people. In the act of comforting, your demeanor takes on a suite of characteristics like a quieter voice, intonation changes, leaning in and lowering your chin, patterns of eye contact, hand motions of reaching out, gentle physical contact. Vast difference between this act of comforting that seems to come "naturally" to you and the conscious decision to act in that way. In the latter, you think about the situation(person is sad) and decide(I'm going to be comforting on purpose) to behave according to a plan. (This reminds me of the main character in R. Scott Bakker's "Disciple of the Dog. ")
Behaving on purpose in the same way you would behave without thinking about it seems deceptive. Why? Faking. Because the only way to lie is to be keenly aware of what you're communicating. Most interactions(casual greetings, commercial transactions, arguments, wedding vows, and so on) happen on autopilot. Is this it? Since that keen awareness is so necessary for lying it is associated in general with deception, even when used honestly.
►►
Traffic. What story would it tell? Monitor every intersection in a city, each vehicle a tap on the telegraph, a bit. Is there a system there? Some active symbolic organism passing cellular messages along miles of highway, the congested urban areas as vast webs of information encoded in gasoline and tire tracks. Could we learn a language like that from the inside? Or would it be as obscure to us as our own neurons are now? What sort of experiments could be devised to serve as analogues of early neurosurgery? Terrible traffic accidents, sudden detours...
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 08:39 pm (UTC)From:This very thing chases off ex-friends and ex-SOs, I think: they see you're trying, so assume it's false. Though I'd suggest they're mistaken. Why should an active effort be taken as a false one? But it is, often enough.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 02:31 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 02:53 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 03:45 am (UTC)From: