This I believe, while fully aware that it is just that: a belief. My working hypothesis about reality.
And that is the assumption that there is a truth, beyond what we can comprehend. The Truth does exist, me thinks.
But we are limited by our capabilities. We can only perceive so much.
Putting our knowledge together is a great way to know more. That is what science ideally does.
Fighting about who’s view is ‘The Truth’ is way less productive, though…
Since we now use screens to collect and share information, we need our screen to be a versatile interface that can represent our understanding in an agile fashion. We still work with very linear modes of communicating. Naturally by making stories out of our understanding. But we need to use our other faculties too, like seeing from multiple viewpoints to get an in depth understanding of today’s complexity.
Any screen is essentially a 2D frame (X,Y), limiting our view to what the screen can hold. We can zoom in or out. adding a 3rd dimension (Z). A perfect interface would give me what I need to see, from my point of understanding.
When looking at ‘the world’, (mostly reports from others, like ‘the news’ or ‘the media’) I would wish to see exactly the information I need. And in the proper context.
That does not exist today. There are huge wars going on about which representation of the truth is the proper one. With today’s wealth of information in an increasingly interconnected and complex reality, the need for way’s to navigate this is greater than ever.
So I try to define how to make sense of this all in an way that does not cause overwhelm.
So leaping to the concept that resulted from my conversations with Tammy Lea Meyer, I started wondering and pondering on the feeling that we seem to perceive before there is a clear understanding. We seem to posses an intuitive felt sense which perceptions are more coherent than others. When a point seems to ‘make sense’…
So how do I connect the dots? Without projecting my worldview on it? How do I build a better and deeper understanding without adding immediate judgements?
All we have is our ability to notice difference and likeness. And a felt sense of how alike or how different certain coherent perceptions seem to be. So an intuitive relative measure like very different of a bit alike… This is using spatial thinking in a natural way.
As any topic can be associated with an endless array of meaning, we need a representation of ALL those dimensions. When I can sense how two points of coherence relate, I basically create a line between them. That line is the first spatial representation of my understanding. I would need to define/name both points and the quality of their relation. That way I would have defined a dimension.
I could do this for all my sensed understandings and build on that. That way I would have develop to map what I ‘see’, to calibrate my understanding by cross referencing all mapped points in a multi-dimensional space and hence a way to notice what is missing.