Believe it or not, when you communicate something you are endorsing a metaphysics. You can think that something like an idea exists independently by our mental or social activity, or that they are our projections. In the first case, you consider communication as logistics. You are going to search in the cupboard of properties the specific entities you want to communicate, you find (or believe to find) what you're searching and then it's just a matter of organizing the journey back to the receiver of the message. You can also adulterate the message (purposely or not...) and finally giving the message (or what is left after the trip) to the receiver. As the last step, it's important how you give the message in the hands of the receiver (or how he will accept the message).
On the contrary if you think that ideas are our projections, you'll tend to believe that communication is the generative environment in which you actually create messages. 
Contents are not preexisting the delivery activity. That means that every communication is propaganda. We are involved in communication wars, fighting for hegemonic propaganda. A second feature is that communication change with the pace and size of the process: size and speed manipulate the content.
Mass communication is not tailored to anyone, but it gives a platform for everyone. Instant communication fills gaps: of disinterest but also of understanding.
Back to the beginning: again on metaphysics. If you think that you are what you are, independently from the communication process and the message delivers an answer to a preexisting question, you support the importance of persistence of the message.
A message that survives in time, is a good message. Currently the most performing, consistent and long lasting message is the one delivered by the Catholic Church.On the contrary if you think that what we are is produced in communication, messages succeed each other, to produce the semiotic environment that hosts (that generates) what we are.
The content of the message is in or outside the semiotic environment? You can discover it only through a narrative search, that is to say: through an exploration of a semiotic environment. Now: can we reach the limits of a semiotic environment?
And can we look “outside” the events' horizon of our language?I shall answer (with a lot of Austrian logic): it is possible to reach the borders of the language and what lies outside, can not be a thing in the language. In other words, it's not possible to produce a message about what lies outside the semiotic environment (sorry for Catholic Church and blue-and-red pills):what lies outside the language cannot be said.
No comments:
Post a Comment