Stimulants

There's lots to say here. But most of it has already been said.

For me, stimulants - especially coffee and whiskey and beer (not whiskey all the time, that's for sure) are a part of my rituals. The give 'grape juice' on Sunday. Rituals are good when they serve a purpose and not so good when they serve a habit. I don't need the coffee in the morning, but it ain't bad; I don't need the beer in the evening, but it's just damned nice to sip something out of the ordinary - say, water - and then continue to apply myself to writing or reading or just chillin'.

In the desert, I believe we get drunk to lower our IQs and give ourselves an alibi for doing something stupid when we would normally be stupid anyway.

an apple a day

I try to take an apple a day and then I hear about how Monsanto or some other pesticide company has made it unhealthy for me to take care of myself. I stopped eating for two days. The apple. At some point, I have to decide between the two evils: eating a tainted apple or going without and tainting my body even more - or so I suspect.

I'm refurbishing two blogs that haven't been used in over five years. A lot has happened since those days, children leaving the next, the acquisition of two master's degrees, three published books of poetry, and the unexpected loss of my mother and her second husband.

I'd like to suggest that I'm a different person but that simply is not true. I'm more tempered and occasionally a bit moodier, but otherwise, I'm the same fellow who likes to laugh and have adventures. A Hobbit, perhaps?

In all likelihood, I'll be restructuring the nature of the Nostrabobus blog to reflect my interests in graphology, communication, and enlightenment. General observations meant to spark dialog rather than any sort of life guideline. We make those up for ourselves, I've come to learn. No one can really tell us what to be or behave unless we give them permission to.

Under the Weather, as it were

Nostrabobus is under the weather – somewhere.

In light of this fact, he felt it necessary to write, walk – but has yet to play catch with someone – or roll a ball in their direction!

On the bright side: He’s lost 7 pounds in three days.

On the dark side: He’s lost 7 pounds in three days.

What does this have to do with communication?

Let’s see if we can turn this around . . . In an effort to stave off the rigors of E coli he did all that he could do to communicate with his body. He weathered two days of fever with other symptoms. He drank what ever he could to maintain body fluids – and it still wasn’t enough. He immediately went to the doctor’s office where pretty nurses poked and prodded and danced with him.

The point is – we are human – half animal/half spirit. A powerful being. It was very tempting during those first few hours and nights to blame his situation on things none physical – schooling, the wife, the dog that barks incessantly outside. He avoided making decisions that would cost him in the future. Cut a class, get rid of the wife, . . . well – you get the picture. Instead, he focused on the body – the true source of the problem and tried to figure it all out.

Communication Models - Peach Cans and Wax Strings

One of the earliest communication models was refined by Claude Shannon. This model was not created for the understanding of human relationships but for tele-communications. Those large klunky black devices created in another century. It basically consisted of trying to qualify and quantify what it would take to send a message from one point to another. A to B.

A - - - > B  This is the conveyance of message.

I pick up the peach can with a wax string knotted through a hole in the middle of the still attached end, the string vibrates sound waves and likewise vibrates on the other end of string that is likewise attached to another can. The vibrations carry the length of the string from Can A to Can B.

Simple enough.

The only thing that is being transferred at this point is message. This is okay for machines, but not so good for humans. Humans do not just convey messages – they convey meaning. It is my assumption that the conveyance of meaning is the primary goal for communication. Humans may want to hide meaning, alter meaning, and manipulate meaning – but meaning is still the primary goal. Back to the cans and the early model.

If there is going to be meaning, communication must work in two directions.

A - - -> B + A < - - - B = Response

Adding response now begins to resemble human communication. Putting this into a mechanical device to service the needs of humans was, of course, Shannon’s goal. Now I can send you a message and you can respond – which satisfies my basic need to convey meaning to you. Communication works on this level.

If all one wanted to do was convey a message, then all they’d have to do is grab an empty grocery cart and start sending messages to the pigeons, fire hydrants, and cute white lines on the asphalt. But the goal of humans reaches beyond merely sending – we want to send meaning, not just message. There’s more to this model, such as noise, but I’ll save that for another time.

Fussy Models

One of the goals of science is to create a model by which predictions can be made. Plato was fond of models and often referred to them as form and matter. Loosly paraphrased, It was his argument that forms existed outside of matter - that there was an ethereal equivalent to what was taking place here on Earth in the 'real' existence. Aristotle argued the point: he more or less felt that there was no form without reality.

Hence, the question of the ages: Funtion or Form; Substance or Art; Elvis or the Beatles.

Nostrabobus naturally feels the reality is somewhere in the middle. What good is a bottle opener that looks like a sccubus if you can't open the bottle?

What this clearly shows is that there are probably two ways of looking at something - and here's the catch - they are both right.

Plato was enlightened and Aristotle was an over achiever - nothing wrong with either sentiment. Plato could never have produced an Alexander the Great, whilst - of course - Aristotle could.

The first class of upper division communication course had a survey of no less than 26 communication theories. About half of them dealt with specific circumstances - how to predict the outcome of group management, spousal relationships, and so forth. And though these things are important for the management of one's life - it does not get to the mechanics or the heart of why something happens - only that it does. These latter, response models are mostly about function - what works and what doesn't. The balance had more to do with mechanics of communication - why does something work, not how. To me mechanis are by far the greater of the two to study. Mechanics and Form and Models have, in the short run, some advantages over Function. Keep in mind, Function works well when you want to get something done now, but it's uses are limited to a specific event and doesn't always take into account unintended consequences.

A familial example: Slapping Junior on the hand may get him to stop doing something right this instant (an example of function) but it also draws attention to the something that he's going to look at in the future. Mommy may not care at this moment about the future - but that could very well be a mistake. Mostly because on a communication level, not everything is being taken into account - it's only a part of teh communication model being expressed here. Taking the time out later to explain why Junior should not put a fork into the socket would better complete the cycle - it takes into account more of the communication model.

Proximics - the Study of Space

Proximics is the study of space. Personal space and social space. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is probably the best representation of this concept. Though he uses a pyramid to express the progression of human needs, there could be other ways to do so. When I draw one up, I’ll present it here.

fundamentally, the hierarchy of needs acknowledges motivational responses of human beings based on – well, needs. There are typically five stages (according to Maslow): Physical needs, Safety needs, Social needs, Esteem needs, and Self Actualization. Wiki this for details if you want. The point is . . . whether he is exactly correct on this assumption of what motivates, the principle is sound.

Personally, I doubt that one supplants the other – though there is certainly a good argument that one might take urgency over another. We need to eat . . . but on the heels of being satisfied (physical needs) one can see how there would be time to consider other needs, and so forth. So, though Maslow’s needs might need revision or rethinking (and many communication books don’t include this theory) the concept is fairly well known (he delivered his paper in 1943) and is worth paying attention to.

What this has to do with proximics is this: within each of our perceived needs are social (and I believe mental) distances that are naturally created to satisfy those needs.

A simple example of the realization of this principle would be something like: you wouldn’t go to a realtor if you need a loaf of bread. Fairly simple on that level. Fine tuning the concept gets difficult the muddier our needs get – or do they? Confusions arise when we make the assumption that people can help us meet our needs and that all people are capable of meeting those needs. Not all people are capable of meeting all our needs – not possible. Familial needs are met (obviously) through the family, but mentors take similar, yet different roles.

Whether these roles are universal or cultural or individual is fairly flexible – but there’s certianly enough evidence to suggest that no matter the expression these needs take place, they are there.

Ultimately, it helps to understand the principle that certain individuals and environments facilitate the acquisition of needs better than others. A common example could be the President of the United States. He has a ring of advisors – closely trusted, then not so much, then outward towards the public itself and often times the media which helps to facilitate other needs. In this way a corporation or nation can be considered to  have its hierarchy as well – or bubble like influences.