tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556083751981633760.post510250500581687506..comments2023-05-15T07:49:13.567-04:00Comments on Clear and Obscure: IconographiesMark Pemburnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14631666305869253712noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556083751981633760.post-7590186701498358682009-12-01T11:01:54.270-05:002009-12-01T11:01:54.270-05:00Just as we don't want to know how a net is mad...Just as we don't want to know how a net is made when we use it, we would care deeply if one of the individual threads were to break causing a hole in the net when we needed it most.<br /><br />We are all of us, a unique thread in Spirit's divine net of existence. So, I can't agree with Jonathan on that point.<br /><br />All of us need a quick way to identify others...we simply need to remember that the thumbnail sketch is just that and be willing to go deeper when the time is right to do so.<br /><br />But, Marky P, I will always SEE you. In this time and all others. And, while you are iconographic in terms of your importance to me, you are never reduced to a tile in my thinking.Hollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10972581158834240144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556083751981633760.post-67344882140064622572009-11-25T08:22:25.965-05:002009-11-25T08:22:25.965-05:00This is an interesting perspective on this particu...This is an interesting perspective on this particular topic. Your approach could almost be called opposite of mine. I am of the mind that not a single being on this planet is unique, though modern culture and the cult of the individual would never agree with this (a rather recent American social construct), it seems to me that I've never come across a person who had ideas, or problems or even personalities that are unique. They are all different configurations of a set, though extensive, number of pieces. Like legos of the individual - each configuration is the unique but they are made up of the same basic blocks which interact and behave in the most predictable of ways (ie a 4x2 block fits stably w/ a 4x2 but not so solidly w/ a 4x1 or a 1x1). I suppose this is my mechanistic approach. <br /><br />As for Icons, well your analogy extends further when comparing to a computer icon, they are simplifications of much deeper levels of information. Just like the generalizations and stereotypes you speak of, in and of themselves they ARE shallow, but utilizing the underlying principles, digging deeper beyond just the icon down to what makes up the icon and why its an icon in the first place and variations on that icon and what makes up their differences and why (not to mention the fact that the icons themselves are purely subjective and no two people hold the same truth in each icon), suddenly you find a vast library of information in the most simple understanding of someone. And even more you can overlay several patterns or icons on a person to find the anomalies of personality, to find what makes one unique. Applying the building block principles you will be able to see a depth in each individual that is not readily apparent otherwise with very little effort. From there of course you will have to dig deeper in the standard ways but w/ each word, action or posture a more refined map of an individuals personality and mechanics will be exposed with this approach. The true beauty is that as complete as this approach is - there are still surprises every now and again. Still new blocks get added while others fade with passing generations, fads, or ideals. <br /><br />A most intriguing post! Thank you.Jonathon Beschenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258515447854771144noreply@blogger.com