We are entering a new technological era. In this world, we relate with ourselves and others in a clear, precise manner. In Dwelling in a New World, author Robert Gold introduces an invention that will provide an explosive expansion of our capacities and profoundly reorient us, growing our relations and awareness.
Dwelling in a New World reconstructs communication, technology, and accounting. Exploring what we have taken for granted, it tells of reinventing communication and our understanding of existence in order to gain an awareness of a direct connection with affinity, harmony, happiness, and serenity. It provides an opportunity for our relationships to become simple and natural.
Organized in a question-answer format, Gold announces a new structure, a new technological space, and a drastic shift in how humanity relates to organizations, others, and themselves. Gold’s invention offers clarity and gives us direct access to what is important and helps us by giving us a compass for living a life we love.
|Product dimensions:||6.00(w) x 9.00(h) x 0.37(d)|
Read an Excerpt
Dwelling in a New WorldRevealing a Life-Altering Technology
By Robert Gold
iUniverse, Inc.Copyright © 2012 Robert Gold
All right reserved.
Chapter OneWhat Is This New Communication?
Education, conclusions, and inheritance
How did imagination open up a new way of thinking?
In my studies and research, I came upon many brilliant people and the theories that they expressed:
* Albert Einstein—Theory of relativity
* Fernando Flores—Ontological design
* Humberto Maturana— Neurobiology (biology of cognition and love)
* Martin Heidegger—Reality (ontology—phenomenology)
* Christopher Alexander and Louis Kahn—Architecture (spatial design and language)
* Melanie Klein and Wilfred Bion—Object relations theory (psychology of discernment)
* Brian Regnier—Exploration
* Michel Foucault—Anthropology
I have noted several of these and other figures whose wisdom I build on and whose conclusions I question throughout this book. I indicate their contributions and my resulting explorations to different degrees in different chapters.
Numerous others have influenced my fascination with several schools of thought. The various theories and rich intellectual influence of each of these people lead me to appreciate that understanding is only a temporary conclusion. Only by questioning both my conclusions and their theories could my imagination take me beyond present-day thinking.
While this book and invention reshape how we relate to ourselves and others, I suspect that this new relationship with and way of living in the world will evolve. This break with our inheritance could stimulate thinking and eventually open up these paradigms for even simpler models in the future. Will this occur in a dozen years, a hundred years, or a thousand years? I don't know. Regardless, this new environment opens up a rich new way of viewing how we know what we know.
The first thing that seemed obvious to me—and where I elected to pause as a place to look from in developing a new model—is that we evidently have an awareness of what is internal and external to ourselves. All living creatures seem to be conscious of what is internal and external to the body or membrane that separates life from the environment. This is a basic notion: internal and external. Regardless of our sensory perception and all life's senses, this is a basic dualistic aspect of life.
What do you mean by the term "dualistic"—internal and external?
For human beings, there are numerous references to the concepts of internal and external, and they span many disciplines. A simple analogy is seen in comparing the technology of a biologist with that of an astronomer. When I was very young, I became curious about the lenses of microscopes and telescopes. I could view very small, nearby objects by looking through the microscope, while I could view large, faraway objects by looking through the telescope. This example, early in life, exposed me to a dual utilization of lenses as they occurred in two different fields of science.
From a biological perspective, life appears to have some kind of barrier that separates what is internal from what is external. For cells, it is a cellular membrane. For human beings and more advanced life, different surfaces, such as dermal (skin), ocular (visual), aural (hearing), and olfactory (smelling) systems coordinate to provide this barrier.
Living things in general and human beings specifically appear to have senses (such as touch and taste) and sensors (sensory organs, glands, and the like) that reveal the internal and external receptivity, accessibility, and connectivity for life. Life seems to be a closed system that is influenced by its environment. Physics has several dualistic explanations that provide completely different models for life and existence.
Moving beyond biology and physical attributes, we find many different theoretical models that portend to explain life. These scientific models require a proposition and experimental evidence to support relevant theories and are later replaced by more current and up-to-date models. Such is the case with current neurobiological theories about the human nervous system and brain. It is doubtless that, in time, the current "information storage" type of modeling (which resembles the current computer technology thinking) will give way to new theories.
Right now, I am interested in exploring something simple. Regardless of propositions and experiments, I am interested in what precedes the establishment of new theoretical models. I suspect that what might initially appear to be experientially derived is simply a conclusion that the evidence supports.
Regardless of the frame of reference, life occurs in and is attentive and responsive to two realms—those occurring as internal and external.
What does internal/external have to do with this new model?
Our senses—hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, and feeling—seem to give us, in part, the capacity to experience. What we experience might be internal or external. Experience has an immediate and momentary quality. Just as a hand has two sides, experience can occur as an internal presence while the second, active component is expressive in nature. Examples of the expressive component are listening, speaking, and touching.
Another way to view a dual nature with internal/external and experience/ expressionistothinkof"internalfeelings"asexperiential—andexpressions, actions, and the like as expressive, external happenings. We seem to be able to experience two other worlds also. One world defies understanding, and in the other world, understanding takes place. We can begin to explore this if you are ready. First, let me summarize.
This notion of internal/external plays on the dual nature of experience and actions. It provides the momentary experience and activities or expressions that occur in a moment of now. These senses (which seem to be much richer than the "five senses" usually mentioned) provide two sides: internal and external, experiences and expressions. Actions and experiences are poignant by nature. They have active, momentary aspects that are emotionally attuned to aggressiveness when thought of in terms of communication. Communication has a connective aspect to it that we will soon delve into. The new model of communication has three components. This first component is experience, action, or aggression.
I don't view communication as experience, action, or aggression. Expression is closer to what I think about when I consider what communication is.
Can you say more about how communication is normally viewed?
The ancient model that we have inherited involves a speaker, a message (or information), and a listener. Historically, communication occurred orally, signally, pictorially, and later in print. Some of the earliest signal methods were smoke signals, horns, and drums. These evolved into the symbolic and pictorial—cuneiform, hieroglyphics, Hebrew, Chinese—and eventually the alphabetic languages arose with Russian, Greek, and Latin. In more modern times, humanity has used the telegraph, telephone, digital methods, Internet browsers, audio/visual equipment, and the like. Numerous medias like radio and television are now in use.
These are the current (Merriam-Webster) definitions of communication (noun):
1: an act or instance of transmitting
2 a : information transmitted or conveyed
b : a verbal or written message
3 a : a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior <the function of pheromones in insect communication>; also : exchange of information
b : personal rapport < a lack of communication between old and young persons>
a : a system (as of telephones) for transmitting or exchanging information
b : a system of routes for moving troops, supplies, and vehicles
c : personnel engaged in transmitting or exchanging information
5 plural but sing or plural in constr
a : a technique for expressing ideas effectively (as in speech)
b : the technology of the transmission of information (as by print or telecommunication)
A common-sense understanding is that communication is an activity of transmitting information. Communication requires senders, messages, and receivers that need not be present or aware of the sender's activity to communicate at the time of communication. Communication might occur across vast distances. Communication requires a common communicative understanding. Once the receiver has understood the sender, the process is complete.
As illustrated, the communication of ancient days, when Aristotle captured the speaker → message → listener model, has been adjusted and transformed in today's times. Our current understanding of communication conserves this model, which contends that all information—whether verbal, nonverbal, or through signs, diagrams, pictures, media, and the like—is relayed or initiated by some sort of language. Languages might align more readily with your thinking of expressions as being perceived in contrast to actions, experience, and aggression.
This current view of communication seems real. Why mess with it?
I could retort with Albert Einstein's view of the physical world, reality, and thinking, but I won't right now. I think that the ineffectiveness of communication is often overlooked. We ignore any faults so that communication can appear rational and explainable, but the cost of its ineffectiveness takes a financial and inhumane toll. When we think of messages as expressions, or language expressed, we must take for granted three notions: the listener, speaker, and information. For this model to remain intact, we cannot explore communication beyond the activity of language. For instance, we're unable to examine the interruptions that take place during this activity.
Looking at this model, communication is portrayed as information and as an expression (in which "language" is spoken and listened). At least two components are quickly thrown together, in which what is central or relayed is understood as information in language.
My re-creation of communication overpowers some of the most brilliant contemporary philosophic thinkers. Ludwig Wittgenstein said, "Now I am tempted to say that the right expression in language for the miracle of the existence of the world, though it is not any proposition in language, is the existence of language itself." While I do not oppose the importance or capabilities of language—"Language is the house of being. In its home human beings dwell." —I have come to the realization that this way of thinking is entrenched in an ancient paradigm.
The nature of your lead-up for your question is very revealing. "This current view of communication seems real." A very narrow view ties communication to what is real, to reality.
What else is there but reality?
Imagination might exist outside of reality, but—besides imagination—I see a vast existence in which reality plays a very small part. Up until this moment, we have placed a huge amount of importance on reality. This makes perfect sense, as dictating what is important happens solely in this world of language, this world of reality. This possibility opens up a second aspect of communication.
The first aspect, experience/expression, is an internal/external phenomenon existing only in the current instance: now. Only a small portion of this aspect is considered in the current model of communication, and this is limited to mannerisms, speaking, and listening. This is the portion of experiences and expressions that we are conscious and aware of.
This second aspect of communication is strictly internal—founded in learning, understanding, and remembering. For humanity, this is the world of language, of thinking, of recognition and cognition. Reality exists within this aspect. While this domain of communication might seem to cover a huge expanse, it is the least prevalent aspect of communication.
How is that possible?
This idea, the assertion that thinking (or cognition) might be a tiny portion of our existence, seems irrational, doesn't it? If you consider thinking, this is where time exists. It is within this temporal framework, where we understand what we see. It is this framework where we are attentive to and conscious of our plan for the future. It provides us a totality of what we understand that exists. The past, present, and future appear in our thinking. When we tie together successive experiences, the motion of life comes into existence. The only way we can recognize an experience is to remember and recall it.
What is this notion that thinking comprises a very small percentage of life?
I think this is one of the most difficult ideas to deal with. This might be why we are so entrenched in our current model of communication. The whole experience of time, especially the past, seems to be the whole banana. For all of existence, everything that has ever happened exists in and occurred in the past. Until we grapple with the idea that time occurs in thought and not in the world, we cannot see any limitation to time.
Another conception of life that makes this notion sound foolish is that life is simply what we remember and think of it. What we want, what we believe, what we plan, and what we remember appear to be completely inclusive and comprehensive. Don't they?
I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. —Albert Einstein
But what about all those moments we don't remember? What about all that we are not cognizant of or don't formulate into thoughts? How much of life is experienced and not remembered? How much is remembered and then forgotten? Do you sense something extremely vast beginning to open up? Even if we let go of all that we have forgotten, if we get present to each moment, what percentage of our experiences do you think we will actually think about or remember? (There is a vast world of experience that we are unconscious of, even though we are responsive to it.)
Forget about those hectic moments; what percentage of the quiet moments do we recall? I am asking all of these questions because I am interested in your gaining the experience that we only recall or are mentally conscious of a tiny percentage of what we experience. It is necessary to challenge the assumption that we are attending to any significant portion of our experience.
Another aspect deals not with what we recall but what we project as the future we want to live into. Daniel Gilbert brilliantly devotes a whole book to illustrating the futility of trying to design life for happiness and the futility of our many attempts and aspirations.
Experiences aren't part of reality; they aren't rational. We can't predict or understand what makes us happy. We can't predict or understand what has us experience love either. Our thinking that some actions equate to love and other actions don't is a prescription for misery, disappointment, and loneliness.
A while ago, when I first asked about our current view of communication appearing so real, I asked you if there was anything else but reality. You said that imagination might exist outside of reality. Can you expand upon that now?
This is an odd discussion to have, but it is central to what makes humanity so remarkable. While language and cognition provide edges for our comprehension, our reality, there is fuzziness to these edges, a frontier for exploration. Our experiences (and a realm we haven't discussed yet) seem to foster this phenomenon, this ambiguous zone. Our capacity to unlearn, or let go, of the importance of understanding promotes this quasi reality that we might characterize as imagination. Imagination isn't always well thought of, and a speculative space for research might look more politically correct.
It seems that curiosity and inquisitiveness foster this ambiguous and even ubiquitous state, where thinking of thinking occurs as a freedom from constraints. It might require a diminishing of the importance of comprehension to reach into experience or an experiential realm. There is something sacred and reverent about curiosity or wonder.
We can think beyond thinking, we can experience that, we can imagine it, and we can wonder. Now, for us to remember this revelation, for us to express it, we must grapple with speaking it: formulating new words or connecting ideas and abstractions differently. In that grappling with it, however, we lose much of it, even as we invent new words, concepts, and terms to express it. It is this realization that has me trust experiences while distrusting conclusions; it is conclusions that are expressed as words.
Are you saying that thoughts aren't important?
No, I think that our thoughts are the very essence of what is important and have a powerful influence on our emotional state. I am just suggesting that our emotional experience has a very powerful influence on how or what we can think. The proverbial question arises: which comes first—experience or thought? Unlike the question about the chicken or the egg, this question has an answer.
Excerpted from Dwelling in a New World by Robert Gold Copyright © 2012 by Robert Gold. Excerpted by permission of iUniverse, Inc.. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Part 1 A New World vs. Our Current World....................1
Chapter 1 What Is This New Communication?....................3
Chapter 2 An Ontological View of Communication....................25
Chapter 3 Communication, Under the Hood....................37
Part 2 A New Way to Relate to Technology....................41
Chapter 4 What Is Technology, Really?....................43
Chapter 5 Technology, Anthropology, and Philosophy....................51
Chapter 6 Technology, a Methodological Look....................57
Part 3 Interactivity Accounting: Powerful Awareness, Scheme, and Structure....................67
Chapter 7 What about the Transformation of Accounting?....................69
Chapter 8 Accounting: An Ontological and Structural View....................79
Chapter 9 Accounting: A Technical View....................85
Part 4 The Invention....................91
Chapter 10 A New World Brought Alive....................93
Chapter 11 Notes: Technical Mechanism Briefs....................129
Afterword: Regarding licensing....................135