Bobby Joe would often point out a resemblance of one person to another that would seem to me like a bit of a stretch ("That guy over there looks like (somebody famous)", for example), and I'd think "I see what you mean, but..." It happened enough times that it became comical.
I'd come to think of his recognition as a malady: Bobby Joe Facial-Similarity Identification Complex, or BJFSIC for short. Now I'm reconsidering my judgment.
From the Wikipedia article at the time of this typing, "Apophenia is the experience of seeing meaningful patterns or connections in random or meaningless data."
But is this really even possible?
Maybe my rejection of BJFSIC was denial of a broader point of view; I'd always seen it as the recognition of a naive perception, having felt that a certain threshold had not been met. However, given that I could see what he meant, our two thresholds must've intersected, as materialism with determinism.
Hören und Zuhören
Think of the narrative of our species, indeed, conception in general, as made up of stories that are told to make sense of the fact that we have no idea who we are; that beyond our instincts, we can't locate meaning behind our actions: the tree falling in the woods involves no tree and no woods, not just whether or not we are there; there is no sound, just noise, where one knows what one means. Sometimes.
Gah'damn Par Tickle
I am the Bobby Joe of speculative scientising: isn't this like going from suspecting the presence of a shadow, to sensing one in our periphery?
I cannot deny the simplest explanation being the correct one. But there is a different simplest explanation depending on who's doing the explaining.
I'd come to think of his recognition as a malady: Bobby Joe Facial-Similarity Identification Complex, or BJFSIC for short. Now I'm reconsidering my judgment.
From the Wikipedia article at the time of this typing, "Apophenia is the experience of seeing meaningful patterns or connections in random or meaningless data."
But is this really even possible?
Maybe my rejection of BJFSIC was denial of a broader point of view; I'd always seen it as the recognition of a naive perception, having felt that a certain threshold had not been met. However, given that I could see what he meant, our two thresholds must've intersected, as materialism with determinism.
Hören und Zuhören
Think of the narrative of our species, indeed, conception in general, as made up of stories that are told to make sense of the fact that we have no idea who we are; that beyond our instincts, we can't locate meaning behind our actions: the tree falling in the woods involves no tree and no woods, not just whether or not we are there; there is no sound, just noise, where one knows what one means. Sometimes.
Gah'damn Par Tickle
I am the Bobby Joe of speculative scientising: isn't this like going from suspecting the presence of a shadow, to sensing one in our periphery?
I cannot deny the simplest explanation being the correct one. But there is a different simplest explanation depending on who's doing the explaining.
