Schlagwort-Archive: Auditory

The natural limits

How unimaginable seems to be a city that is gigantic and divided into a lower and an upper town. The border separates the two like the Berlin Wall the East- from the West-part of the city. There is no exchange of any kind. Since centuries the Upper dwellers and the Lower dwellers have forgotten the existence of each other. Above the sun never sets – below it never rises. As a result, people have adapted to their environment and speak in the meantime their own language, which sounds the same but transports different meaning. One day an explosion ruptures a huge crater, which connects the city from above with the one below. Both of them shut the crater off and recognize that they have direct neighbors, who even seem to speak their language. The boundary evaporates.

The first meetings are pleasant, since the languages are very similar and use even the same words. But then it becomes apparent that the two areas have developed in very different directions. The following examples show the differences.

  • Visual perception
    The city above has equipped over the centuries all areas that are not approached by sunlight with artificial light around the clock. That way they eventually forgot the darkness. It is similar to the city below. Over time the light has disappeared from the under town. After all, they forgot the light.
    At the crater the Upper and the Lower dwellers get together. And they both say, “I can’t see.” An astonishing consensus, since both come from completely different surroundings. It takes a while for somebody to understand that they both mean something different. The Upper dwellers can’t see because they do not penetrate the darkness. And the Lower dwellers see nothing because they are blinded by the light.
  • Auditory perception
    The hearing habits have also developed differently in the two neighborhoods. The dark corridors of the city below swallow up any sound waves after only a few yards. As a result, the hearing of the Lower dwellers has been readjusted to the low frequencies, whose long waves can still be heard far away. On the surface, the Upper dwellers enjoy the timbres created by the high frequencies.
    After the crater formation, they meet in the crater and don’t believe what they hear. And they both say, “I hear something unusual.” The low tones irritate the Upper dwellers and the high sounds feel strange to the Lower dwellers.
  • Kinesthetic perception
    Above and below ground, heat receptors have adapted to the respective habitats. The permanent sunshine and the artificial light tan the Upper dwellers and provide an even climate. In contrast, the Lower dwellers are quite pale and used to the wet freshness of the underground.
    However, in the crater they are exposed to a new environment to which their thermal sensation reacts strongly and both say “I feel uncomfortable”. The unfamiliar coolness causes stress to the Upper dwellers and the unfamiliar heat to the Lower dwellers.
  • Olfactory perception
    Both districts have got used to their atmosphere over a long period of time. In the city above there is always a high level of humidity, which transports smelling particularly well. In the absence of light, they have become accustomed to following their nose, which is able to distinguish their environment and recognize the fellow human beings by their scent. In the upper town the air is dry and transports few smells. Since they can rely on their eyes, they don’t pay much attention to scents.
    In the crater, the two atmospheres meet and Upper and Lower dwellers say “It smells strange.”
  • Gustatory perception
    Both districts have adapted their food to their environment. The Upper dwellers love spicy food that is eaten raw. The Lower dwellers prefer boiled food, which less irritates the taste buds, but bland with a moist, wide vapidness.
    During the meetings in the crater, the delicacies of the kitchens are exchanged. And both say, “That’s inedible.”

Long story short. Radical constructivism postulates that there is no objective reality, but that everyone constructs his or her own personal image of the reality from his or her sensory stimuli and experiences. In the example above, we have performed a simple mental game that shows how our environment determines our way of expressing ourselves. Obviously, the Upper and Lower dwellers have lived far apart. They adapted ideally to their respective environment. Interestingly, however, their language has remained unchanged over the centuries. They may have forgotten some words that do not fit into their reality, but central utterances have survived. But they always mean something completely different. Our senses provide visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory and gustatory stimuli, which we mix with our experiences to eventually express ourselves – in our example with the same words for different meanings.

Bottom line: Since Descartes, we have been trying to explore the world objectively. Today, we know that our perception is not in a position to provide a joined reality. Science has long recognized this. However, we are still trying to objectify everything. The above example is intended to show in the simplest possible way, how different the world can be perceived, depending on one’s own view and experience. We can use these insights in our daily communication by being aware of the following.

First: It is the listener, not the speaker, who supplies meaning to an utterance. (Heinz von Foerster).

Second: You cannot not communicate (Paul Watzlawick).

In everyday life this means that one should again and again be aware of the natural limits and to make an effort to understand the counterpart.

Flat rate for the sensory world?

Our sensory perception takes place in each individual mind. Nevertheless, we all have apparently similar impressions. Enterprises make efforts for their advantage, in order to protect these fundamental feelings. The core worth protection aspect is the design that is originally developed by the enterprises – the font, the logo, the product, the packaging. However, the consumer world nowadays is more defined by the brand management than by differences in the quality of the products. For this reason the price is calculated with the manufacturing costs plus the brand value. Do colors of the standardized color palettes now become also worth of protecting? Are natural sounds worth a license? Can anybody protect our gestures and our haptics? Is the smell of a perfume worth of protecting? Can the taste of an apple be covered by a use license? In the course of the economization of all areas of everyday life, perhaps we are close to the next stage – a flat rate for the sensory world.

vakog

Originally the trademark protection was limited to the original products. Step-by-step enterprises aim with patents and the brand protection for also protecting parts of our sense world.

  • With open eyes
    The actual image that is created by an image designer, is already protected since a long time. In the mean time similar images are already a breach of the rights of an author. Even colors of the natural spectrum are treated as property of an enterprise – examples are Milka purple, Aral blue or Tele magenta of Telekom.
  • With open ears
    The original recording of a sound painter is already protected. In case of music, even the concept of a piece of music, the composition, is protected until 70 years after the death of the composer. How long will it take to license not only the original recordings, but also general sounds – the cry of any bird or the well-known noise of the sea? A good example is the heart beat at the end of an Audi advertisement „Duk du k “or the tone of the German Telekom „Da Da Da Dee Da “.
  • With conscious touch
    The original object with its surface and its material and the associated program code are protected. However, as soon as we get similar stimuli, the law cases begin. If Apple tries to protect its sliding gesture for unlocking the smartphone. Or Verizon would like to forbid a touch screen Haptics to others. Will the feeling of natural surfaces, like leathers, wood or the skin of a horse, become trademarked?
  • With critical tongue
    The genuine recipe of food or beverage is already protected. But as soon as someone is able to release similar stimuli, the question arises, whether this is permitted. In the end, we will ask ourselves, whether the taste of an apple can be protected.
  • With sensitive nose
    The mixture that produces a certain smell, results from the proportion and the quality of the individual components. Such elements may be used today only after appropriate licensing. Let us however imagine someone is able to create the same effect as of Chanel No.5 with completely different ingredients. And what about the many natural scents – the smell of lemons, roses, flowers or hay? Are these worth a protection?

As long as nobody appeals, the enterprises can slowly occupy these areas of our perception in order to own and to demand fees for their perception any time in the future. With water, we already have this problem. The exploitation of water at the upper flows of the rivers leads already to crises in the further course of the river. This could lead one day also to the fact that the air that we breathe or a sunrise has to be paid.

Bottom line: The economization of more and more areas of everyday life limits the common. This development could only be stopped at an early stage. Perhaps now is the moment to resist a flat rate for our sensory world.