Glyph Talk 3/5 - Glyph Theme: Aggression Versus Safety
Glyph Talk 3/5 - Glyph Theme: Aggression Versus Safety
In this third post about glyphs, I will be discussing the Glyph Themes of Aggression and Safety. To get caught up, you can read the first two glyph posts: https://plus.google.com/+ProjectIsthmus/posts/EnDjgnm987t
Glyph Talk 1/5 – The Senders
Glyph Talk 2/5 - Glyph Theme: Togetherness
As before, the glyphs are a memetic language imparting concepts to influence the human mind. There appears to be two prevalent themes: Aggression which appears to be primarily from the N’zeer side and Safety which appears to be primarily from the Shapers.
The Aggressive stance links into the previously discussed Togetherness theme. The following are N’zeer influenced:
==>Attack Shaper Evolution
==>Gain Portal Attack Weakness
==>Attack Weak/Complex Shaper Lie
==>Forget Conflict Accept War
In these, the glyphs advocate aggression. To fight against something—the Shapers and their influence. Their whole ideology is an aggressive one. It is what speaks to the individual and the iconoclast. It is this aggression that seems to lead to the conflict between Harmony and Chaos (to be discussed in the next post).
The Safety seeking stance also links into the theme of Togetherness. The following are Shaper influenced.
==>Together Pursue Safety
==>War Creates Danger
==>Avoid Complex Conflict
==>Path Restraint Strong Safety
==>Complex Shaper Civilization Strong
In each of these, the theme of Togetherness and pursuing the ideal while avoiding aggression seems to lead to the idea of safety. That, together avoiding the dangers of conflict, civilization remains strong. These are simple enough ideological points to consider.
The difficulty comes in with glyphs sets like: Create Future Not War
The glyph “Not” is also the glyph “Inside.” It completely changes the meaning of this message from “Create Future Not War” to “Create Future INSIDE War.”
Yes, the word beneath the glyph when it is revealed is “Not” however, glyphs are a memetic language. It doesn’t matter what the word says. It matters what “unit of culture” has sunk into your mind. The receiver of the message is important.
Another one like that is: Courage War Shaper Future
As there is no verb or punctuation, this glyph set can go multiple different ways with multiple different meanings:
1. (Have) Courage (to) War (against the) Shaper Future.
2. Courage (comma) War (for the) Shaper Future.
3. Courage (and) War (is the) Shaper Future.
Anyone of these concepts can be impressed and reinforced upon the viewer’s mind depending on where they stand on the ideological scale between the Shapers, the N’zeer, and Humanity.
What is clear to me, is that the N’zeer view aggression and conflict as a good thing while the Shapers seek to avoid it, to work out problems in a more logical manner.
What do you think about the glyphs’ themes of Conflict/War/Aggression versus Safety/Strength? In particular, Stein Lightman , I would love to know what you think about idea of a glyph set’s intended meaning versus what actually gets imparted to the individual viewer.
Stein Lightman flint dille Edgar Allan Wright Hank Johnson Andrew Krug H. Richard Loeb
In this third post about glyphs, I will be discussing the Glyph Themes of Aggression and Safety. To get caught up, you can read the first two glyph posts: https://plus.google.com/+ProjectIsthmus/posts/EnDjgnm987t
Glyph Talk 1/5 – The Senders
Glyph Talk 2/5 - Glyph Theme: Togetherness
As before, the glyphs are a memetic language imparting concepts to influence the human mind. There appears to be two prevalent themes: Aggression which appears to be primarily from the N’zeer side and Safety which appears to be primarily from the Shapers.
The Aggressive stance links into the previously discussed Togetherness theme. The following are N’zeer influenced:
==>Attack Shaper Evolution
==>Gain Portal Attack Weakness
==>Attack Weak/Complex Shaper Lie
==>Forget Conflict Accept War
In these, the glyphs advocate aggression. To fight against something—the Shapers and their influence. Their whole ideology is an aggressive one. It is what speaks to the individual and the iconoclast. It is this aggression that seems to lead to the conflict between Harmony and Chaos (to be discussed in the next post).
The Safety seeking stance also links into the theme of Togetherness. The following are Shaper influenced.
==>Together Pursue Safety
==>War Creates Danger
==>Avoid Complex Conflict
==>Path Restraint Strong Safety
==>Complex Shaper Civilization Strong
In each of these, the theme of Togetherness and pursuing the ideal while avoiding aggression seems to lead to the idea of safety. That, together avoiding the dangers of conflict, civilization remains strong. These are simple enough ideological points to consider.
The difficulty comes in with glyphs sets like: Create Future Not War
The glyph “Not” is also the glyph “Inside.” It completely changes the meaning of this message from “Create Future Not War” to “Create Future INSIDE War.”
Yes, the word beneath the glyph when it is revealed is “Not” however, glyphs are a memetic language. It doesn’t matter what the word says. It matters what “unit of culture” has sunk into your mind. The receiver of the message is important.
Another one like that is: Courage War Shaper Future
As there is no verb or punctuation, this glyph set can go multiple different ways with multiple different meanings:
1. (Have) Courage (to) War (against the) Shaper Future.
2. Courage (comma) War (for the) Shaper Future.
3. Courage (and) War (is the) Shaper Future.
Anyone of these concepts can be impressed and reinforced upon the viewer’s mind depending on where they stand on the ideological scale between the Shapers, the N’zeer, and Humanity.
What is clear to me, is that the N’zeer view aggression and conflict as a good thing while the Shapers seek to avoid it, to work out problems in a more logical manner.
What do you think about the glyphs’ themes of Conflict/War/Aggression versus Safety/Strength? In particular, Stein Lightman , I would love to know what you think about idea of a glyph set’s intended meaning versus what actually gets imparted to the individual viewer.
Stein Lightman flint dille Edgar Allan Wright Hank Johnson Andrew Krug H. Richard Loeb
Brilliant article Jennifer Brozek! The only thing I'm thinking about: Strong Together War Together Chaos. In this glyph sequence I understand both, aggression and togetherness. What are your thoughts about this sequence?
ReplyDeleteExcellent post, especially about the lack of punctuation - it's a similar issue in non-glyph languages.
ReplyDeleteYes! Interesting how the meaning of glyph sequences such as Create Future Inside/Not War and Courage War Shaper Future could go either way. Might also be worth exploring the theme of the Shaper's use of Repair/Nurture vs. the N'Zeer's Grow
ReplyDeleteThank you for articulating this. I often change about meanings of sequence similarly.
ReplyDeleteThe glyphic language lacks not only punctuation but propositions, connectives, pronouns...the lack of clear grammar rules means our minds fill in the gaps and impose an interpretation. I agree that with many of the more ambiguous sequences, the alignment of the agent will make them more predisposed to see identify statements as agreeying with their own preconceptions. Some intriguing ideas here.
ReplyDeleteAchim S. Two sides that are strong coming together escalate chaos between them.
ReplyDeleteSteven Wilson I believe all glyph sequences are meant to be imperative. Executable thought code.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that all low level glyph sequences are hazier, less distinct versions of higher level ones in one way or another.