Interior Compass: Adequacy and Accuracy

Apropos of adequacy and accuracy in this series on common themes, I decided my earlier post on the subject was inadequate and neither quite as accurate as I’d like. (Making this current version the third if one includes a completely inadequate first draft.) However considering this essay is about adequacy and accuracy I thought I’d leave the earlier more inadequate and more inaccurate post for comparisons sake, the two essays together being an object lesson in their content.

On the bright side, spending so much time on this subject has been remarkably fruitful as I have discovered significant connections among several other interior construct symbols - although this essay does spill over its ’one common theme’ just a bit and just about in all directions.

~

Symbol Adequacy and Symbol Accuracy:
These two are closely related as both involve the concept of ‘good enough’. If a symbol were akin to an orienteering sign, accuracy deals with a symbol’s definitional ‘heading’ and direction on the compass, but adequacy deals with a symbol’s degree or ‘distance’ travel. Together they form a ‘functionality vector’, e.g. plain heart shaped paper in a homemade lunch may be an accurate direction for a functional love symbol, but some sort of decoration denoting effort and passion might be needful for a functionally adequate love symbol as well. 

The truly fascinating thing about adequacy and accuracy is how we use them; in conjunction with our mental framework they form an interior symbol compass, by which we can sense when a symbol ‘feels right’, when it is ‘good enough’ for the expression we want. (For an example see the poem-symbol The Endless Battle.)  I believe this ‘feels right’ interior compass sensation is caused by the new symbol’s fitted-ness, functionality and coherence with the general structure and other symbols of our interior mental framework, rather like puzzle pieces of symbol and meaning.

When lower level adequacy and accuracy form a merely ’good enough’ symbol for a specific circumstance, such a symbol is also prone to have more temporary efficacy, a more ephemeral meaning, and a more mundane significance because “sometimes a [symbol] is just a label, just a temporary net designed to catch just enough meaning and haul it across the void between persons.

On the other hand, a higher number of (important) interior symbols accurately and adequately fitted and a higher overall degree of fitted-ness results in a higher intensity of ‘feels right’ compass sensation, and results in longer term meaning because it resonates with coherence throughout a person’s existential experience in the biological meaning matrix – in fact, an effortless, sudden and extremely high level fitted-ness can be a numinous experience.

But if such large scale effortless synaptic fitted-ness is rare, neither do we normally need to ‘listen’ to our interior compass as we most often take its ‘adequacy and accuracy reading’ automatically, unconsciously. It’s only when we are aiming for a symbol with a higher level coherence with our framework –a coherence that doesn’t come easily–that we subsequently ‘read’ our compass with more attention, more intently scan our interior for points and directions of fitted-ness, and it is then we notice the orienting process of our compass. 

And I think one of the most noticeable features of this ‘existential orienteering’ is it’s easier to determine one or two things that are inadequate or inaccurate symbols long before determining what symbol will be accurate and adequate. Of course when we are lost it’s always easier to pick one (1) wrong compass direction when there are only a few right directions. The key is figuring why those first wrong directions are wrong, something again done almost automatically but if we had conscious thought about the process:

If I use this symbol to point that direction then I’ll have a meaning too much like this other symbol direction combination which already has this other specific framework meaning. A better more accurate symbol than this would have (more or less) of (x) aspect, an aspect that according to my reading of my framework lies more closely upon symbol direction heading (y).

We ever increasingly pick a slightly better, slightly ’more right’ direction until we achieve a symbol functionality equal to our purpose, a symbol functionality arrived at via previous interior symbol definitions and based upon coherence with previous interior symbols’ definitions.

We use our compass sense of framework fitted-ness, we use the knowledge we’ve discerned about what are not accurate symbol directions, and we use why they aren’t accurate, in a process of discovery that wades through the ambiguity of unknown territory to arrive at a metaphoric extension of our interior framework that represents accurate knowledge. It is a subjective self knowledge at the least yet through the process of mapping reality (with somewhat less certainty) such an extension of our interior framework may represent objective knowledge as well.

Thus, in an intimate relationship:

 …by the constant orientation of the interior compass upon love, and not simply upon the symbols of love, that a lover’s loyalty is maintained.
~ OH, The Maintenance of Loyalty

The center and soul of our relationship cannot be summed by any one word or phrase; it is a nexus between us, a matrix of our combined gravities, a complexity of love we can know only by its direction on our individual interior compass rose.
~OH, Active and Passive Pleasure

And thus for the individual:

And when we don’t listen to our self knowledge, our interior compass, things usually end badly.
~OH, Intuitive, Instinctive, Gradual Change

Redaction

There’s a fascinating redactive quality to rereading my essays here and attempting to assign them a coherent codification of categories and tags. After all I wasn’t thinking in terms of the new category and tag names and labels at the time I wrote these past essays. Of course this bothers me because the new ‘frame’ I am imposing might detract from the flavor (or worse the meaning) of the essay as it was written at the time, and thus detract from the compact experience I had at that time.

The reframing nature of this redactive project was further illustrated by the fact the sidebar page containing the contents map, the page that is the new improvised framework, kept showing up first in any site search because it had the most recent date. Since the point of a search is to find content not a framework, with some humorous irony I solved this problem by redacting the page date of the contents map to a time before every essay here so that it showed up last in any search. Thus in order to function well, in this case the redactive framework itself had to be redacted.

Symbol Adequacy and Accuracy

As part of my continuing series on common themes, today’s theme is:

Symbol Adequacy and Symbol Accuracy:
These two are closely related as both involve the concept of ‘good enough’ and ‘not good enough’. If a symbol were akin to an orienteering sign, accuracy deals with a symbol’s definitional ‘heading’ and direction on the compass, but adequacy deals with a symbol’s degree or ‘distance’ to be traveled. Together they form a ‘functionality vector’, e.g. plain heart shaped paper in a homemade lunch may be an accurate direction for a functional love symbol, but some sort of decoration denoting effort and passion might be needful for a functionally adequate love symbol as well.

The fascinating thing about adequacy and accuracy is we can ‘feel’ -sense- when a symbol is accurate and adequate enough for the expression we want – such a symbol ‘feels right’. I think this sensation is due to a comparative (often automatically, unconsciously) with other interior symbols either similar in context or content.

For instance, most people recognize it is easier to determine one or two things that are inadequate or inaccurate long before determining what is accurate and adequate, as surely picking one (1) wrong direction when there are 359 other wrong directions but only one right direction is easy. It is picking that one right compass direction out of all the other 359 other wrong directions that is difficult.

The key bit of process is figuring why the first wrong directions are wrong: “this symbol’s meaning-direction is too much like this other meaning-direction which I already use for something else”. Then using that incorrect symbol knowledge to pick a slightly better ‘more right’ direction, picking increasingly better directions until we achieve a functionality of symbol for our purpose (context) that is ultimately based on previous interior symbols’ definitions and ranges.

And that ‘feels right-ness’ of symbol comes when we realize the next pick of a slightly ‘better’ direction is not worth our effort and resource of self - the symbol direction we have is accurate and ‘right’ enough. Likewise for symbol adequacy although usually once direction is selected well enough, adequacy’s degree of distance is far easier to select.

Feeling Her Fire

When I give control
it’s as if she were having
her way with me – love.

~

Yes, I like feeling
controlled and bossed around but
only by the one.

~

Feeling her fire,
my deep desire, controlled
by her, her fire.

~

In (re)reading  what I have written here to date, I realized some poetry I posted not only never got their fair day of explication, but some poems were actually well worth (re)examination. Today’s poems [035 haiku (when I give)] were written all on the same day in the order presented.

When I give control
it’s as if she were having
her way with me – love.

As with other semi-kinky symbols (obedience or female led), the essence of my experience of ‘control’ is ’feeling’ her passion and her fire in a compact (“for you is for me“) love symbol   apprehended by my interior mental framework without conscious awareness or volition. Although I write ’when I give’ control here, in actuality it is not until I feel as though my wife were exercising that control in some way, to some extent, that the ‘control circuit’ is tripped (as it were) and I compactly recieve (as opposed to say thinkingly, differentiate, search or look for) the semi-electric shock of high-gear, passionate love.

Yes, I like feeling
controlled and bossed around but
only by the one.

It isn’t the experience of a control power dynamic itself that I enjoy, but rather the ’love’ meaning it has for me in our love symbol negotiation, and as a non-atrophied or metastasized symbol in the context of our relationship, I am quite certain with my wife is the only time the symbol is functional for my interior mental framework.

Feeling her fire,
my deep desire, controlled
by her, her fire.

I am beginning to realize that in so many ways I miss the power and fullness of the compact experience by needless differentiation. I wrote this –about her fire– a full three and half weeks before I had my ‘fire epiphany‘, an epiphany that in retrospect seems more like a mere moment of clarity in a sea of obtusity. No less here it is, thankfully here and simple: it is my passion and desire to feel her passion, her fire, that essential part of her that makes her alive and who she is.

On the other hand, I readily admit it is hard to tell if I mightn’t be more controlled by my passion and desire to feel her than controlled by her passion and fire. (And why is it that when I write of such things -even in parallel grammer structure- she has a fire whareas I do not?)

The rest of my thoughts on that day I think serve to further illustrate how frustrated I was feeling about how inadequate my needless differentiation prediliction was at finding the symbols to fully express my passionate love experience. I’m trying to comfort myself in that perhaps the differentiation I did during those three and a half weeks were necessary to find the value in the adequacy of the symbols I already had (an idea which I think also suggests a far more interesting, interactive, ’both-and’ sort of ‘puzzle-pieced evaluation’ answer to the retrospective meaning versus immediate experiential meaning discussion).

And I would cast myself in her fire, could I only find it. Where is it? How can I get there? Does anyone have directions? Are there directions? Are directions even necessary? What must I do?

I feel the overwhelming need to simplify my existence (again) – get back to basics. The edges of my interior spaces have gotten far too myriad and complex to keep up with the seemingly exponential factors and variables. Simply put, I think I feel a little ‘burnt out’.

I feel I have learned and now know so much about who I am as a person and how I can be (more) me and more satisfied in life and love that perhaps I need to let my life and love catch up to what I know. Simply put, my brains outrun my hands. But my hands move so frustratingly slow.

Perhaps I just feel a little less than equal to the living of (my) life right now (as hectic as it feels it has become).

I need ‘more me’ to go around – but can’t have less of her.

Symbol Atrophy and Metastasis

I am starting a series on the important themes I am forever discussing here; the series then available as a single sidebar page, “About Common Themes,” which currently also has the list of themes I have currently planned in the series. Today’s theme:

Symbol Atrophy and Symbol Metastasis:

Technically ‘symbol atrophy’ is the usage of a symbol (actions, words or deeds) past its efficacy, a once adequate or accurate symbol that is no longer adequate or accurate because the desired and intended meaning has changed from the current symbol and meaning. Thus the act of placing a small paper heart in a homemade lunch might have once been an adequate and accurate love symbol, but when a person finds the action more chore than meaningfully loving, the symbol has atrophied and no longer means precisely what it once did. (This is also a wonderful example of why symbols are constantly changing and in constant need of negotiation in a relationship.) It is important to note that despite a certain level of symbol inadequacy and inaccuracy, often partially atrophied symbols can retain some measure of functionality, even adequate functionality, for long periods of time.

‘Symbol Metastasis’, however, is the collapsing of desired intended meaning with its symbol even when out of context. Such movement of meaning to the symbol itself is a sort of objectification and fetishization of the symbol. Thus if the same person later feels the sharp electric jolt of passionate love while cutting out hearts for a political fundraiser, the symbol is metastasized. Usually adequate functionality is lost more quickly with a metastasized symbol than an atrophied symbol.

(Humorously enough, when I write I’ll occasionally confuse the two, often using ‘symbol metastasis’ when I mean ‘symbol atrophy’ – and is why the above link currently only tags ‘symbol atrophy’. I intend to remedy this soon-ish.)

Of interest, I think it’s often the case that intimate relationships do not have a solidly functional level of clear and transparent love symbols (being symbols both adequate and accurate for both individuals). Thus when either party tries to add any sort of uxory or kink to a relationship the confusion of more complexity not only often results in further inadequacy or inaccuracy in their communication, but also further symbol atrophy and metastasis. And as metaphorical ‘framework blindspots’ atrophy and metastasis are much more difficult problems recognize let alone solve than inadequacy and inaccuracy.