Inference Culture: Final Response to Course, Essay

Grant Tabler
Ian Reilly
AHSS 1090
14 April 2010

A Utility Belt for Your Mind

Let me start by saying that I’m sorry that the other paper I’m handing in with this one is about The Matrix. I promise you I really am attempting to limit myself on the amount of Matrix based writing for these media studies courses. I thought I was alright with just the one paper and a large wiki post about The Matrix but alas, this is not the case. At this rate I may end up graduating with a Bachelor’s degree in Matrix studies. Despite the possible redundancy of my obsessive need to reference the Matrix when referring to any aspect of media, this has allowed me to hit upon another idea worth exploring that I have come to understand based on this course. It is the idea of using inference to define reality.

We define our experience through inference. In the same way we attempt to classify and categorize the world into definable sanctions, so too do we attempt to explain anything we experience by referencing other experiences. We understand everything we see based on what we have already seen. We inference past ideas, things we have already developed an understanding of or have mastered. We do this to centralise our knowledge so that we can better interface with the subject or object. The idea of inference is similar to the idea of dialogism. Dialogism is all about recognising that nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything that is said is based on what has been said and in anticipation of what will be said. The same applies to reality. Everything we do is based on, or can be interpreted as, something that we have already done, or have knowledge of.

Humanity has a very metaphorical view of our world. Our explanations are based around examples and references to similar principles, which have their own examples. Upon analyzation I have found that I do this quite a lot. Most notably in courses you have taught that offer a Wiki. McLuhan and The Matrix was a great example of this. After taking in the information about McLuhan and reading the playboy interview I was for some reason struck with the inspiration to compare the playboy interview with a scene in The Matrix. This inference was what started this whole chain of Matrix media comparisons.

Throughout that semester and, to a lesser extent, this semester I would either post things on the Wiki or make inferences in class based on the course material. This was partially to improve my understanding, partially to help others but mostly just to show that I understood it. I suppose, with these courses, there is a need to show that we do indeed understand the difficult concepts being put forth. For, with other courses the professor will often put forth material that you already understand, ask a question everyone knows the answer to, and is shocked when no one cares enough to give a response. There is not a response given because no one gets it, instead it is because answering the question would be stating the obvious. When students are not challenged intellectually they disconnect from the information being delivered.

With this course I feel as if I should answer – or comment on – more of the questions being put forth, to show that the above scenario is not the case. I am not sure why I do not participate as much as I should, perhaps I feel as if I would be slowing down the lecture by adding comments. I seem to instead use the Wiki to comment on my interpretation of the material; often using inference as my means of explaining or offering another perspective on the content. The downside to this attempted means of textual interaction is the time constraints. One is often unable to post all that they would about a given piece of the material or cannot find a larger topic with which to link the smaller comment. Due to this, these comments are often lost.

I had used inference to understand the division of thought between Socrates and Plato’s ideals and Aristotle’s ideals. Based on the way each seemed to be portrayed in class I found that they could be easily referenced to Star Wars. Plato and Socrates seemed much like Jedi. They are attempting to guide their lives and the lives of those that look to them for advice by logic and reason. They are worried about people being swayed by emotions and other such frivolities.

Aristotle on the other had is more like the Sith, though in a good way. His school of thought is more aimed at understanding human experience through emotion. The idea that until one can appreciate things on an emotional level they cannot appreciate it rationally. This showed a fundamental divide between these two philosophical ideals and immediately brought Star Wars to mind. It seemed almost like one could make an adaptation referencing this idea. Something to the effect of an apprentice who leaves the emotionless logical arena his master lives in. He then goes to explore a pursuit of a life that allows one to let their emotions influence their actions. Plato and Aristotle, a Jedi Struggle.

The most interesting part of this inference – indeed of any inference – is that this is not the only textual reference that would satisfy the same comparison. The comparison is entirely based on one’s own experiences, influences, and knowledge base. Metaphorical comparisons were something that Aristotle held in high regard, “But the greatest thing by far is to have a command of metaphor...it is the mark of genius, for to make good metaphors implies an eye for resemblances.” (Aristotle 1459a4) The eye for resemblances that he mentions is an interesting concept. Someone’s ability to make a good metaphorical reference hinges on their ability to understand and recall information they already posses and apply it to a new concept. This could be understood as a mark of genius because the more knowledge one has the more consistently they can have some piece of information they can connect to their current context. The skill lies partially in the knowledge base and partially in the ability to use adaptation to reinterpret the information in order to suit a new usage.

I have found that at the end of my first year at University a major change has occurred in my way of seeing intelligence. I understand knowledge and intelligence differently now. Before I saw that intelligence within a subject or context was based only in knowledge of that subject. However, now I understand that it is not always knowledge of specific aspects of a subject that denote intelligence, but rather one’s ability to apply the knowledge one already has to another context or subject. Upon realizing this I have come to understand the true usage of taking in as much information as possible, such as with the extensive breadth of course material in your courses.

The more knowledge one gains the easier it is to inference or compare information from another context in order to help better understand both contexts. The larger a knowledge base you draw from the easier it is to infer a subject that you may better understand in order to assist in the understanding of the new material. The dialogism of this is that one cannot use inference to merely help illuminate new material as in doing so they come to understand the original context differently or more thoroughly. As T.S. Eliot put it "the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past." As much as the previous context furthers our understanding of the current, so too does the current expand our understanding of the previous.

Everything we write, say, or often even think about is influenced by previous material. The reason I have made so many essays referring to The Matrix is because I have interfaced with the material to the point of memorization. We create based on what we understand. The more thoroughly we understand something the easier it is to explain other things based on it. Our previous understandings fuel our deductive capacities. When deciding on a term paper topic relating to remediation I looked at the examples of Ebooks and Email and thought, “what makes them remediation?” From this I decided that it was just a reinterpretation of the information based on a change in transference method. The first thing I thought of after this was, “that’s kind of like what the illusion of The Matrix does with reality.” Thus my term paper became another Matrix creation.

The more one reads of and thinks about more complex ideas, or more interesting ways of wording things, the easier it will be to find another application for them. Inference is a utility belt for your mind. That comparison is almost inferring something of an inference, kind of a meta-inference if you will. The utility belt allows someone to overcome a problem they face using the tools they have already acquired. When Batman comes to a chasm blocking his destination, he uses a grappling hook from his utility belt and is across. Likewise when reading Marshal McLuhan and trying to understand what he means by narcissis narcosis one uses The Matrix to infer a more palatable idea.

-30-

Works Cited

Aristotle. Poetics. Trans. S. H. Butcher. eBooks@Adelaide. The University of Adelaide Library, 12 April, 2007. Web. 11 April. 2010.

Eliot, Thomas Stearns. The Sacred Wood. London: Methune, 1920; Bartleby.com, 1996. www.bartleby.com/200/. 10 April 2010.