Thanks Julian. You're absolutely right it's a complex topic... especially for those of us not trained in the subtleties of philosophical concepts.
I love your analogy and there are three things about it that drew me in straight away:
1. Any model of the virtual has to apply to all things. The virtual can't only exists in the human mind. It has to be as real for rivers, dreams and oak pollen as it is for us. So the virtual can't only be about the kinds of mental projections we make of other people and things, although this might be one of the richer ways we as humans have the capacity to express it.
2. The virtual IS fully real. It's not a metaphor (things can exist without metaphors, they can't exist without the virtual), it's not the Freudian unconscious or some heavenly 'realm'. It's not an ideal image of something projected onto the world. It *exists* in every sense, even though it has no extension (no physical form). How do we know it's real, then? Because things can't exist without it. There is nothing in the universe that is so totally, completely, exhaustively 'present' that there's nothing else going on and nothing more it's capable of. Everything has some surplus that resides 'beyond' its actual manifestation, even if it's the tiniest possibility. So there must always be something beyond the actual that holds within it the capacity for newness and excess.
3. I love the image of us building this reality. That, I think, is key to the virtual; it provides the conditions for this building to take place. At every scale throughout the cosmos building is taking place through infinite swarms of interactions. Each interaction makes something new and as soon as a new entity comes into being (remember this don't have to be classical 'things') a new virtual is built. There is no lag, no delay: it is instant; an inevitable consequence of the creativity that is the engine of life. I find it all quite beautiful really, if not all a bit overwhelming!
Super interesting and complex! Thank you for that! I'm not sure I've fully understood it yet. One image that comes to mind here is the way we form an image of our patients. We build up this image of the patient based on our assessment, our experiences, our prejudices and so on, explaining to ourselves how he/she feels, thinks, what behaviour he/she performs etc. In this way, we build a ‘virtuality’ that does not necessarily have to be reality and yet still exists. Is this going in the right direction? Looking forward to your new book!
Thanks Julian. You're absolutely right it's a complex topic... especially for those of us not trained in the subtleties of philosophical concepts.
I love your analogy and there are three things about it that drew me in straight away:
1. Any model of the virtual has to apply to all things. The virtual can't only exists in the human mind. It has to be as real for rivers, dreams and oak pollen as it is for us. So the virtual can't only be about the kinds of mental projections we make of other people and things, although this might be one of the richer ways we as humans have the capacity to express it.
2. The virtual IS fully real. It's not a metaphor (things can exist without metaphors, they can't exist without the virtual), it's not the Freudian unconscious or some heavenly 'realm'. It's not an ideal image of something projected onto the world. It *exists* in every sense, even though it has no extension (no physical form). How do we know it's real, then? Because things can't exist without it. There is nothing in the universe that is so totally, completely, exhaustively 'present' that there's nothing else going on and nothing more it's capable of. Everything has some surplus that resides 'beyond' its actual manifestation, even if it's the tiniest possibility. So there must always be something beyond the actual that holds within it the capacity for newness and excess.
3. I love the image of us building this reality. That, I think, is key to the virtual; it provides the conditions for this building to take place. At every scale throughout the cosmos building is taking place through infinite swarms of interactions. Each interaction makes something new and as soon as a new entity comes into being (remember this don't have to be classical 'things') a new virtual is built. There is no lag, no delay: it is instant; an inevitable consequence of the creativity that is the engine of life. I find it all quite beautiful really, if not all a bit overwhelming!
Super interesting and complex! Thank you for that! I'm not sure I've fully understood it yet. One image that comes to mind here is the way we form an image of our patients. We build up this image of the patient based on our assessment, our experiences, our prejudices and so on, explaining to ourselves how he/she feels, thinks, what behaviour he/she performs etc. In this way, we build a ‘virtuality’ that does not necessarily have to be reality and yet still exists. Is this going in the right direction? Looking forward to your new book!