This first posting is a “hello world” posting.  Why did I choose “cognitive terrain” as its name?

It reflects the name of a surface I must traverse, when not at home.

Also, it recognizes media presentation as the topography of crafted illusion. That there is an observer viewing the terrain implies a context apart from the terrain, which for me is a remote view, from home.

We’re blessed with remarkable techniques for communicating ideas but daily bludgeoned with a barrage of ideas conformed to fit opinion and ideology.  I hope to avoid that murky sapce.

There are “the two sides” of the issue; a reduction of the verbs such as “effect” and “affect,” to “impact” (something hitting something else).  “What is the impact of this on that?,” a head asks, trying to stuff complexity into a simple duality (subject-object, I guess,  and a posited third [relation]).  Off we go, loudly to keep the listener from thinking.

The more cynical, those with an agenda believe the best method for making up some truth is to repeat the same construct many times.  Of course, this becomes necessary if you believe the presented fact is not true in the first place.  So the talking heads must at least experience some cognitive dissonance as they attempt to convince themselves of the facts they purvey, unless, of course, they are not reading the material for content.  I can appreciate that, having worked as a proofreader for a state legislature.

It is almost painful for me to hear someone repeat with authority (sometimes verbatim) a gleaned factoid as if it contained an element of truth, particularly if I’ve already heard it a dozen times or more.  I’m really working on that, so I am writing this with less authority.  The upside, is, I don’t have to convince myself of the truth of some fact.

“Give us faith,” Kurt Vonnegut wrote, “but deliver us, dear God, from belief!”*

[Erratum (December 11, 2019) it was not Vonnegut, but Aldous Huxley, in his novel Island to whom this prayer is attributable.]

 

Yes and amen