Non-linear Disambiguation of Dimensionally Diverse Perspectives

The following is a work of fiction. All references to people, states of mind and theories contained therein are a by-product of the author's regular thought process which include random ramblings proceeding from a freewheelin' brain and any resemblence to any persons living, dead or in any ambiguous state, is not intended and purely coincidental. The references to pony-tails, however, are not.


Gross, Ketchhup et al[1] laid the groundwork for the formalization of the definition of perspective ambiguity. In the early part of their work they dwell at length on the assumptions that lead to their version of the definition. In the later part of their work they dwell at length on how those assumptions do not entirely hold thereby leading to the removal of large parts of the definition. With the result that this work offers a dangling definition affording a tilted view of ambiguity resulting in a perspective that is hard to stomach.

Bugg, Lows, Leech and Meng[2] build on this set of assumptions removing large amounts of ambiguity thereby affording a cleaner view of the underlying assumptions that lead to the definition. The only problem with this is that in the process of disambiguation they proceed to remove large amounts of the ambiguity also and end up with a perfectly sanitized definition for deviant behavior in cats which no longer applies to perspective ambiguity whichever way you look at it.

Rastogi, Ganguly, Siddappa and Muthukrishnan [3] proposed an approach for formalizing a definition starting with the basic assumptions that lie behind Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Although this affords an extremely interesting perspective on the cross influences of unrelated theories on each other, it does little to further the cause of research in this particular area.

As is evident from the observations recorded above, there is very little relevant reference work available for research work in the area of proposing formal approaches to arriving at a definition for a Non-linear Disambiguation of Dimensionally Diversified Perspectives. So here is what I decided to do. Dump all plans for arriving at a formal definition and wing it.

To start with, here is some perspective to think about. Take a good hard look at yourself in a mirror after you are plastered – say a good 7 to 8 drinks down should do nicely for a start. Then as you stare hard at yourself in the mirror, you pose your question to the face in the mirror. Don’t wait for an answer. There will be none forthcoming. Come back after a couple of drinks and listen to the answer to the question you had posed earlier. After having listened to the answer, if you can relate it with the question that you had posed earlier and in the process make sense of the question and the answer as they relate to each other – then that, my friend, is perspective. Put another way, it is being able to relate entities that are spread across dimensions of time, space and sense of identity.

The ability to comprehend with absolute clarity complex relationships between entities with shifting identities, in itself an art, and further being able to do it, while dealing with the ambiguities spanning dimensions, is known as non-linear disambiguation of dimensionally diverse perspectives.

Maybe it’s called something else but I like to call it that.

The ability to define relationships spanning radically differing contexts constitutes what your everyday right-brained dude terms ‘Creativity’. It is not, as the same dude thinks, the ability to come up with a few smartass lines for a TV/radio commercial or splotch up an abstract and label it ‘My Conscience Inverted’. That, my friend, is just that - a splotch on the conscience of any right-minded individual, with or without a conscience, inverted or otherwise – and there is nothing ambiguous about that.

Dumbing it down a bit, creativity, as I see it, is the ability to take two totally unconnected entities and draw a connection between them. My friend the Graphic Designer disagrees, and fails to see any connection between me and my definition. Now getting him to see the connection would amount to being really creative. But this is not about him so we will leave him and his pony-tail to figure out the connection of one with the other and stay on the topic on hand.

A little mental exercise for you – consider two items – a green pea and the latest bollywood film that would have opened at the box office. If you were to say that the film was made by a bunch of people with the IQ of a green pea, then you would be on your way to creative satisfaction. Staying on the same topic and drawing further connections would get your creative juices flowing fairly freely. You get the idea. You could exercise your mind and soon you would be a fountain of creativity with the juices flowing on a production scale. Hell, you could set up a bottling plant and market your creative juices. The brand name could come from some outsourced agency, who would think up the name in an inspired moment of juice making. All of which will not be possible if you were not to give them a brief and the freedom to go innovate in the first place. That then becomes cooperative creativity. Of course the franchises will step in and find value-add options that go with the bottled stuff – now you are looking beyond the cooperative and moving onto collaborative turf. Find an overseas market and you are progressing nicely into the global. And to think it can all begin with a humble green pea and a stupid bollywood film. Which lets us conclude that almost anything and everything can be a source of great inspiration.

So there you have it. My submission on Creativity and Non-linear Disambiguation of Dimensionally Diverse Perspectives. And if it doesn’t agree with the pony-tails out there, well, as the man said, to each his own. And I am sure there is nothing ambiguous about that.

References:

[1]Gross, Manuel; Ketchhup, Bruno; Abrams, Kasturi Peter (1969). ‘Birds of A Feather: Social Analysis in the Developing World'. Vol. 4.

[2]Bugg, Manolo; Lows, Utpatan; Leech, Keeda and Meng, Ming (1978) 'What, Where, Who, Why? Pertinence in a Mixed-Up World'.

[3]Raman, Jignes; Ganguly, Jignes; Siddappa, Jignes; Muthukrishnan, Jignes (1996) 'Hum Sab Ek Hai: Cross-referential Identity Differentiation'


Note: The above is a work of fiction. All references to people, states of mind and theories contained therein are a by-product of the author's regular thought process and any resemblence to any persons living, dead or in any ambiguous state, is not intended and purely coincidental. The references to pony-tails, however, are not.