Dear Martin & All
Currently I don't see the relation between outwardly observable Activity
and mental constructs (or Subjects, for that matter) as problematic, but
to resolve my previous uneasiness it was necessary to create a
supporting model (the Metamodel I referred to earlier) to serve as a
crutch, specifically to understand the interrelation between Activity
and the mental domain. In the following are some features of that
interrelation that I found interesting:
MIND
The concept of mind is really a historic artefact. In the Western
tradition, soul is one of its precursors.
The mind is, evidently, not an unorganized mess. By now we have a decent
understanding of how the mind works, so we can place it in a chain of
interactions that model human Activity, in addition to communication,
shared understanding etc. While working with the Metamodel, one of the
most rewarding experiences was that key parts of Kant's reasoning, which
I previously found unassailable, made perfect sense.
Mind is not equal to brain, even if the phenomena that we understand as
mind originate in the brain. When we study the brain we are essentially
studying the foundation of mental phenomena. This is a much more
challenging undertaking than understanding the mind.
ACCESS TO THE MINDS OF OTHERS
Even if we don't have direct access to the mind of others, as you
pointed out, others sometimes externalize what is in their mind. These
externalizations can be included in linked data networks. However, these
externalizations may be misleading, disguising the true intent of an
actor. In the December-January issue of Elle Decor India magazine there
was an image of two works of art, of a lynx and a rabbit, made by a
Finnish ceramic artist. By the request of the magazine the artist wrote
a text explaining the inherent ideas of the ceramic sculptures. That
text was used as a caption to the image. In fact, the artist was annoyed
by the request, so what he wrote is in fact a subtle sarcasm, which is
impossible for the reader to detect. Through communications with the
artist I learned about the hidden ambiguity of the text. This kind of
clues for interpretation can be documented, deduced from the context -
or remain hidden. If they are available they are vital for the
understanding of materials we are trying to understand and interpret.
ANTICIPATION AND FEEDBACK
Activity is guided by continuous anticipation and feedback. In the
learning process of classical dance, where movements are specified in
great detail, the feedback may come from the teacher who is correcting
the pupil. After a movement is learned, the feedback comes from the
proprioceptory sense of the dancer who compares his or her current
position to a memorized construct. When a dancer makes a mistake he or
she may anticipate that the next movement that is required by the form
of the dance becomes impossible. The dancer may then make some
improvised correction to fall back into the required form. A similar
process of anticipation and feedback can be traced in the manuscripts
and notebooks of authors, where the author has stricken over some words,
inserted others between the lines etc. Word processing systems don't
retain traces of the creative process in the same way as handwritten
manuscripts. An artistic work is not created so that the artist or
author first creates the work in his mind and then just prints it out in
3D or text. Instead, a Work is the result of a creative cycle where
anticipation and feedback are involved. (Naturally creativity cannot be
reduced to these two functions.)
Anticipation is dependent on pre-existing mental constructs. Feedback is
based on sensory input which is compared to those mental constructs.
IDENTIFICATION
Identification (in the sense of recognition) is another process where
where pre-existing mental constructs come into play. In identification
immediate sensory input is compared to some stored mental construct. In
some cases identification is about recognition of an individual, e.g.
"the" determinate "rabbit" that uses to sleep in the scrub outside our
window. In other cases identification is about connecting the sensory
input with a category, e.g. indeterminate "rabbits" regularly hanging
out in a field nearby a monument commemorating the fallen;
coincidentally "a" determinate "owl" is regularly seen on a pole
overlooking that field.
REFLECTION AND PROJECTION
One way to simplify some of the recurring operations of the mind is by
using the terms "reflection" and "projection". By reflection I mean how
the World of Things appears to us, e.g. my immediate sensation of the
rabbit sleeping outside our window. By projection I mean how I project
what is stored in my mind over the immediate sensation of the rabbit.
The elements of that projection includes identification of the rabbit as
the same one that I have seen before, re-experiencing and reinforcing
the emotions connected with that rabbit, e.g. a sense of familiarity,
the presence of the rabbit as something that cheers up our minds and
helps us to get through the dark winter months etc.
REDISCOVERING SUBJECTIVITY
These mental constructions that form the basis for projections over the
rabbit are of course subjective, but my explicit intention with working
with the Metamodel has been to integrate subjectivity as a part of
documentation.
I believe the conceptual models we are creating can function as a tool
to connect cataloguing with methods and concepts in art history,
literature studies, scholarly digital editions with links to authors
notes etc. where subjectivity already has an established place.
Without the element of subjectivity we cannot properly understand
culture or cultural heritage. In my view this is vital, as in today's
world people are killing each other and destroying heritage because of
the subjective aspect of culture. The sediments of mental constructs
that accumulate in our mind form our Self, our personal identity that
through our interaction with others develop into collective identities.
Deconstructing subjectivity can reveal to us new aspects of culture, but
the process of deconstruction can also be like dismantling a bomb.
CULTURE IS NOT REDUCIBLE TO MERE COGNITION
One further example which is related to the connection of activity with
mental constructs: In classical Indian dance there are numerous hand
movements that culminate in shapes. These shapes have names such as
"deer's head", "budding lotus", "lotus in bloom" etc. It is possible to
tell a story with a dance, but movements and shapes may additionally or
only be there to convey a mood. In ancient Indian aesthetic theory
(including performing arts) there is a system of rasas or moods. Each
rasa is connected to a colour and a deity. The eight fundamental rasas
are love, mirth, sorrow, anger, energy, terror, disgust, and
astonishment. The rasas can be expressed by bhavas, gestures and facial
expressions. I'm trying to point out, that mental constructs are not
only cognitive constructs, which is a subset of mental constructs.
Expression of these mental constructs are also vehicles for emotions,
values and intentions. I also believe that the immediate experience of
the dancer and the public has priority over the cognitive constructs
that are associated with the dance and its movements. To employ Marshall
McLuhan's phrase, in classical Indian dance the medium is the message.
This of course equally applies to other cultures.
We are accustomed to thinking that Western mindset focused on the
rational and cognitive aspects of communication. In fact, traditional
Indian culture may be equally, if not more, analytical than Western
culture, but the medium for this analytical understanding is
traditionally more based on the master-pupil -relation and learning by
example and direct guidance - there are masters of musical instruments
that carry the traditions back multiple generations in time. Attempts to
"raise" Indian music to a "classical" standard and develop a systematic
pedagogy for music is very recent and based on Western influences and
models.
LASTLY, ON STONES
The mental factor is present in all Targets of Interest for Cultural
heritage. That is not the feature distinguishing Tangible Cultural
Heritage from Intangible Cultural Heritage. Using the stone example: The
historian of ideas, Sven-Eric Liedman has written a 600+ pages book
called "The Stones in the Soul" (Stenarna i själen). The title is based
on Aristotle's treatise Peri psykhes (On the Soul) Aristotle points out
that everything that exists can also exist in the soul. In the same way
as the stone makes a mark in our soul, our soul makes a mark in the
marks made by the stone. By the means of our hands, what is marked in
our souls can also be inscribed in stone, as is done in ancient kudurrus
(border stones), stelas and many other ones.
TEHERAN
Øyvind, about the workshop in Teheran:
I believe before that can become a reality, we have to have a firm grasp
of the topics involved. I believe this will include a materials for
documenting ICH including a conceptual model. This means that there will
be a process leading up to the workshop. Thus, there will be
opportunities to participate in "The World of Minds" for You and anyone
interested.
Best regards,
Mika
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mika Nyman, Suomenlinna Sea Fortress A3, 00190 Helsinki, Finland
[email protected]
puh/tel/phone +358 44 324 0004
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 20.2.2016 20:20, martin wrote:
Dear Mika,
I support your separation of the world of things and the world of minds.
I think it is crucial to understand this
relationship, which is highly complex. See also "Embodiment" by Wolfgang
Tschacher et al. who provides ample
evidence of a much tighter interaction than classical AI and philosophy
had assumed.
We develop the CRM strictly on an empirical-scientific base. The idea
being, that the world of minds
is accessible to our interpretation through the world of things, as long
as we do not resort to telepathy.
This can be utterances, bodily expressions, activities that allow us to
infer motivations or inconsistencies
with uttered convictions etc. , nowadays even "liedetectors" or brain
activation images.
The latter fall under the current scope of the CRM, if relevant groups
document in data structures such terms.
It is much more difficult to talk about clearly identifiable entities
for the world of the mind, and therefore
rarely appear as datastructures useful to integrate knowledge on. For
instance, Stephen Hennicke has
discussed recently in his PhD the concept of actual "will" to pursue a
plan in contrast to "expressions of will".
Recently, it appears to me more and more important to understand the
world of the mind not just as isolated
individuals caught in their own brains, but as members of a social group
which exchange their inner experiences and
influence each other by their attitudes up to the degree of global
changes of behavior.
In addition, social-historical research has a strong focus on collective
behavior, which can only be described
in statistical terms, formal or informal. Whereas the KR formalism
allows to describe facts feeding statistics,
the statistics and its models are mathematically different. Therefore
the CRM simply cannot deal with them technically.
As a remark, I'd argue that "Subject" in both senses, the experiencing
human or the topic of an information object,
is not a class, but must be modelled as relationship?
Best,
Martin
On 20/2/2016 3:39 πμ, Mika Nyman wrote:
Dear all,
Some pieces of information and comments:
1. For information on how to apply CIDOC CRM or FRBRoo to Intangible
Cultural Heritage, this is the right list.
CIDOC has also a Working Group for Intangible Cultural Heritage. If
someone has a broader interest in how to document ICH, that can be
discussed on the mailing list of that group. The CIDOC ICH WG aims to
develop a vocabulary, standards and guidlines for documentation of
ICH. The chair of the WG is Dr. Manvi Seth from the National Museum
Institute, New Delhi, [email protected]. If you want to be added
to the mailing list of the WG, please send me a note to
[email protected] and I will send you an invitation to
join the list. I have myself only a minor role in the group, but I
administer the mailing list.
2. A while ago (in 2012) I participated in a project to create a
conceptual model for archives in Finland. My specific interest was to
connect that model to the CIDOC CRM and the FRBRoo. The project was
based on the conviction, that the foundation for a conceptual model
for archives is the mandate, discourse and practices of archives and
the archives community. In other words, the starting point was not
existing metadata schemata and how to map those to other schemata, but
rather what archivists think and do and how they see their
professional roles within their national archival tradition compared
to the archival traditions in other countries. In parallel, there were
separate processes to create cataloguing rules, to create a data model
for a new information system and to link archival data to the Finna
service, which is a national version of Europeana.
In one of the models that were produced in that project, the archival
classes were distributed among five fields:
Temporal Entities
Extents (in space and time)
Three types of Persistent Items:
- Actors
- Things
- Conceptual Objects
These five fields are derived from the CIDOC CRM. A disturbing feature
was that some classes such as Activity and Subject crossed the border
of fields. In the draft model they belong in some way to Temporal
Entities, in another way to Conceptual Objects. After the conclusion
of the project I wanted to look deeper into this. To get more clarity
to the duality of classes like Activity and Subject I have been
working on a domain independent Metamodel that can be applied to CIDOC
CRM, FBRBoo and archival models.
Two terms I use in the Metamodel are the World of Things and the World
of Minds. An example: In the last days there has been student protests
in Delhi and all over India caused by the arrest of a student leader,
Kanhaiya Kumar from the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Those
demonstrations can be documented on two levels: in the World of Things
as external activities but also in the World of Minds in the
subjective field(s). The World of Things and the World of Minds form
separate contexts. Different structures apply to each of them. Each
must be approached through a different set of questions. A question
like "What did NN really mean" is related to the World of Minds. "Who
were the lawyers that physically assaulted and mishanled KK in the
Patiala House Court" is related to the World of Things. The Internal
Experience of Kanhaiya Kumar being kicked and beaten by enraged
lawyers is different from the External Experience that can be captured
by journalists' cameras, although Internal and External Experiences
are interrelated. One distinction that is of relevance in the mental
sphere is the distinction between Identification and Predication. Both
are fundamental mental capabilities. A key interest in developing the
Metamodel has been how to bridge statements and stories. Semantic web
models and systems are statement oriented. Statements are based on
Identification and Predication. They express our understanding of the
world, but this understanding is, additionally, used in temporally
sequenced discourses and narratives.
My attempt has not been to present or describe the Metamodel here. I'm
trying to formulate these thoughts in an article for the Iranian
Farhang-e muse (Culture and Museum) journal. We (meaning especially
some museum professionals in Iran) are also trying organize an
international workshop in Teheran, where these questions could be
discussed in depth. This workshop could be hosted by the University of
Art in Teheran. If you have the interest and opportunity to
participate in the workshop individually or through your project or
organization, please let me know. There has also been a suggestion to
arrange a Workshop in Teheran specifically on the theme of ICH. These
two initiatives could be merged.
These comments fall outside of the scope of refining the CICOC CRM
model and its extensions. I apologize if they also fall outside of the
scope of the CIDOC CRM mailing list.
Best regards!
Mika
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mika Nyman, Suomenlinna Sea Fortress A3, 00190 Helsinki, Finland
[email protected]
puh/tel/phone +358 44 324 0004
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 19.2.2016 12:43, Carlisle, Philip wrote:
Hi all,
I’m resending this as it didn’t appear to get through.
As you may know the Arches Project has been using the CRM as the
backbone for a cultural heritage inventory system. This is working well
and is being implemented by many projects.
One such project now wants to use Arches to record intangible heritage
and so needs to create resource graphs, based on an ontology, in order
to do this.
Can the CRM be used to represent the intangible heritage? If not does
anyone know of an ontology that can?
Phil
*Phil Carlisle*
Data Standards Supervisor
Data Standards Unit, Listing Group
Historic England
The Engine House
Fire Fly Avenue
Swindon
SN2 2EH
Tel: +44 (0)1793 414824
http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/
http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/
We are the public body that looks after England's historic environment.
We champion historic places, helping people to understand, value and
care for them, now and for the future. Sign up to our enewsletter to
keep up to date with our latest news, advice and listings.
HistoricEngland.org.uk Twitter: @HistoricEngland This e-mail (and any
attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are
not the views of Historic England unless specifically stated. If you
have received it in error, please delete it from your system and notify
the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in
any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to Historic
England may become publicly available.
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
