Friday, November 30, 2012

Of Rubik’s Vertices

Understanding the world is not a simple task. Defining and coding reality into models and systems can reveal itself one maddening exercise. The elements and components, which I call vertices, can be extremely confusing. In fact, it’s only smaller systems inside the system of reality that the knowledge of vertices can be applied without hints of instinct.

The problem with those vertices is when we get to deal with this other one merged with it, and we lose the track of previous ones. It’s a matter of solving a Rubik’s Cube, and finding out strategies to deal with next components without losing track of the already resolved.

In the case of tuning of musical instruments, one string depends on other strings. In this particular case, the ambivalence of vertices is not present. There are defined vertices, as there’s the note the string is supposed to ring like, and all strings have their own notes. When one learns to distinguish them, these vertices can more easily be mastered. This problem with vertices is present in drawings too, when the actual vertices of the picture have a distance between them, and if I adjust one, it unbalances the other ones. If the consequences of dealing with vertices towards all others isn’t minded, it’ll be an eternal game of errors slipping from our grip. This is how the interdependence can be so frustrating and confusing.

The confusion I mean with dealing of vertices can be mostly a matter of practice. Low skills lead us to be confused easily with all similar buttons, interdependent strings, parallel roads and differing techniques. But the increase of the skill leads to an increased memory towards vertices to be dealt with.