Dirtbag on [excerpts] mode.

“We are flowers in a vast garden - so vast its borders were not even fenced for it covered the whole region, stretching from coast to coast. I imagine everyone of us as flowers with our faces somewhat engraved on the center of every flower the way Teletubbies or even a playwright would artistically manifest it on a children’s play (say, Thumbelina).

We are flowers with faces and every petal signifies every friendship and every interaction we make. Our common fields of experiences somewhat connect each and every petal to the center of the flower (where, scientifically, has the stigma and the style and the anthers and filaments).

Petals overlapping each other might be due to the fact that our friends basically know each other. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they collide.

Now we go to the part where we find the stem and the leaves with all the thorns and the defense mechanisms of the entire plant which signifies the past and every nook and cranny of our personality.

The bees, I have no idea. They intrude our cores and sip our nectars. They may signify temptations, they may be some natural or man-made contingency that sucks our lives and our passions for something. They fall on the same kind of category with the weather and all the natural dins and disturbances around us: the earthquakes shaking and sometimes even shattering our foundations, the monsoons drowning our roots, the droughts inducing our body to become flaccid and limp, devoid of any strength, and the days and nights and everything like it.”

-

This is stupid. To compare our social lives and even basically our lives to a mere flower is something stupid. I wrote this mentally during my Speech Communication I class this morning, thinking about Schramm’s model of communication and how every message and every conversation sparks because of our same field of experience.

In his model - correct me if I’m wrong - two different persons are projected by separated shapes - there’s this east-to-west distance between them. In the middle of the distance lies a circle which we imply as the signal or the message. The source of the conversation encodes the message and transmits it to the receiver. The receiver, upon receiving the message, decodes the signal. Upon decoding the signal, we can now say that the two persons have had communication.

These two persons radiate this large circle which we call the “field of experience“, and we believe that these two persons, these seemingly two shapes lying a mile away from each other actually shares (even in the slightest hint) a common experience, belief, philosophy, or absolutely anything to one another.

That common field of experience somehow makes the signal possible for transmission. That overlapping makes the conversation run smooth, or to simply put it, effective and sensible.

-

Let’s just put it this way. Say, Friendster. We have our “friends” and those “first, second, third degree friends.” Our own friends are connected to us with a wider overlapping due to the fact that we share somehow a large fraction of our fields of experiences. The first, second and third degree friends are “linked” to us through our friends. Therefore, in one way or another, we also share the same field of experience with them (though not really in a notable or a remarkable way).

-

So there. We are flowers. I’m probably some winter flower since I’m neither emotional nor vibrant or loud. Just this faded-looking flower like a Venus Flytrap (ooops, it’s not a flower). I have no idea about flowers even if I took Crop Science I last semester. I only know their parts, not the species and their colors and all.

-

Whatever.

-

ARGH. Naasar ako nung binasa ko to. It’s so corny.

This post is tagged: Field of experience, Friendster, Model of Communication, Schramm, Speech Communication, Thumbelina, Venus Flytrap