Myths of everyday life
The fact that we cannot manage to achieve more than an unstable grasp of reality doubtless gives the measure of our present alienation: we constantly drift between the object and its demystification, powerless to render its wholeness. For if we penetrate the object, we liberate it but we destroy it; and if we acknowledge its full weight, we respect it, but we restore it to a state which is still mystified. It would seem that we are condemned for some time yet always to speak excessively about reality. This is probably because ideologism and its opposite are types of behaviour which are still magical, terrorized, blinded and fascinated by the split in the social world. And yet, this is what we must seek: a reconciliation between reality and men, between description and explanation, between object and knowledge. (Barthes, 1957/1972)1
This enigmatic text is a citation from the last paragraph of Necessity and Limits of Mythology by Roland Barthes. Barthes had written monthly from 1954 to 1956. At the time, he constantly tried to think about some of the myths of everyday French life.
I revisit Barthes’s thoughts about his final sentence, which can be found in the excerpt above. It is indirectly associated with Hegel’s aesthetics on creativity and its intellectual creation, and it has profound implications in the digital age. As in past times of change, the economy is always an important social issue, however, economic relevance as a democratic political issue faces specifically modern challenges. It might be an expansion of the world, beyond each existence. In modern society, there are diverse options for global and international communication as well as the enormous amount of information that comes with them. The fact that we cannot do more than perceive the instability of reality without doubting it, gives us a measure of our current marginalization. Probably, today's information goes far beyond the belief that we are not aware of the fact, and it relies on an understanding of things in our context. For example, a picture has pitfalls that briefly explain this complex information society, in other words, a picture might not properly be recognized as a pitfall of space and time, but rather it might be solved on the cognitive level individually. There is a gap between the complex digital information society and the existence of perception.
It may be possible to have an individual cognitive experience between information and cognition at the neuron level in the mathematical sense. Their (multi-) modalities between the universality of mathematical sensations through the neurons and an objective and subjective of both sides of perceptual experience2 from a neuroscientific point of view have been investigated by empirical experiments, but cognition is an area that is too complex overall3. Nevertheless, through the experience of informational recognition, it might be possible to change the lifestyle even if the surrounding environment does not change, but, in which sense does it change?
Barthes mentioned in his reflection that it was not a compromise, but rather a reconciliation between reality and men, between description and explanation, and between object and knowledge. Namely, these procedures of experiences might be "something" out that gives us the inspiration for our future. Thus, Information might reflect "things", or "things" might be reflected by information, this act is “cognition” even if we can not touch “things” in information. In doing so, we would be dealt with our reality by the individual acts in our environment practically, therefore, we are questioning our living space. It might be an interactive process as an experience for humans in everyday life.
1.Mythologies, Roland Barthes, Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1957, selected and translated from French by Annette Lavers, London, Paladin, 1972.
2.Information Theory and Cognition: A Review, Khalid Sayood, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588-0511, USA; Published: 14 September 2018