P3D Re: Cyclopean

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:59:04 MST7MDT
> From: "Kenneth Luker" <kluker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> .................
> 'Tis true.  The word "Cyclopean" is used specifically to 
> refer to the phenomenon of stereopsis, in at least the 
> following extract taken from "Quantitative depth for a 
> phantom surface can be based on cyclopean occlusion 
> cues alone" by B. Gillam and K. Nakayama, in Vision 
> Res 1999 Jan;39(1):109-12:
> 
> 
> "</color>To remove the contaminating effects of conventional 
> stereopsis from the Liu et al. (1994) original example, we 
> presented a pair of parallel vertical lines to each eye 
> where there is a central gap in the right line for the left 
> eye's view and in the left line for the right eye's view. 
> Observers saw a phantom rectangle bounded by 
> subjective contours whose depth increased with the 
> thickness of the lines. We attribute the quantitative 
> variation of depth to a purely cyclopean (binocular) 
> process sensitive to the pattern of contour presence and 
> absence in the two eye's view.  "
> .........


*****  Which proves nothing except that this author has read another
author. Big deal. So much is mere copycat tradition. That we can surmise
the true meaning here either by the association of opposites, or by
having read other authors, doesn't affect the accuracy or
appropriateness of that usage.

Quote from Webster's:
Cy-clo-pe*an ... 1. of, relating to, or characteristic of a Cyclops. 2.
Huge, massive.

Then down the page...
Cy*clops  ...  1. one of a race of giants in Greek mythology with a
single eye in the middle of the forehead. 2. any of a genus of small
pear-shaped water fleas.

Discussions of how that middle eye-spot identification turns into an
equivalent to the binocular stereoscopic synthesis experience
notwithstanding, the meaning of the word is entirely clear. 

It is a misapplication of meaning to use it in the way it has been used
by some. Just because someone important happens to have written a book
with a novel use of the word, or happens to have elucidated something
profound through their life's work, doesn't alter the root meanings of
the word and concepts that are associated with Cyclops, and hence with
the meaning of the word Cyclopean.

If this were a casual misuse having an otherwise neutral effect, I
wouldn't object and would easily go along with it. However, the word
itself is completely OPPOSITE in meaning in a most profoundly direct
way! As such it's unthinkable to use it for the experience I cherish so
much. I use the word in it's true meaning, which becomes a form of
insult semi-directed to those with two good and functional eyes who fail
to use both eyes, figuratively or literally. (more directed to the
-condition of monoscopy- represented by this example, as illustrated in
the mythology - which predates by a very long time and long tradition
too, Dr. J's book!)

Use it to point to the spot between the eyes, fine. That works. But to
refer to binocular vision? It doesn't. It can't, except by an extreme
twist of logic to the point of complete dislocation. 

Only rote tradition totally separated from true meaning can maintain
such a usage. I'm not into that sort of tradition! (neither is Science
for that matter!) Especially when I've observed the effects of that type
of blind tradition on limiting awareness in the individuals who for
whatever reason are focused totally on tradition for tradition's sake
alone. 

I'm speaking historically here and in general, not specifically stereo
related nor personality related. However, the history of stereo
awareness itself serves as an excellent example, being something
biologically inherent in humankind since the beginning but only
recognized and used extremely late in human history. 

Tradition got in the way for a long long time! Generally a bad thing
taken by itself. As likely to blindly repeat mistakes as to maintain
some sort of starting condition of correctness. Not likley to conform to
new understandings that comes with advancement of learning and growth.
Known to hide new understandings tenaciously, despite logic, literally
for generations.

I can see some lonely scribe toiling over copying a few too many
identical manuscripts, who gets chastised upon discovering stereo
merging of documents by accident, because such things weren't
traditionally part of his job. Or an artist carving feather quills on a
temple wall in ancient Egypt getting whipped for becoming distracted
with funny eye tricks. There's a lot of pressure even today against the
practice and usage of stereoscopic abilities! 

Thankfully we are beyond caring if John Doe thinks our hobby/obsession
is a waste of time.

Thankfully it's NOT a cyclopean experience!
-- 
Larry Berlin

3D Webscapes
lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://3dzine.simplenet.com
*-) ---> :-) ---> 8-) ---> 8-O