Skip to main content

To chunk or not to chunk


In the first class of the semester, we were introduced to the concept of neurotypicality, and a simplified version of the perceptive reality of autistic people was offered to us. Since then, this idea of “chunking” stayed with me. He is a paraphrased version of what I got from it:

The neurotypical person apprehends reality by recognising objects, persons, events (etc.) in his environment and automatically finding the “appropriate” category to designate the subject. His understanding of the world is highly classified and associative. Reality is divided into chunks that make it easier to digest and understand.    
The autistic, on the other hand, experiments is environment through feelings, emotions and the exacerbation of his acute senses. This way of navigating the world explains why it may take minutes for an autistic person to recognize, for example, a chair, a face or the rain (Fall Down, Higashida) in the way neurotypical people do.

Even knowing that this explication is only a simplified way of understanding a complex situation, I can’t help but feel how binary it is. What are the modalities of perception that exist between the chunk and the not-chunk? Are there different levels of chunking? Can a neurotypical person go beyond the categorical understanding of the chair and wonder about the way it tastes or sounds, let’s say? What are the pathways that allow us to visit this place? (Unstrange Mind, Sparrow Jones)

Comments

  1. Absolutely!
    For me there is no neurotypical person. Neurotypicality is a template, a tendency. The question is always - to what degree? What is lost on the assumptions of perception that tend toward the neurotypical?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Edouard Glissant - Poetics of Relation (some concepts)

Errantry (errance) 18- errantry does not proceed from renunciation nor from frustration regarding a supposedly deteriorated (deterritorialized) situation of origin; it is not a resolute act of rejection or an uncontrolled impulse of abandonment. - The thought of errantry is a poetics, which always infers that at some moment it is told. The tale of errantry is the tale of Relation. 21- The thinking of errancy conceives of totality but willingly renounces any claims to sum it up or possess it. 20- The thought of errantry is not apolitical nor is it inconsistent with the will to identity, which is, after all, nothing other than the search for a freedom within particular surroundings. Rhizomatic thought / rhizome 18- the rhizome- prompting the knowledge that identity is no longer completely within the root but also in Relation. Poetics of Relation 11- each and every identity is extended through a relationship with the Other 20- in the poetics of Relation, one who is erra...

Denise Ferreira da Silva 1 (life) ÷ 0 (blackness) = ∞ − ∞ or ∞ / ∞: On Matter Beyond the Equation of Value

Here are some notes on Denise's text for those interested. Central question: What if blackness referred to rare and obsolete definitions of  matter : respectively, “substance … of which something consists” and “substance without form”? How would this affect the question of value? What would become of the economic value of  things  if they were read as expressions of our modern grammar and its defining logic of obliteration? Would this expose how the  object  (of exchange, appreciation, and knowledge)—that is, the economic, the artistic, and the scientific thing—cannot be imagined without presupposing an ethical (self-determining) thing, which is its very condition of existence and the determination of value in general. On Blackness as disruptive force: activate blackness’s disruptive force, that is, its capacity to tear the veil of transparency (even if briefly) and disclose what lies at the limits of justice. when deployed as method, blackness fractur...

Fred Moten: "Blackness and Nonperformance"