Idols of the Tribe

The Idols of the Tribe addresses how we are able to take in information; through our eyes, our ears, etc., and how the affects of physics on our sensory organs can have a dramatic influence on our perception. This also implies that there is more about our physical nature that impacts the way we take in information than we are usually aware.

For example, because of our relative height, we have a certain notion as to where the horizon should be from our point of view. If a person looks at a drawing of a landscape with a horizon that is lower in the picture plane than would normally be expected, it is assumed that the view in the image is from a vantage point some distance above the ground; the image looks as if the point of view was from the top of a ladder or as if the viewer were hovering in the air.

In other words our own physical height causes us to read information into the image. In reality the image is only a group of colored pixels on a computer screen, but we interpret the differences in the images to represent a change in the viewer's position in space.

Another Idol of the Tribe that is often overlooked is the human perception of time. Because we are creatures that view the passing of time as a linear process that flows in only one direction, our understanding of the Universe may be a little skewed. Even though many physicists insist that there are several reasonable alternatives to our common understanding of time, we still have difficulty conceptualizing anything beyond our own nature. How does this Idol play into our communication? Are we forced to ingest information and establish understanding in a linear sequence? It is difficult to tell since we do not really have much that we can compare it with. With points of view and the horizon line we can test the theory by going to the upper story of a tall building and looking out a window, but stepping out of linear time for a quick look around has so far proven a little difficult.

In addition to our physical body, Bacon also includes our “spiritual nature” as a part of the Idols of the Tribe. Although there are many differing opinions on exactly what that spiritual nature is, regardless of their own specific interpretation anyone that is honest with themselves will have to admit that the spiritual nature, as they see it, does color their perception of the world around them and will influence the interpretation of any communication that they participate in.

So we have in Bacon's Idols of the Tribe many of the same concerns that are dealt with by cognition scientists and semiologists today. While we often think of our contemporary observations about the nature of reality as novel and groundbreaking, Bacon was writing about the impact of our physiology and individual interpretations almost four hundred years ago.

Idols of the Cave

Having broached the subject of individual interpretation, this brings us to the second of Bacon's Idols: The Idols of the Cave. Bacon lists these Idols as the things we have read, the experiences we have had, and the qualities that make us individuals. By playing this off of Plato's Cave analogy, he alludes that our perceptions of the world are mere shadows of reality; not because we are unable to see the thing that creates the shadows (as in Plato's example) but because our own thoughts and experiences act as internal filters that obscure reality. In other words we are our own caves. An example of this (and one that demonstrates how the Idols of the Cave influence communication) is found in the beginning of this article where a few paragraphs make light of the title and the fact that it was subject to misinterpretation based on the word Bacon . The word bacon is a fairly common in our culture, but unless you are a scholar of the English Renaissance or read a lot of old and dusty philosophy books, you probably have many more experiences where bacon was used to refer to breakfast rather than a man that lived during the 1600's. The Idol in this case is experience, which opens the door an error in understanding.

on to Semiotics of Bacon III

back to Semiotics of Bacon I