The Neolithic Age in Arabia

Between 1941 and 1970, the impact was to show that early settled villages were outside the fertile new moon in the Arabia. This had a big impact due to reconstruction of galleries, paintings, installations and statues. Neolithic symbolism in Arabia is explained by the bull and mother goddess, and is considered to be very prominent. Since the 1900s, our understanding of Arabia has changed dramatically. New discoveries have exposed dates, indicating that the process is diverse. Symbolism belongs to indoor community. Female figures are a small part of the difficulty of finding characteristics of the mother and goddess. New results come from a broader theory of the Neolithic Age in Anatolia and Arabia. Long after the first settlement in Arabia, and well after the first domesticated plant, the Shamia sequence indicated increasingly strong hunting, collecting and planting. Followed by pottery, and due to the multi-center nature of operation, the use of these terms and sequences was made incorrect throughout Arabia and Anatolia. There is still no consensus on the emergence. Long-term projects on the site provide insights. The site has a very dense settlement and has been occupied for a long time. The eastern part of the Arab Age was 21 meters high and 18 levels before moving to the western hills on the other side of the river. The Neolithic economy is based on domestication and wild plants and on domesticated animals. Cattle and pigs were not tamed.

Contemporary Syria and its methodologies

Syria’s image and its transformation in image production have long been under scrutiny. The image industry became important during the Syrian uprising. A generation of Syrians became recorded events and produced historical evidence. The political excitement coupled with technological improvements in mobile communications and handheld cameras, opened up avenues for political freedom, which adopted new visual forms. These photographic producers discovered that the aesthetics of their video calculations, introduced suspicion about the dangerous degree of the events. The uncertainty of digital things is reinforced by techniques, images, and videos broadcast from Syria, representing the end of digital innocence. A new understanding of the image-making process has already begun. Syria gave up its faith in performance, value and belief so to obtain real images, and to focus on new images. Images connect designers and viewers, and communicate.

Related to new mobile phones and Internet connections, words carry meaning and bring new friends, entertainment, unexpected encounters, and development. Phones reflect new social networking, meaning that are a social outing. This means the ability to provide these opinions can be shared.

Segregationism in Semiology

For the segregationist, communication presupposes signs: signs and sign systems exist apart from and prior to the communicational purposes to which they mayor may not be put. For the integrationist, on the contrary, signs presuppose communication: they are its products, not its prerequisites. Or, to put the point another way, the segregationist position is the counterpart in communication theory of the position adopted in political theory by those who subscribe to the Aristotelian dictum that the state is by nature prior to the individual. The integrationist position, mutatis mutandis, corresponds to rejecting the priority of the state or its institutions and affirming the priority of the individual. It is no coincidence that Aristotle, who put the state first in politics, was also one of the founding fathers of segregationism in semiology.

The ontological primacy of the sign. Treating the sign as a prerequisite for communication leaves open as many different interpretations of the concept ‘communication’ as there are different ways of defining the sign. In other words, the problem is generated by the fact that in segregational theory, contrary to what one might expect, the sign is not a well-defined unit. And the reason why it is not well-defined is that for the segregationist its recognition necessarily involves abstracting from all those factors involved in the contextualization of communication. Thus the unfortunate sign starts its theoretical career as a second-order abstraction, but an abstraction which can be made in as many different ways as there are theorists, provided that it ends up in each caseas an autonomous invariant of some kind. The whole history of Western semiology shows this to be the ultimate proviso.

Semiotic Repertoires

In observing appropriates and authorizations of identity, perception of people can and do alter semiotic frames and contexts, while these frames and contexts also act reciprocative manner so to influence and hence shift the perceptions of people. This can occur while the subjects build or develop semiotic repertoires around current and situated and temporary perceptions. As those semiotic frames and repertoires of the subjects shift, perceptions of others also shift. As these perceptions shift, along with their semiotic establishments, attitudes toward others also shift and hence the perception and consequent semiotic depths and natures of others toward the subject also shift.

In this way, we begin to take an anthropological approach to observing the ego of the subject. This occurs as we account for the networks of discourses surrounding events or phenomena in relation to the person, and ways in which these shift. However, we then also encounter networks of discourses surrounding the event or phenomenon of others interacting with whom the subject has interacted, and ways in which these shift over space, time, and context or discursive frame.

In this way, we can begin to account for the shifting semiotic repertoires of the subject, and observe the ways in which these affect the conceptions of the subject, and conceptions of those around the subject which then reflexively influence how and the extent to which the subject authorizes and legitimizes identity, and the construction of ego.

Positioning of Self and Others

Our frame of reference of self can well influence our perspectives of others, and hence our attitudes and actions toward those others.

The positioning of self and others, which creates distances between ourselves and others, becomes predicated on and predicates the wide range of influences we employ to effect these perceptions. These are the semiotics that influence our perceptions, and those that emerge from our attributions to see self and others in our relative stances. Consequently, as we articulate these stances through the diverse semiotics that influence and emerge from stance, we both shorten and expand the interpersonal distance between self and other. Through this distance, we become a positioned self, consequent to landscaping the semiotic landscapes, we reassess and renegotiate the perspectives of self, semiotically

Ego and Identity

Research and work in all fields of psychology, that is, individual, social, corporate, organizational, educational, and other psychologies, as vast and as intricately complex as they may appear, we can approach from a multiplicity of methodological and epistemological perspectives. Any of these offers a starting point for increased conceptualizations of method and methodology in Psychology research. More so, the analysis of psychologies, which serve to connect the various strands and fields of psychology, exhibit and embody common themes and frameworks.

Ego and identity, two constructs which intertwine methodologically and in practicality, we can use as a starting point for building the methods of analysis in psychology. For this, the study of individual and social psychology, in many ways, basis itself on the study of the ego and identity.

Following that our subjective positioning of self-frames and positions others in relation to ourselves, we consequently develop perspectives of the others in relation to ourselves, building a semiotic repertoire around these perspectives predicated on our views of and approaches to those others. Consequently, their identity takes on different forms depending on our approach towards them, and hence, further to our attitudes towards these others, their ego boundaries also shift. Further to this, the ego boundary of the other acts to create distance between us and them, reflexively operating on our ego boundaries, and hence this distance serves to either restrengthen or reduce our current ego, affecting our conceptions of the other.

This becomes a methodological framework for branches of psychology.

How does Critical Theory Operate?

How does Critical theory operate? I suggest that Critical theory operates on (at least) four different levels, each of which I will elaborate on separately.

The first level, at its simplest, requires the critic to have a sound knowledge of a/the context. The critic or analyst determines inconsistencies and contradictions between the text, and the knowledge and beliefs of the analyst. The analyst subsequently argues for realignment of the text with current beliefs. Here, the critic/analyst should not limit the extent to which to apply criticism on inconsistencies, as criticism can and should extend indefinitely.

Initially, the critic clarifies the extent to which critique will occur, and thus assists audiences to conceptualize the extent to which the critique occurs. Furthermore, the critic continuously discusses the extent to which to pursue criticism.

To critique requires an alignment of the text with the ways in which the critic perceives reality. The subjective positioning of the views of reality can well interfere with interpretations of the text. Therefore, the critic would benefit by grounding the critical context, that is, by informing the audience of the subjective positioning of the critique, and hence the critic. Through this, audience become aware of the directions for realignment of the text.

At first, this method may appear as embodying limited methodology. However, in subsequent parts, I discuss the intricacies of this first level of Critical theory, with its multifarious elements, which I extensively develop and appropriate.

Power Structures

A PhD becomes the ideology practiced in the respective field of the PhD. For example, a Post-Modernist will continuously seek to describe phenomena through competing factors, phenomena contingent on multiple factors, and indeterminate.

However, can we and should we include issues of power? We become academics so to continuously reassess our subjective positionings. This acceptance of our subjective positioning should place us in positions of fluidity, that is, it should expose the non static nature of academic positioning. Then, however, how does that non-static positioning, or, continuous re positioning, correlate with our professional dispositions, as academics?

Easily, we trap ourselves into power structures, not realizing that the power structures we create, as Directors, academics, supervisors, become the semiotics with which we reflexively weaken our power structures. Suppression surely invites weakened agency. Concomitantly, we structure power in such ways so as to (attempt to) facilitate those power structures, constructing a rigid hierarchy in which we hold high positions. To move up and down those hierarchies, we alleviate those power structures, and hence enact the ideologies we develop and accept throughout our academic tenures.

By alleviating those power structures, we alleviate the oppressive stance that we impose on those around us. Unfortunately, the oppressive stance becomes too easily appropriated in academia, and frequently, implicitly hidden, if not acting incognito.

Becoming the PhD emerges through multiple facets, and in our positioning vis-à-vis those around us, and those we oppress, sometimes volitionally, sometimes very passively, but frequently without our awareness; as academics, as department heads, as post-graduate supervisors, and as teachers. How wonderful it would be to negotiate power throughout academia, rather than suppress as leaders.

Perspectives of Selves

Our frame of reference of self can well influence our perspectives of others, and hence our attitudes and actions toward those others.

The ways we position ourselves, and hence the ways in which we legitimate, and naturalize, our position, in relation to others, can prove quite complex. This positioning, in all its plurality, creates certain distances between ourselves and others. Hence, as we position ourselves from and to others, we distance those others, and ourselves from those others.

Observing this proximity of others to ourselves, we also judge our own relative positions, and hence ways in which we affect and signify the positions of others, and reflexively, our own positions. Our positioning of self then becomes predicated on that proximity, and hence according to ways in which we position others.

Therefore, our perspectives of selves emerges in multiple ways, including the semiotic chain that accompanies our perspectives of others, preceded by our perspective of selves, subjective and emergent.