Sumber ilustrasi: Freepik
10 April 2026 10.05 WIB – Umum
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Desanomia [10.04.2026] Let’s assume there’s a short video, about 30 seconds long. The video shows a person running very fast. To the viewer, all that’s visible is the fact that a person is running; there’s no further information. If we were to describe this, it would likely be expressed as an image of a person moving from one place to another. If we consider it along a timeline, the person is moving from a “starting point” to a “destination.”
However, without supplementary explanation, it’s extremely difficult to pinpoint the starting point and destination. That is, there’s no information to definitively say the destination is the goal, nor can we say the starting point is truly the starting point. Nevertheless, assuming the existence of both, we might say that the person, let’s call them X, is “heading towards” something.
Is this conclusion correct? Now, to broaden the event horizon, let’s consider another video. The second video is longer, about 45 seconds. This video shows X being chased by a dog and running away. As is clear from this scene, X is avoiding the dog. In other words, X is “running away from something.”
What do these two videos mean? Are the conclusions drawn from each video “correct”? Or does the appearance of the second video change the meaning of the first video? How should this problem be understood?
First, it’s necessary to recognize that these video fragments are too short for a deeper analysis. However, a different perspective is presented from another standpoint: whether a certain amount of time is short or not depends on the “horizon” used. While one minute once held little significance, today, with the spread of the internet, 60 seconds has a different meaning.
What this means is that the length of time also has different meanings depending on the horizon. Taking this into account, it becomes possible to analyze the meaning of each video and its relationship with the other more deeply. The meaning explored here concerns the meaning of movement in a specific direction, namely, the meanings of “moving towards” and “escaping from.”
In the first video, we can somewhat agree with the conclusion that X is “moving towards,” because that’s how it appears. In other words, this proposition is true within the given context. The truth of “moving towards” is formed within the given situation.
However, when the context is expanded by the second video, a different semantic structure emerges. The newly introduced element of the dog changes how we understand X’s movement. The movement no longer appears as something moving towards something, but as a response to something. In other words, the meaning of “escaping from” arises not because the movement itself has changed, but because the semantic field in which the movement is understood has changed.
So, does the appearance of the second video invalidate the conclusion of the first video? There’s no need to simply negate it here. Rather, it’s more useful to consider them not as mutually negating relationships, but as belonging to different contexts. The interpretation of “heading towards…” in the first video does not immediately become incorrect even after knowing the second context. It remains valid within that context. This demonstrates that descriptive truth is not absolute, but depends on specific disclosure conditions.
What becomes clear here is that what are called “starting points” and “destinations” are actually interpretive constructs. The first video assumes these points to give structure to the movement, but this assumption does not have a strong empirical basis. Rather, it is a cognitive requirement to stabilize ambiguous experience.
With the appearance of the second video, the structure of these points is rearranged. What was previously considered a “starting point” is understood as proximity to a threat, and the “destination” is reinterpreted as a direction away from danger. However, even in this second context, these points are not explicitly given facts, but still merely constructs of understanding.
Thus, the movement of X is never completely transparent. It always appears in a field of ambiguity and is understood only within a specific framework. The frameworks of “heading towards…” and “escaping from…” are two different ways of structuring that ambiguity. Neither is final; each depends on the horizon that conditions them.
This idea demonstrates that human experience is never neutral. Even in a simple situation like seeing someone running, consciousness is already actively organizing meaning. What appears to be a direct description actually contains layers of unconscious interpretation.
Furthermore, the expansion of the horizon not merely adds information, but changes the very quality of understanding. The second image doesn’t simply complement the first image, but opens up new dimensions that were previously unreachable. However, this revelation doesn’t erase previous meaning, but rather places it within a broader network of meaning.
In this context, all understanding can be said to be situational and open. There is no such thing as a completely complete description; new horizons are constantly emerging, potentially revealing previously unseen aspects. Therefore, truth is not static, but constantly moving with the expansion of experience and horizons.
What do you think?
Note: This translation of an article from Desanomia dated April 7, 2026 is dedicated to inspiring readers who are interested in reflecting on their daily lives and increase curiosity.
