![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the more I think this out the bigger it gets, and as much as it excites me and I'm looking forward to working more on it (I'm planning on also making my own illustrations and fake screenshots and blueprints!! :3), it's also making me wonder if there's a better place to post it for funky formatting than Ao3. from what I've seen I'm pretty sure their HTML could fully handle the stuff I want to do, but considering I'm going all out on the rest of this thing, putting it on a dedicated neocities website or something like that might be worthwhile in order to really have the whole thing come together in a satisfying way.
once I start considering making a neocities account I know a project has gotten a bit out of scope for me, lol
I generally try to keep my various projects small at the start. having ADHD I'm no stranger to getting swept up in an idea and piling more and more and more onto it in the high of the initial fixation and then falling off the wagon for one day and never opening it again. I'm fully aware this thing is getting away from me fast, but I'm so excited about the idea I'm hoping I'll at least get a bit further than I normally would. not to mention the other projects I've committed to with the School 2 thing my friends and I are doing, I've really got a lot on my plate here (self-imposed, because I'm putting off important stressful adult tasks again >_>""").
that being said! I am recruiting the help of some of my friends who have been fans of Portal for longer than I, so not only will they be able to help me with the Deep Lore Stuff but also they'll have their own unique takes and help me from getting too bogged down in my own brain.
now considering giving this thing its own special tab on here, because I may be posting about it quite a lot...
anyway! have a snippet of what I've written so far. I'm going stream-of-consciousness so far, minimal editing and just writing down what comes to mind. be warned: I am not an intelligent person, lol. I'm doing a lot of surface-level analysis and interpretation of deep and weighty philosophical concepts, and likely getting things straight up wrong. I'm committing the cardinal sin of academic research: using wikipedia as a primary source. this is all for funsies so I'm really not worrying myself with 100% academic accuracy right now. ok now that that's out of the way, here it is!
Chapter 1:
"Aperture, in Geometry, is the Inclination of Lines which meet at a Point. Aperture in Opticks, is the hole next to the Object Glaſs of a Teleſcope, thro' which the Light and Image of the Object comes into the Tube, and thence it is carried to the Eye."
-Thomas Blount, Glossographia Anglicana Nova: Or, A
Dictionary, Interpreting Such Hard Words of whatever
Language, as are at present used in the English Tongue,
with their Etymologies, Definitions, &c. Also, The Terms of
Divinity, Law, Physick, Mathematics, History, Agriculture,
Logick, Metaphysicks, Grammar, Poetry, Musick,
Heraldry, Architecture, Painting, War, and all other Arts
and Sciences are herein explain'd, from the best Modern
Authors, as, Sir Isaac Newton, Dr. Harris, Dr. Gregory, Mr.
Lock, Mr. Evelyn, Mr. Dryden, Mr. Blunt, &c., London,
1707.
The term aperture, in present time, has a very distinct and specific connotation. Mention it and the mind automatically conjures images of DSLR cameras and F-stops, the glossy black plastic and metal of a swappable Canon lens. This, however, was not always the case. Written accounts of the word date back to nearly the 15th century, and in fact the term was used to mean any small hole or opening, not just one of a technological context.
Looking at the roots, the word is derived from Latin's apertura, or "an opening." Many leave the discussion at that - it's simple enough, and aligns well with our modern interpretation of the word. However, following the etymological breadcrumbs further down reveals a bit more. The word apertura itself evolved from aperio, meaning "to uncover, make or lay bare." Seems a bit of a contradiction, doesn't it? Especially when following the trail further. Older cognates of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Slavic origins take the root to mean "to cover, shut," and "to open," respectively. Without the aid of the modern camera aperture, those iconic intersecting blades that contract and expand like the human eye, how can a hole be both open and shut? How can the absence of something also connotate the presence of it?
Kant's antinomy, a contradiction between two truths, the formation of a paradox.1 Not to be confused with Antimony, the metalloid, crushed and used for flame-retardants, enamels, building materials. Historically used as medicine or powdered for Kohl. Though we will get to Antimony eventually, it's best to focus on one thing at a time.
Contradiction. Impossibility. Paradox.
It will be a common theme, going forward in this text. The items at hand and discussions surrounding them are rife with antithetical claims, self-disproving theses, and tangents that go nowhere. It seems at times that the materials are only capable of generating paradoxical analyses. When interpreting such complex themes and layers of hidden meaning, it is only natural to come up against this issue. One single interpretation cannot be the truth. There has to be room for contradictory, but parallel, meanings. To fully grasp the depth and complexities of the Aperture Record, one must come to grips with the impossible.
After all, the things divulged in these hours of video tapes and interviews and scientific journals are just that. Impossible.2
Like the apertures of old, Aperture Science is both open and shut. Existent and nonexistent. Here, laid bare before us, are countless well-documented files, tapes, employee records, databases, and incident reports that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Aperture Science did in fact exist as a legitimate company. Yet no trace of it exists in modern day. Not a whisper of its name within government records, corporate stocks, not even a memory of it in the collective subconscious. To date not a single person, anonymous or not, has come forward to claim knowledge of or involvement with Aperture Science, nor any of the impossible feats of science they claim to have accomplished. If it truly did exist, it did an excellent job at erasing itself.
Much of the discussion around the Aperture Record involves this specific line of discourse. Is any of it real? Is this the remnants of an elaborate hoax, or perhaps a film student's very dedicated final thesis? There is no concrete fact. No statement can definitively be made as to its existence one way or another. However, here is one truth in regards to its legitimacy.
It doesn't matter.
Whether or not the things we are being told to believe are true or not, the Aperture Record makes it clear that we are being invited in to a space of suspended disbelief. To engage with it is to agree to become immersed in the world, the narrative, the folklore, for just a brief period of time. Countless academic journals tout the handful of plot holes and mistakes within the tapes, the two sentences of conflicting information across employee files decades apart judging by the dates, and hold these up as irascible proof that it was all a lengthy hoax. These journals are missing the forest for the trees. Whether or not there is truth or lie at the core of the Aperture Record (and, really, all stories are both truth and lie,) is not so important as the themes and ideas expressed to us. The connection between storyteller and listener. The exchange of knowledge. This will not be the disconnected, unfeeling dissection of materials to categorically sort it and once and for all change a question mark to a period. This is an engagement with the topic. The reaching of a hand across time and medium to connect with what has been said.
This is the story of Aperture Science.
_______________________
- To interpret the Aperture Record through a Kantian viewpoint would be an entire essay of its own. Suffice it to say, there is a wealth of intriguing information revealed when delving into Kant's four antinomies. Namely, his purpose for their existence - determining the limits of philosophy and science. By expanding the aperture to include paradoxical information, Kant is contracting it, regarding this information as "meaningless." "To open" and "to shut." It is interesting indeed, the amount of limits that a movement called "transcendental idealism" puts upon itself. Kant was the one to coin the term "noumenon" after all. Knowledge that exists independent of human perception and shape. A lab that runs without any human involvement. The cycle repeating ad infinitum with (almost) no amount of human interference to veer it off-course. To reference a more juvenile interpretation - if a scientific experiment is conducted in the woods, and nobody's around to see it, did it ever exist?
- For a more thorough examination of the physics involved within the Aperture Record, see Chapter [].
