Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments Great comment, K! I will respond to it, but need to head off now. Hopefully, pouty and petulant Maggie will have added her two cents’ by the time I return. She’s a professional in this area, as you know! 🙂 » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 24, 2010 @ 6:52 pm yep. And this brings up your earlier point as well, which I very much agree with, that entertainment has replaced religion as the focal point of peoples’ lives, and need for stories. » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 24, 2010 @ 6:48 pm Q, or Maggie, brings up the question “Some real part of us always decides what to wear, what to say, where to go. The issue is, it is decided by the person (italics) . In fact, it is a creation of the person. If we can create music, painting, sculpture, why can » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 24, 2010 @ 6:35 pm You have to watch it before we can really discuss this, or at least before you can stomp, because he is OBVIOUSLY in character. It’s like he’s doing one of his routines on Comedy Central, with punchlines and the whole bit. NOT appropriate for a Congressional testimony and certainly something he worked over and scripted. » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 24, 2010 @ 6:31 pm Well, Maggie, I am quite convinced we see this point very differently. You seem to be suggesting that personae are as real as the people who invent them. The Glenn Becks and Marilyn Mansons and Stephen Colberts behind the curtain are the same, or perhaps equal, as their creations. If that were true in any of those cases, I feel sorry for that person, because they would have then become lost in the character. There is “somebody” who we think as, the philosopher (we are all philosophers in this sense) that decides what to say, what words to use, what clothes to wear, what parties to go to, etc. If that “original person” gets lost in the playing of a role, then the personality has become demented. And THAT person, that “original person” was not the Stephen Colbert that gave testimony. » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 24, 2010 @ 6:06 pm Very lovely! Thanks to both K and Q! » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 24, 2010 @ 6:00 pm Yes, “Selling Gingerbread” refers to the gingerbread house in Hansel and Gretel. All fluff and pizzazz. Delectable, inviting, addictive, and ultimately unwholesome, like the artificial edifice that is the entertainment industry. It sells (hooks us) us that which we could be providing ourselves, and would be better nourished if we did so. » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 24, 2010 @ 5:46 pm For surprises, indeed! Cheers! » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 24, 2010 @ 5:29 pm Nope, nope, entirely disagree. But I like your new avatar. You’re looking pretty cute there, Infanta Margarita! If Congress and government are “Grand Guignol”, I would say that argues my point quite well. Why is it that way? Superheroes only get things done because that’s the way we’re trained to see the world, BY entertainment. This is actually exactly what Plato was concerned about, that characters, and the words they used, would become real and weighty even though no “real” person ever said them. There is most definitely a real Stephen Colbert, Q, and that was not who we saw. Your question surprises me. » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 24, 2010 @ 5:28 pm Here’s the latest on the “meta-entertainment” front: Stephen Colbert gives testimony before members of Congress on immigration reform- in character! I am, frankly, not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, I continue to be awed by the courage and outlandish quirkiness of Colbert, but on the other hand, based upon the ideas I’ve put forth in this essay, I’m appalled. I mean, how much further do we have to go before anybody can be ANYBODY in any situation, just to get one’s point across in the most impactful way? What’s next? A Reagan impersonator running for president? Seriously, some people are so nostalgic for St. Ronnie that we may not be that far away from something like that happening. » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 24, 2010 @ 4:57 pm ha ha! » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 24, 2010 @ 1:45 am A heartier stock of folk indeed! » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 24, 2010 @ 12:01 am I see that two very clever ladies have taken over this thread and turned it into a metaphorical cherry tree under which to compose tanka! Well, I say, fantastic! » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 23, 2010 @ 11:52 pm Bravo, fearless leader! I am in complete and total agreement. I especially love your line about entertainment, “it’s dessert, not dinner”. That is my point exactly. Even in cultures such as Bali and ancient Japan, where culture and art were preeminent, their role was much different, as they were so PARTICIPATORY. People sitting under cherry trees and composing haiku and tanka is WAY better than sitting in front of a TV and just absorbing what giant corporations want you to be enthralled by. » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 23, 2010 @ 2:43 pm Patsy, » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 20, 2010 @ 4:34 pm Thanks so much for the clips, Patsy! I think you and I are on the same wavelength. Like you, I am interested to know how it was for humans to experience certain eras, like the immense transitions that the Industrial Revolution brought. Or cities before cars, etc. I haven’t see Wall-e. True to the spirit of this article, I see, like one movie a year if that :). But I’d be interested to hear what happens to the people, and would gladly share my thoughts. From the looks of the planet in the clip, it ain’t pretty. » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 19, 2010 @ 10:50 pm heehee, and cheap shoes. » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 19, 2010 @ 8:28 pm At the Gates of Kubrickian Heaven, there are two golden haired angels in blue dresses, saying, “Come play with us! Forever, and ever, and ever………” » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 19, 2010 @ 7:55 pm Very good point, as is your earlier one that entertainment supplanted religion when the performers became larger than life. Technology made them immortal, and the fact that their faces and voices were the ones that EVERYONE looked at and listened to (as in, THEM, not US) made them quasi-religious figures. So we “worship” them. Someday in the distant future, who knows, people may even go to wars over issues like who was the better director, Kubrick or Scorsese. » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 19, 2010 @ 6:50 pm It IS entertainment! Only these days, what would happen would be that a game engineer would get a fifty grand bonus for developing a Wii version of the game. Who needs birds? In his extraordinarily prescient novel, “Brave New World”, Aldous Huxley (who was picking up on exactly the era you describe, Hollywood’s Golden Era) Technology makes its compromise with Plato. People go to “feelies” (full sensory innovations of movies) to experience all the emotions of rage, jealousy, etc. that are not allowed in any other part of their lives. The feelies are scheduled, their place in life is decided upon by the Overlords. Society would not be able to function without people getting to feel these emotions. » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 19, 2010 @ 4:19 pm 🙂 » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 19, 2010 @ 7:06 am A midday snooze is what Sundays are made for! » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 19, 2010 @ 6:08 am Hi Q! Little did I know as I was putting in the Surrender Dorothy witch that this Christine O’Donnel thing would raise the profile of witches – nice timing! » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 19, 2010 @ 6:07 am Thanks, Boomer! » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 19, 2010 @ 4:13 am Thanks so much, AdLib. The props melted in my mouth! » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 18, 2010 @ 11:30 pm 18 Trillion? Wow. I hope they’ll have at least 300 billion Johnny-on-the-Spots set up. » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 17, 2010 @ 4:07 am Nature of debate, Goodbye Christopher Hitchens At the risk of jumping on the bandwagon, I challenge certain specific elements of your style, Keven, as well as that of Mr. Hitchens, whose rhetoric you so admire. You are quick to point out that “pompous gasbag” is an ad hominem attack, and as such is bad form in an argument. I think that I am not alone in my opinion that you, Keven, are as versed in the FORM and structure of argument and debate as well as anyone here. But to what degree do you follow the SUBSTANCE by which those forms come to be there in the first place, I wonder? » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 17, 2010 @ 3:11 am Oh, Keven is going to just LOVE that, bito! » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 15, 2010 @ 3:31 pm Saved by a lightbulb moment! » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 15, 2010 @ 6:44 am re the lat part – ain’t that the truth? One of the best things of all about critters. » Posted By whatsthatsound On September 15, 2010 @ 6:43 amComments Posted By whatsthatsound
It’s on Huffpo, please take a look and then you can stomp.
So, Mr. Colbert, even as I laughed and felt admiration, I call foul.
Ii yo!
Thanks for the kind words and great comments, Kes. The story about Buster Keaton is perfectly emblematic. It must have seemed perplexing even to the great pioneers like Keaton that people wanted THAT much entertainment. That there was no end to it. They grew up in a different era, when it was a treat, not a given. A treat it should have remained, I truly feel.
More about this idea that Adlib, Kesmarn and Questinia are discussing about manufactured entertainment, its effect on our lives. Just throwing out thoughts here, but…
“No music, no life”. Oh how I dislike that slogan of Tower Records! First of all, I wonder how it must make deaf people feel, as if they are less alive than the rest of us? I think it’s cruel in that way. Also, who are they kidding? They just want people to buy music. I’d rather change that to, “No GENUINE music, no life”. Meaning the music of a person’s soul, because each of us is, in a way, a song. And that is the music we need to be tuning into. Too much time plugged into Ipods (I agree with Kesmarn, what’s wrong with NOT knowing what’s coming on next?) just leads us away from the sounds inside us, where life IS! The music industry wants us to think that we are not “alive” without our entertainment, fed to us by profit minded companies. Rather, I wonder if the opposite is more true….
I did an earlier piece, “Why the Revolution Will Not be Televised” that you also wrote insightfully about. Clearly, you and I have very similar ideas and concerns here. I’m going to read through your comments a bit more later and have more to say. But it is good to attune ones mind to a kindred spirit!
what a wonderful piece of history the Sarasate clip is! Thanks again for posting it!
Now, I feel, the thrill IS gone. We just expect, take it for granted, that we need never be bored, and that in itself is boring.
We have definitely entered the gingerbread house!
That almost makes me want to argue that that would be better than what we have now! Brave New World as a Utopia rather than a Dystopia. But I won’t go there!
Can’t wait to see more of your thoughts!
I’m honored, truly. You seem to be up early today (everyday?), or maybe I’m just not converting the time difference corrrectly.
This is an important topic to me; not sure how well I’d hold up debating it, but not for lack of passion and conviction.
I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.
For example, it could easily be argued that the following statements are NOT ad hominem attacks.
“silly childish attacks”
“You won’t get cooties by watching it”
“It did not hurt that much, did it?”
Nevertheless, stylistically, what, specifically, do they do that an ad hominem attack doesn’t? In the context in which you wrote them, I believe that they come across as, and are indeed meant to come across as, dismissive. The intent behind them is to ridicule, no less than referring to someone as a “pompous gasbag” is intended to ridicule. If you and the person you were writing to when using those terms were engaged in a mutual exchange of banter that included such good natured ribbing, they would be acceptable in the same way that saying to a friend, “Stop being such a pompous gasbag, mate!” would. I strongly believe this is NOT the case in this instance.
In the same way, Mr. Hitchens’ decision to title his attack on Mother Theresa “The Missionary Position” is NOT an ad hominem. However, it’s effect could not be any more similar to one. He very intentionally insulted the sensibilities of millions of Catholics, and others, who hold her in high esteem. And why do this? So that he, and his fans, can say, “Look at all those uptight religious loons, getting their knickers all bunched up over a JOKE! Ha ha!”
That’s not fair play, it’s not debate, and it is not, as you assert, “perfectly civil” behavior on the part of Mr. Hitchens toward religious folk.
In choosing to pepper your arguments with phrases that convey a dismissive and superior tone, my contention is that you, in effect, shoot yourself in the foot. Assuming that your goal is to communicate ideas that you feel strongly about, I fail to see how adopting a tone that alienates a contingent of those you wish to persuade serves you, your arguments, or anyone else. As someone who, as you write, respects argument, I believe it would behoove you to DEMONSTRATE that respect, by according it to those with whom you argue.
🙂
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats