|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts 
|
Quote:
Fiction is what it is, a lie. History is not quite fiction, it is a best guess. Magic is, by definition, fiction. Fiction is only a lie when it purports to be something other than fiction.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2006-05-07 19:27, LobowolfXXX wrote: This reads as if some here are able to use the notion of distinct levels or layers in our map of reality. Fiction is a lie offered in the context of entertainment. Let's put this on the same level as the "santa clause" item mentioned earlier. Fiction used as cultural reference with a stated purpose of social reference (metaphor etc) is still a lie, but a KNOWN lie. The purpose of some of these lies is in their discovery. They act as cognitive rites of passage. To state that a work of fiction is an accurate discussion of fact is also a lie.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
The definition of a lie includes the intent to deceive. Telling a child about Santa Claus is a lie because the intent is to deceive the child. Saying in a book that is sold as fiction that X happened is not a lie, because there is no intent to deceive. A work of fiction is neither an accurate discussion of fact nor a lie.
The first definition of Merriam-Webster, for instance: "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive" This is a fairly standard definition which would encompass telling a child about Santa Claus, but would not encompass writing a work of fiction labeled as such. Being untrue does not make something a lie; it's only a lie if the person relating it intends to deceive the person hearing (reading, viewing, etc.) it. I'm not making up my own definition of what constitutes a lie; I'm merely applying the standard definition. It requires more than merely something that is not true.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
A definition which includes intent is doomed to fail.
You cannot know what someone intends, only what they say and what the do. Hence my dismissal of that aspect of the term. We have other words that cover those ideas...misrepresentation and deception come to mind. Remember, it is possible to deceive someone and guide their actions so that they make statements which you know to be false, yet they sincerely believe what they say, and are not lying by the standard definition most seem to want to believe. It helps to have a robust dictionary. Or we can use newspeak.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
We'll have to use newspeak if you want to remove the element of deception from the word. Many words are defined partly by the intention of the speaker, such as "sarcasm," or "brag." I agree that we may not know whether the person is intending to deceive you, but that doesn't mean the definition is invalid; it means that we don't always know when someone's lying. If my friend goes to a baseball game and the Mets win, 11-7, and I ask him what the score was, if he mistakenly says "11-6, Mets" he hasn't lied to me; he's made a mistake. The word "lie," if one follows the primary definition of most dictionaries, adds a clarifying distinction to situations where someone says something that isn't true
1) accidentally, as in the baseball example, 2) intentionally to midlead (a bona fide lie) 3) for effect (sarcastically) or 4) for entertainment (a novel). Calling all of these situations "lies" because each involves untruths is an oversimplification, and one that is not, in my mind, helpful to communication, because it equates situations that are radically different. I'm curious to know what "robust" dictionary doesn't include in its definition of lie an intent to deceive.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
In the case of a dictionary, robustness implies inclusion of the various uses that have come into acceptance. My concern comes with the acceptance of definitions which presume impossible knowlege after the fact.
In this case, a definition that requres information which is not available at the time and may never be available seems less useful (to me). Remember, if you are willing to dismiss santa as a myth, what comes next may make you very unhappy.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2006-05-07 20:30, Jonathan Townsend wrote: LOL Your point on Santa is VERY well taken! With respect to the "impossible knowledge after the fact" objection, though, pretty much ANY definition of "lie" will have that problem. If I tell you that when I was 5 years old, I saw a friend of mine eat a frog, you have know way of knowing if that's true or not. Yet just about any definition of "lie" would require that it be untrue. Even if "intent to deceive" were not considered, then, requiring that a lie be untrue runs into your same objection - the definition is based on something you cannot know.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.
Buddha “Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.” If we followed this advice we would have to regard most stuff as lies wouldn’t we?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2006-05-07 20:40, tommy wrote: I respectfully leave my opinion unstated as the recent words of the Dali Lama on the subject about compatibility echo in my ears and I feel very sad about what they mean to us.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts
|
-"and God vanishes in a puff of logic."-
|
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24315 Posts
|
I don't worry about that. What I worry about is when God says, "And Bill Palmer vanishes in a puff of logic."
Has anyone on this thread besides me actually seen Jerry Andrus perform. He never tells a lie. Never. Sometimes he does not state the complete truth, but he never tells an out and out lie. Sometimes reality ruins a story. Remember the story of the first grade teacher who asked, "What did Farmer Brown say, when Chicken Little came up and said, 'The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!' Johnny, what do you think he said?" Johnny replied hesitantly: "HOLY S***! A TALKING CHICKEN!" There you have a fable ruined by reality.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2006-05-07 22:40, Bill Palmer wrote: I have, and I did know that about Jerry...very interesting, and very rare (unique?!) I'm sure he'd have an interesting contribution on the topic.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts
|
I have argued with my friend Jerry about this several times.
He is very committed to the idea of not ever telling a lie in a magic trick, and is a totally sincere and strict ethicist and a devout athiest. He is a truly charming, fascinating, and brilliant man. It is extremely interesting and informative as well as stimulating to discuss any subject with him. |
|||||||||
|
kregg Inner circle 1950 Posts
|
I remember reading an article about Jerry, in the article he displayed the "impossible box." A great optical illusion having seen them at science fairs.
On it's face the box is a lie it isn't a box, until it is then revealed as such. Presenting an object as something contrary to what a person really believes they are seeing without revealing the truth which is beneficial to our craft is...
POOF!
|
|||||||||
|
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts
|
That "illusion" is very amazing. I think that it is not simply an optical illusion, but as the eye checks out corner after corner, it is being fed several "optical illusions" or false premises that create the overall effect. The conclusion is that the box could not exist in reality, but then here it is!
It is a magic trick as much as it is an illusion. It is "an argument in a box." |
|||||||||
|
alannasser Loyal user 213 Posts
|
Well, this discussion seems to have gotten far from the plain and simple claim that you can't be a philosopher and a magician at the same time. Why not keep it simple? I happen to be a professional philosopher and professor of philosophy. In fact I will be retiring in 2 weeks after having taught philosophy for 43 years. During that time I was also, and still am, a magician. I began that when I was nine years old. So a person can indeed be both a philosopher and a magician. That seems to be a no-brainer. Of course doing magic and doing philosophy are 2 different things, and they can't be done simultaneously, not even by someone who is simultaneously a philosopher and a magician. Thinking about whether morally good actions are those that produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number (doing philosophy) is not the same thing as executing an Elmsley Count in the context of a good performance (doing magic). And you'd better not try to do those 2 things at the same time. Who would deny that? So what's the fuss? -- I might add that the way I approach my performances, the patter I use, my own sense of humor, the way I verbally frame the impossibility of my effects, - all these reflect, even if the audience doesn't know it, my philosopher's penchant for conceptual wit, analytical exactitude, etc. I.e. they reflect who I am, a philosopher and a magician, the way Ken Krenzel's patter might reflect the fact that he was a professional psychologist. But that's true for all of us, whoever we are. -- Anyhow, I'm new to the Café, and I've immensely enjoyed the many discussions I've eavesdropped on. Thanks.
Alan |
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
And those whose hearts are fixed on Reality itself deserve the title of Philosophers.
Plato, Republic, 380BC ) And those whose hearts are fixed on illusion itself deserve the title of Magicians. Tommy, Magic Café, 2006AD)
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2006-05-30 05:00, alannasser wrote: I deny it. I insist that in order to be a good magicican, one must be a philosopher at the same time. You have to impart something deaper than simply doing a "trick" to be a good magician. It is essential to the art form. |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Very difficult to think, do and also to be at the same time.
As magicians we do. If we succeed, our audience gets to think and reflect upon being.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
kregg Inner circle 1950 Posts
|
It's entirely possible to do both, but, we'd probably die with the beatnik poet clubs. Oddly, college towns always try to bring them back with retrofit fashion de jour, but, when mommy and daddy call for more study; either the angst pipeline stops pumping from a heavy dose of reality or the credit cards get cut up.
Either way, the between is still hollow.
POOF!
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Philosopher and Magician (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: May 7, 2006 11:27 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|