|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
mightydog Regular user Michigan now living in the Florida panha 156 Posts |
The sheep are all being lined up and convinced they should be sheep. I may not be able to change that, but I don't have to "bell the goat" either.
Sheep and goats are not one and the same. lol.. I think another reason people don't want to know is if they did they would have to think for themselves. And this scares a lot of people because then they would be different from the rest of the sheep and are afraid of that. mightydog David
Illusion and magic is the same, if it was possible to achieve the impossible by genuine powers then it wouldn’t be impossible and therefore it wouldn’t be magic. That’s why magic is an art; the art of creating the illusion of the impossible.
Raphael Benatar mightydog David |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
I think they want to know but would rather try and work it out for themself and when they can not they will have to laugh becuse if they don't laugh they will cry.
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 27297 Posts |
I disagree with some of your stated position there funsway. If someone wants to know how they are persuaded to believe or accept a thing - they can easily turn to the ages old topic of Rhetoric. Since that subject has been broached and rebuffed here on several occasions it plainly follows that the matter is either not of interest of itself or - as is my case - that there is an abreaction to it's consideration. It's how that abreaction or aversion was installed that interests me.
Quote:
On 2011-01-15 15:56, funsway wrote:...it presumes that people SHOULD want to know... It's not my place to make such a presupposition. I feel it more sound to presume that people believe what they need to believe and if they wanted to believe something else they'd be asking questions. Horses and water.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Do you ever read your own posts, Jonathan? It was you who made the "presupposition" that there was no good reason for people to know about deceit. Who made you spokesman for everyone? Now you wish to presuppose that the study of Rhetoric equates to the understanding of deceit, Persuasion being but one of six approaches to looking at the "Folly of Deceit" in my book. Sounds like you wish to keep the sheep in their place and only help them be better sheep. They can't aspire to be an eagle if they must wear social blinders.
your final statement "presume that people believe what they need to believe and if they wanted to believe something else they'd be asking questions" is a fine circular argument, but also irrelevant. I am talking about what people should "know," not what they should "believe" -- the greatest area of deceit coming from confusing the two. If folks better understood the impact of deceit on their lives they might wish to change a lot of things. Yee, most might not care -- but few might, which makes the effort worthwhile. look at young magician want-a-bees who "believe" they can learn magic from youTube. They do not ask questions because they have no other model to follow. When they discover a book or the Café they ask questions. Even you have made statements of the type, "everyone SHOULD read such and such a book." If it is not your place to make presuppositions, then why do you "presume" with almost every one of your posts?
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-16 07:16, funsway wrote: For the n+1 time here: As regards exposure, openly "teaching" the how-to of magic tricks in public, I feel there is no good reason to do so. Instead I suggested Rhetoric as a more suitable topic for public discourse. If folks can discuss how to present a belief or position in general we have a foundation to discuss specific matters. Those who are done fooling themselves and who want to use the mechanics of guile (or deception) to bring amusement (I usually use the word delight) to others are welcome to the technology as far as I'm concerned. Look back at some abreactions/reaction formation /distraction/ad hominem on this and other threads. Look for even one cogent question about the form of rhetorical argument which parallels our standard trickery. Look for even one connection and salient post about the mirror neuron system and guile. Reading remains fundamental. I'm staying with my position until evidence for a more accurate representation is brought to my awareness. -J
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Well, at least you have given some clarity to the very limited use of "mechanics of deceit" you wish to limit the world too. There is a huge gap between "standard trickery" and the general use of deception in our cuture. I agree that there is no good reason for discussing the "how-to of magic ticks in public." That has little to do with the ideas I have presented. Within the greater view of how deception pervades our culture, performance magic is a very minor part.
Now you wish to restrict any consideration further to equating "deception" to "guile" and "mirror neuron system." Why not instead offer evidence about the ethics of using deception in any form, or how magicians can instruct people to make better decsions in their personal lives. The fact that none of these seem to have any great audience on the Café' does not detract from their importance, the Café' membership offering only a very myopic view of life itself. So, please Jonathan, either be specific or general in the discussion of deception, but not try and play one against the other. I will value your experienced view on either, but will resist your attempts to continuously redefine the playing field. To paraphrase your statement above, "If folks can discuss 'deception' in general we have a foundation to discuss specific matters like the decpetion that is used by magicians." The whole point of this thread that I started is that the entire issue of deception is offered for public view in the way Scope handles it -- with them offering the greatest deception of all by wanting to protect their views while attacking others. "our standard trickery" isn't the issue. Public exposure isn't the issue.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Are you describing "magic as understood by those who engage in the performing art of magic"? If so, I posit that such is worse than the blind using sign language to inform the inattentive. See the Lamount and Wiseman travesty for example. Or the writings of almost any who wish to reinvent the wheels already used by the hard sciences _ to be painted in garish colors and named after themselves of course.
Quote:
On 2011-01-16 11:59, funsway wrote:...There is a huge gap between "standard trickery" and the general use of deception in our cuture. ... I disagree. That's why (IMHO) the topics of rhetoric and how to install/inspect/dispel beliefs are so difficult to discuss here. Again IMHO, once one learns to ask the questions "what grounds are given for them to believe that" and "what am I willing to do in order for my intended audience to believe that" - we have a difficult discussion here. Not that the topic itself needs to be difficult. A layman once asked me whether the card tricks and sleights were a way of using shorthand to discuss larger issues. Needless to say I am still ashamed that such is the case. Worst that we have "magicians" who lack a basic grounding in the history of magic in our culture and working knowledge (or willingness to explore) of processes which affect the perceptions of others. How many here have tried some of the experiments with Satir categories (postures), congruence, anchoring - or even picked up The Structure of Magic or The Books of Magic? So again, IMHO, those who willfully act to remain ignorant are best left to their bliss. Don't blame me - the ghost of Harry Houdini told me to write this by way of an invisible mouse which channels HH and then makes my fingers move sometimes.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
And the truth will set us free ;-)
"those who willfully act to remain ignorant are best left to their bliss." Much truth in this execpt where the "ignorance" is implanted rather than sought or desired. Your horse cannot be blamed for not drinking if all that is offered is bottled water of which it has no knowledge. You have deceived the poor thing by claiming you will lead it to water. Perhaps it is best left to die for being so ignorant, but then who will pull our plow? So the real question is how to encourage magicians to acquire a better grounding or "willingness to explore?" It isn't by squabbling over minor terms, methinks. Here we are arguing over the position of deck chairs on the Titanic, when ...
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
mightydog Regular user Michigan now living in the Florida panha 156 Posts |
A question gentlemen. Is truth and deceit two sides o the same coin? can one tell the truth and still deceive? What if in the old days when everyone thought the sun revolved around the earth. If you stated that the sun revolved around the earth truly believing it. are you lying? Or are there different degrees of truth and deceit?
mightydog David
Illusion and magic is the same, if it was possible to achieve the impossible by genuine powers then it wouldn’t be impossible and therefore it wouldn’t be magic. That’s why magic is an art; the art of creating the illusion of the impossible.
Raphael Benatar mightydog David |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-16 14:33, mightydog wrote: If by that you are asking if taking a proposition from useful to true with or without also being both valid and verifiable is by definition lying to oneself - perhaps. For a person who cannot distinguish right from correct from true, or have the means to specify which of condone, comply, consent and complicit they wish to apply to an agreement - I'd have to agree. Look I fooled myself into believing (x) and you have to agree or else I have to challenge my other beliefs. So in a social sense its a specious coin, isn't it?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
mightydog Regular user Michigan now living in the Florida panha 156 Posts |
Can you lie to yourself if you are unaware that your statement is false?
mightydog David
Illusion and magic is the same, if it was possible to achieve the impossible by genuine powers then it wouldn’t be impossible and therefore it wouldn’t be magic. That’s why magic is an art; the art of creating the illusion of the impossible.
Raphael Benatar mightydog David |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Not sure what you mean by false there. Please elaborate.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-16 14:52, mightydog wrote: "Then you are a STUPID d**chebag!" --Stan to John Edward. |
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
To tell the truth when a lie is expected is a deception -- a classical theme in literature.
One can only tell the truth as they perceive it, often blinded by dogma or practice. It has been demostrated that if a person tells a lie long enough he can come to believe it. In fact, the quip, "memory defuses fact" applies to most everyone. for magic performance there are layers of deception with a true statement treated as a lie, and a lie accepted as true. For example,in a Chop Cup routine the Cup is shown empty - a lie. A second ball is now placed int he pcoket - true. When the ball is now revealed under the Cup the magician says that it jumped there from the pocket - a lie. The audience now thinks the pocket to be empty -- a deception based on inference. The ball is now vanished - a lie. The magician asks whether it is now under the cup or in the pocket -- a lie since it is in both places, but also the truth. the spectator is lying to himself all the time -- the major deception being the number of balls in play. A lot of magic is based on creating an expectation (true) then revealing a different result (also true). The magician offers a lie by way of explanation that is accepted over either truth, encouraging the spectator to lie to himself. In the Azevedo Experiment posted several times on the Café' the spectators are told the truth about the causes of the effects but are deceived by the relationship. They are then unable to determine the truth since they know they have been lied to once and now suspect everything. In the movies the thief says, "I'm here to steal your jewels," and the girl translates that into "I'm after your love," since no thief would tell the truth.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Strange Exposure (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 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 < |