|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
Father Photius Grammar Host El Paso, TX (Formerly Amarillo) 17161 Posts |
Excellent application type of example, Lawrence. Of course we have no real crisis for clinical cognitive dissonance to occur, but an application of the principle of the conflicting beliefs being brought to the forefront resulting in the "feeling of magic".
I still see this more as motivation and suggestion to manipulate subjective reality, but then we could easily be talking two faces of the same coin in this case when the clinical is eliminated. I don't think your secondary notions in any way bias your example, but actually serve to make the principles being applied more clear. And not a half bad routine either.
"Now here's the man with the 25 cent hands, that two bit magician..."
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
How do you know they're not just smiling and being encouraging because someone told them you produce a dove from the cardcase and they are waiting to see that trick?
IE - before you can have a double bind you need to have a situation where they care enough to actually have some cognitive/emotional investment in the state of affairs.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts |
This may be an example of using language that does not really work well with another discipline.
What I see above is only Cognitive Dissonance. I don't see the Double Bind. You have a good, classic example of setting the stage to convince folks that something untoward has happened. Bills don't float unless they are either caused to by using a magnet OR perhaps some form of magic manipulation. You have the set up, the sudden left turn causing dissonance, but those watching are in no emotional bind that I can see. Now, if you were to construct it something like this: Bills do not float unless a sufficient amount of power is applied to made them do so. I, the magician, have found a storehouse of this type of power. What is it? Ah, it's the emotional energy coming from a selected spectator....you sir, would you please come up here. Now, I propose the following: I will make this dollar bill float using only a pure form of psychic/magic energy that I will tap from you. Having come up on the stage with me I want you to know that you cannot now back away, for if you do your wife and children will die. But, don't despair! All you have to do is supply enough of the needed energy to make the bill rise and float. At this point someone could come on stage in the person of authority and tell the poor man that for whatever reason he much go back to his seat. And, to add a tone of the absurd...if he doesn't go back to his seat the magician will die. Well, in this case the poor guy would probably love to go back to his seat, but, oops, there's the Double Bind...he can't or his family dies. Of course the illustration above is absurd, but again, I don't see the actual concept of the Double Bind can be used to forward magic without causing states of anxiety in the audience and/or audience member helping. THAT'S what a Double Bind does! It think of it this way: Cognitive Diss. can have a positive or negative point of end focus. That is, you can have a 'good' experience or a 'bad' experience of Cog. Diss. But, with the concept of the Double Bind you MUST ALWAYS END UP WITH A NEGATIVE experience, because that's what it means to BE in a Double Bind. If we are to use the concept effectively then what has to happen is a very careful restructuring of the meaning as we wish to apply it to magic theory and practice. If that has happened somewhere above and I read all the posts..then I just plain missed it and apologize. (Please point me to the relevant passage.) A D.Bind happens when a person experiences two or more conflicting commands the following of which will cause some form of harm to the person receiving those commands. The harm may be physical or psychic, but the perception that 'binds' the person so bound is that they are caught on the horns of a dilemma and can only get off by doing something that has negative impact. It's a fascinating discussion frankly! Best,
Brad Burt
|
|||||||||
Father Photius Grammar Host El Paso, TX (Formerly Amarillo) 17161 Posts |
Yes, Brad, if you want to be truly clinical and purely theoretical, that is true. But, Lawrence is dealing with application of principle rather than actual clinical double bind and cognitive dissonance. This is more a congruence than a proof. I had to back off a few steps from my own clinical training and experience to see the forest through all the trees in what Lawrence is proposing. In clinical and psychological science terms, none of it is cognitive dissonance or double bind.
But going back to Whit's idea, I don't think he intended to imply cognitive dissonance at the clinical and psychological science level. He was taking his lay understanding of what occurs in cognitive dissonance and applying it to his observation about magical performance. Lawrence raised the issue of the double bind. I believe it applies in his example. While there is no "Command" in the clinical sense, the very patter he offers does give suggestion for belief to the audience. In a way a command. In true cognitive dissonance, the conflict occurs from within the subject, who has already formed and holds to conflicting beliefs. The crisis occurs when the situation results in the subject now having to face both in order to make a life determination decision. Double bind is the result of an outside influence, the command. So in the stepped back from pure theory application, the patter or suggestion in Lawrences example becomes the command. Lawrence is taking into account the outside influence, versus a purely internal conflict originating in the audience.
"Now here's the man with the 25 cent hands, that two bit magician..."
|
|||||||||
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
Both Brad and Father Photius are right. I also think that Jonathan is bringing an interesting point.
Brad you are too knowledgeable. To avoid pitfalls in this exchange, we initially defined our terms distinguishing Clinical Cognitive Dissonance from Magical Cognitive dissonance because Whit had developed the idea that this is what makes a magical effect really memorable and long lasting in the spectators mind. In marketing terms, it develops a "Long Tail effect". Whit won many magicians over with his analysis (me included). However knowing that words set traps under our feet (they are not neutral as you know), we attempted to define what "magical" cognitive dissonance could be in regards to "clinical" one. Following a parallel road and since one of the main causes of cognitive dissonance is double bind, I attempted to see if our art could not gain from the discoveries of (let's say) psychology and if creating a "magical" form of double bind could be a workable framework and whether it would be some form of progression in our art of magic. Thus I dared proposing a definition, knowing that with exchanges it would probably not stand but that from such exchanges we would, through an iterative process, get to a better definition. Hence we could then appreciate to what extent this approach could constitute an improved framework and how over the suspension of disbelief model. Naturally this implies a few things: if we cannot put the conclusion in our premises, we should still have a direction. Sofar our definition of double bind has been "The magical Double Bind" That can't be true because it's against everything I know from experience. That must be true because you just prove it by making it happen right in front of me. You are however welcome to help us improve such definitions. The whole thing is iterative and we are not trying to impose a pre-established theory and its implications, we are exploring a slightly different angle of vision. From what you say and what Jonathan states Quote:
"before you can have a double bind you need to have a situation where they care enough to actually have some cognitive/emotional investment in the state of affairs", it seems to come out that the means for a Magical Double Bind might have to be established differently for stage magic and (let's say) parlour and close up. I have insignificant experience in stage magic, thus I cannot be of a great help here. For me stage magic has shifted into box demonstrations with girls that convey what the performer considers as sexually attractive disguised into so-called dancing. Johnny Thompson, Dana Daniels, Whit Haydn, John Carney's stage character... are stage magicians for me (I had started writing more about it but realized it was taking us off track). So we have a practical challenge: how do we bring magical double bind into stage magic plots? Is it different from doing it in close up where (by definition) the EXCHANGE of emotions is easier where in stage magic COMMUNICATION of emotions is better adapted. At this stage, I'd like however to quote Tommy, a really independent mind with self irony (Posted in Food for thought: "Is Magic Real?" p 17: Jan 27, 2009 10:26am): "The interrelationship between inner and outer worlds, and our ability to control one with the other, is the very definition of magic. Magic in entertainment is primarily concerned with representing that subject with illusions of it, for the amusement and amazement of a audience, live before there eyes. Moreover one of the attractions of magic is the deep primal nature of magic itself. When “Something or somebody is caused to pass mysteriously from one place or condition to another.” it evokes in the subconscious of man the idea life after death. It evokes spiritual thoughts. Its magic its out of this world! I contend, that to understand the illusion of magic, it helps to know what magic is in reality in the first place. With regard to the dilemma, I agree, except that I am thinking it does not distinguish our art from any other art, as I think a dilemma exists in all art. How we distinguish our art form from another art form is by its form rather than its effect. It seems to me Whit, we can’t distinguish art from art. The form of our art is as I have described above." and by the same Tommy "However our magic I guess can be 'known' by the rational faculties and so our magic not real. Unless that is we can say, perhaps, the dilemma is magic itself. It does come, after all, like love from a relationship of one + one not making two together but three. In other words is dilemma a liable for a third force as love is a liable for a mystery force we can't explain with the rational faculties?" How do you feel about his "The interrelationship between inner and outer worlds, and our ability to control one with the other, is the very definition of magic" After your comments , I'll submit the base of an unfinished coin routine design hoping that we can structure one together following our Magical Double Bind > Cognitive Dissonance exploration with Tommy's comments in mind. Thus our exploration will not remain purely analytical and speak better with "workers" (in the noble sense of the term). It would be nice if some other magicians were going through the same exercise of submitting some a theme or a plot that we could put through the Double Bind filter.
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
cinemagician Inner circle Phila Metro Area 1094 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-02-09 05:11, Lawrence O wrote: This would be a turn for the better. I understand you and I am also a beliver that the important things are the questions not the answers. This I think I addressed in other posts in this thread. While I do not think that the concept of the double bind is partiularly helpful, it is fine to use any concept in order to get the ball rolling. The problem with this thread as I see it (I'm using the sugested inner emotional resources here ) is that there are so many great points and ideas (too many) that I don't know what one to begin to address first. When this occurs we should then create our own thread out of whatever may have sparked an idea and discuss it separately. Two other points I'd like to make: 1.) I wish people would stop trying to re-frame Whit Haydn's "theory of the dilema". It's been three years now and it get's us nowhere to reframe it- leave it alone it's been beaten to death. It would be better to hear from someone- anyone as to what extent they found Whit's basic ideas helpful and how did they use them. - Perhaps I'll be one to do this- but I'll do it on another thread. As Father Photius said, "I don't think he intended to imply cognitive dissonance at the clinical and psychological science level. He was taking his lay understanding of what occurs in cognitive dissonance and applying it to his observation about magical performance". I know that you believe this too Lawrence- as evidenced by this statement, "...It just takes us to get back to our tricks and redesign them using each of these filters one by one. Whit's Dilemna could possibly be the first filter in the magical steeplechase. That's what we are tring to ascertain." Yes that makes sense- start with Whit's theory and then plug in Tamariz, Nelms etc. I like the "steeplechase" approch. 2.) One last thing for all to consider here: We should consider each new topic in this section as the trunk of the apple tree, the person who started it as the one who planted the seed, those that respond as branches of the tree, those quotations and comparisons gleaned from other sources as the leaves and what ever may come of it in the real world as, "the fruit". Don't nail branches onto the tree and make it a agricultrual Frankenstein monster, instead go plant another seed (new topic). _Mark
...The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity...
William Butler Yeats |
|||||||||
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
From your post I'm wondering if I didn't get something wrong:
Magical Cognitive Dissonance (with entertainment content that we have not been through as yet) would be the steeple chase itself that we are taking our spectators through. The first barrier to jump would be the double bind: 1 Find a paradox to illustrate (this was already in Nelms) 2 Structuring the proof using the part on Time Displacement from Darwin Ortiz's book Designing Miracle awesome book 3 During the introductory phase and then along the effect place all the sleights enabling you to sustain your proof "In Transit" (in Magic of Ascanio Vol 1) Then we could design the branches in your tree comparison: Creating a character writing a non descriptive script but metaphoric: don't get scared with the word metaphoric. You are using it every day when you say that your computer "crashed", that you feel "bullish" about something... You can get support here http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes......895.html Introductory paradox: you can use proverbs (there is always another one contradicting it) and possibly twist them like "facts lie louder than word" Using snappy quotes (also possibly distorting them) is another way to go The paradox sets instantly the nature of the double bind that you are about to prove There is more and your input is welcome. Posted: Feb 11, 2009 6:53am Building a trick into a routine is also something we have to consider Let's go back to "the force", the floating bill and the magnet. Buy Finn Jon and Yigal Mesika DVD called Reflections: Finn is showing a beautiful way to let a bill simply creased longitudinally float between his fingers using invisible elastic loops. Then using In Transit Actions, it is possible to make room (anchoring the end of the thread going to the spool to a bottle neck on the table), then borrow a bill, then explain static electricity floating the borrowed bill in its simplest possible creased form. This allows lateral movements which will later on cancel out the spool effect. Then introduce the magnet to float the free end of the bill as a replacement to the other hand's finger (the loop between the fingers floats the other hand). Then modify the crease into W shaped and place pins in the creases and use the magnet again allegedly to float it as already explained. Then let the pins drop and do the float again. Then ask what it would look like if the force existed by moving slowly away. Due to Gestalt law of proximity people will think that it is still some kind of magnetic cute trick. Now the "in the hand floating" canceling out the present cause of the floating, spectators can only accept it: it's the logical conclusion of their own imagination, it is not the contention of the performer. I love reeling people in to avoid infringing the Gestalt law of proximity and the law of good continuation. It takes part in the audience accepting the flawed proof more easily and takes the challenge partly away. This structure works like a surrealist novel: the limit between facts and imagination and new state of facts is not a clearly defined line. It's the spectators' imagination which does the work progressively. I contend (with 20 years experience on this approach) that what I used to call "impact" and that I understand better with Whit's richer expression of "cognitive dissonance", is not reduced by this audience progressive sliding into the effect (as opposed to the "boom" types of effects): I think, on the contrary, that the effect has a more long lasting effect. People don't rewind their own imagination process unless they are challenged. This approach is not performer centered at that time, but spectators remember the performer better over time: because they experience it themselves they don't question the way the effect was achieved. The cognitive dissonance is actually much stronger than impact (performer centered). In marketing cognitive dissonance can be built as a "Long Tail" effect (you can search on this in Wikipedia) and generate more repeat business. Posted: Feb 11, 2009 7:35am As a reply to a PM, it generates more repeat business because people shared what they felt as a moment of "real magic" that their imagination took part in creating but they cannot reproduce it (to prove their own statement to the people they talk about it) without booking you again to prove their point (their cognitive dissonance).
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
cinemagician Inner circle Phila Metro Area 1094 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-02-11 06:10, Lawrence O wrote: O.K. I misunderstood you in regards to the "steeple chase" I thought that by it you were attempting to construct your own Tamariz "magic way" type of journey beginning possibly by using Whit Hayden's "theory of the dillema" in order to help define the parameters of the illusion you want to present (in the context of it's presentational theme) and then that you would use what Nelms refers to as the phenomenon (if you want to go with Nelms here) to create the initial conflict of the impossible vs. the possible. I thought that the other ideas you make mention to were ancilliary and could perhaps help in strengtining the illusiion but are not always pertinent- e.g. intransit actions, time displacement etc. Basically I thought you were trying to create your own "magic way" model using the idea of a "steeplechase" in lue of the "two horses pulling a cariage" illustration in Tamariz's book. My "tree" analogy was about how we post in this forum- it has noting to do with designing a model or approach to routining a magic effect. -Mark
...The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity...
William Butler Yeats |
|||||||||
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
No you were right!
I do a first steeple chase (I should call it Double Bind structure by now) to build the routining and then when I think I have a routine, I run a second steeple chase to build up the effect going, as you perfectly understood. First I find what I used to call a magical impact but actually is a cognitive dissonance. Then I get a theme (a paradox as a seed to a double bind: over the years I made a list of paradoxes in my notes that could make more routines that I will ever do) that works for the persona of the act. At this stage I write a draft script based on Darwin Ortiz's Time Displacement from Designing Miracles (and alter both moves and script in the routine to always put at least one intermediary move between a secret cause and its effect). I then make sure that no secret move escaped being done in transit or during a blind spot (and if need be, rewrite the script or a small redesign for a part where it wouldn't). The next step is then to go through Juan's magic way (and again sprinkle actions and words in the routine to cancel out plausible solutions). The next step is to put at least one feint in the effect (Fred Kaps taught me that each trick had to have a feint to be a masterpiece and reading about John Ramsay did not convince me otherwise). The next step is audince participation, redesign to make them not only look good but, in their mind be the ones who did the effect under the guidance of the performer. Then the wording of the script gets into rework to add meaning, change statements into suggestions and metaphors (Kenton Knepper supplies extremely good advice in Wonder Words, secrets of indirection, miracles of suggestion, Q, and Rants to raven) and change almost all the "I" with "we" and put charm, light humor and connivance smiles. Then I learn the effect by heart (the Ostrich factor is a good help here) and as I do this I get mentally through the filter of Juan Tamariz's 5 point in magic. The last exercise is to have somebody film the audience reaction to the first performances, following Big Daddy Cool's advice (to increase RPM -reactions per minute- both in amplitude and frequency) Then I have a routine and I keep it for many many years because, as you see it's not a short process (about three months). So I don't perform that many routines but they end up being very personal, entertaining and with a very long lasting "cognitive dissonance". David Devant used to say that he would only do 9 routines but that he would really do them to perfection: I'm trying to go along that path and the double bind (formerly double steeple chase) attempts to reduce the life time fine tuning experience down to these few months. Now this is a process which developed as a result of email exchanges mainly with Tommy Wonder and he was following a comparable process (more intuitive but parallel) The BDC part came after Tommy departed, but I know he would have loved it. You know what? What about opening a topic in Secret Session and try to build one routine going through this double bind process. We'll call it "King Midas routine creative process". Thus we will not pollute the present thread but will be able possibly refer to the other thread when necessary. Naturally it will start with the elements of the cognitive dissonance that we are aiming at and a theme (the persona changing with each performer). We'll make it open so that every one can bring ideas in at each stage. Here we will be able to keep on searching for improving this structure because we are not yet to the point of knowing what makes Magical cognitive dissonance entertaining and long lasting.
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
cinemagician Inner circle Phila Metro Area 1094 Posts |
I am all for seeing what it would be like to run a routine through this process. However, I still feel that if you wish to eventually use this model as a way of helping others- (which I am sure is your real aim in all of this) you should consider changing the terminology "double bind" as well as lessening the weight you have placed on the term "cognative dissonance".
I know you are open minded enough to consider changing these terms. If they work for you- fine. But it seems that almost everyone here has objections to these terms in one way or another. So for now fine- use those terms but I just want to reiderate that they do not resonate with me and bring me further away form forming a clear mental picture of your sugested process. These terms would also make it harder for me to articulate your process in a conversation with others. IMHO The subtle undercurrent of this entire thread has to do with the fact that magicians have some very similar ideas which are expressed through the use of different terminology. Most of these ideas were developed independently and that is why dicussing magic "theory" (perhaps a problematic term in and of itself) often seems like a return to the Tower of Babel. I will touch more on this later-(a branch on the tree that is budding and soon to grow -Mark
...The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity...
William Butler Yeats |
|||||||||
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
Interesting. As you can read from this thread, even the ones prepared to explore the idea feel the same reluctance on terminology.
Since language is only there for communication between human beings let's ask here if semantics and the psychological inference is a tougher problem than I personally felt. If yes I naturally have no problem adapting to a terminology with less emotional rejection. We could go back to "dilemna" and something like "conflicting messages" or any words which do not scare people blocking them in exploring a different analysis grid. People who are not scared by what they can find in their inner psychè often forget that most people do. And definitely words are not neutral. Thanks for sharing your insightful thought.
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
Michael Kamen Inner circle Oakland, CA 1315 Posts |
Lawrence you asked for responses to Tommy's quote, and I assume this was not a rhetorical request. If it was, my apologies for offering the following thoughts. It is no secret that I share Whit's view that performance magic exists on a continuum that ranges from charlatanry to theatrical depiction. Where we position ourselves on that, is one way of defining our artistic and ethical position.
Quote:
The interrelationship between inner and outer worlds, and our ability to control one with the other, is the very definition of magic. This might more accurately be rendered "the very definition of magick", and I agree with it as such. It is not the very definition of performance magic because that is not what we do, only what we pretend to do. This is important. Quote:
Magic in entertainment is primarily concerned with representing that subject with illusions of it, for the amusement and amazement of a audience, live before there eyes. Tommy describes above the theatrical depiction of magick. No problem with this. However it does not adequately define performance magic which has far wider application along the continuum. Quote:
Moreover one of the attractions of magic is the deep primal nature of magick itself. When “Something or somebody is caused to pass mysteriously from one place or condition to another.” it evokes in the subconscious of man the idea life after death. It evokes spiritual thoughts. Its magic its out of this world! Nice reference to intrinsic metaphors. Quote:
With regard to the dilemma, I agree, except that I am thinking it does not distinguish our art from any other art, as I think a dilemma exists in all art. Tommy has not made his point in my opinion. What dilemma exists in all art that is either similar by analogy or in order of magnitude to the dilemma in magic (that leads to "cognitive dissonance")? Quote:
How we distinguish our art form from another art form is by its form rather than its effect. . . Perhaps so. In that case, how else to distinguish magic from other art but by its notably-common form of falsifying proof of an outrageous argument, with a wink and a nod (to the extent we distance our self from charlatanry, and steer clear also of theatrical depiction)? Theatrical depiction has too much in common with other art forms to adequately define this craft, and the closer we get to it the more our craft begins to resemble other art forms. That seems to be a point on which we mostly agree at this point. I would find it helpful to explore ideas on how our new definition of double bind might be helpful in creating that "wink and nod" in a theatrically appealing way. This seems to be the central challenge in creating magic performance art toward the middle of the continuum, where magic's uniqueness is most discernable.
Michael Kamen
|
|||||||||
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
I agree with most of what you underline.
Jonathan Townsend has launched a thread trying to find a definition of "magic" and I've read, as we all should, your interesting input there. What seems to me to be part of the debate is whether the definition is from a performer's view or from the audience point of view. Culturally, since it seems to me that magic is a form of communication (as I stated in my reply to Cinemagician) we should "speak to be heard" and therefore we should seek for understanding what magic is for the audience. What do they expect when devoting some precious life time to watch magic? The problem we are facing is that the word "magic" is somehow used like the word "love" which encompass the lady on the curb all the way up to Romeo and Juliett. I think that we should allow the "Food for thought » » What Is Magic?" thead to develop (possibly participating) as it is ahead of us on this point and Jonathan is doing a great job moderating it without imposing his own view. Now Whit's point in that thread is essential again "It's hard to build a boat if you don't know what one looks like. There is very little about performing magic that is "natural." Personally I was also interested apart from Jonathan's thoughtful point of view, with (again) Father Photius' "Magic is a suspension of belief in reality" and especially with Alan Wheeler's post dated Oct 23, 2007 9:38am (not only because it was my birthday) At this stage of our exploration, it would probably be interesting to address Mark's point: the "double bind" and "cognitive dissonance" names are repulsive to a number of persons due to their psychological frightening luggage and we maybe could solve this in creating another terminology for this parallel road to the psychological one: a road seemingly easier to drive by most. We already have the "dilemna" (a little short to my taste but...) for the cognitive dissonance I suggest the "crossing rules" or "paradox proving" or "Paradoxical proof" as a replacement for the double bind. It seems to me that the "crossing rules" explains that we hide the consequences of the facts we present as causes and allocate to these causes the effect of secret causes we secretly generated. All these terms try to designate the common belief resulting from the spectators' experience, the proofs we want to use to shake these (momentarily or more durably) and the announced process...
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
Patrick Differ Inner circle 1540 Posts |
I have a love/hate relationship with the Ambitious Card routine. It's the one where the magician puts a card somewhere in the middle of the deck, and it magically jumps back to the top of the deck. Then he puts it back in the middle of the deck, and it jumps back on top. And then again, and then again, and then again, etc.
The plot goes like "This card is ambitious. It always climbs to the top. Despite, or in spite of all my efforts to subjugate it, it manages to climb the ladder of success. It cannot be defeated." While the actual tricks themselves utilized to get the card back on top of the deck are visual and stunning, this approach to the plot is little more than Horse Manure. It's a great routine. It's a lame story. It's lame because it doesn't contain any real theatrical conflict. In fact, this approach to the story is nothing more than the magician saying, "Lookee what I can do in umpteen different ways." It's just showing off. The magician sets the conditions and then solves them with the greatest of ease. Where's the mountain to climb? Where's the challenge? Where's the magic? I believe that every trick has its own story to tell. In every trick, something is happening that can relate to us on a conscious and a subconscious level. It's this subconscious story that the trick wants to tell. That's the story that will ring true to the listener. That's the story that will catch them by the short hairs and not let them go until it's over. The hardest part of being a magician is figuring out what that subconscious story, the subtext of the magic trick, and then figuring out a way to let the character entertainingly reveal that story to the listeners. Subconscious stories can tell themselves if they are liberated and allowed to do so. The reason this can be so difficult to do is that it's much easier to simply contrive any old story to go along with any old certain trick. It's much easier to just write the story to suit what appears on the surface/conscious level, the superficial, and then mash the two together and call it magic, as I believe has always been the case for the standard Ambitious Card routine. Putting a card in the middle of the deck, and then seeing that the card has risen to the top, doesn't mean that the card is ambitious. What it means that the card is impish and mischievious. Imagine a non-magician doing the same thing, and you'll get the idea. They put the card in the middle and then find it on top. "Hey, WTF? That's not supposed to be." So they put it back in the middle, and off it goes again. So they put it back in the middle of the deck and then tie a rope around the deck, and the card mischieviously finds it way back to the top. Imagine how flabbergasting that would be to the poor non-magician. Imagine how much cognative dissonance that would cause in their tired and confused brain. Now put yourself in the place of the poor, tired, confused, and flabbergasted non-magician.
Will you walk into my parlour? said the Spider to the Fly,
Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy; The way into my parlour is up a winding stair, And I've a many curious things to show when you are there. Oh no, no, said the little Fly, to ask me is in vain, For who goes up your winding stair -can ne'er come down again. |
|||||||||
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
Hi Patrick I get your point
On Dec 3, 2008 9:39am I posted in "workers" on the number of effect in an ambitious card routine: "An effect is about sharing a magical experience. Thus it is a dialog involving the spectators imagination. The length of an ambitious card therefore seems to me to have to be "for as long as they are still interested minus one effect". Leaving them wanting more requires a real dialog where the magician is also listening!... As a result, we need to have an initial effect, a fairly long series of effects that we can reduce at will and a climax that we can bring at any stage after the third or fourth effect." I didn't indicate the paradox that I'm using (it wasn't the topic) which is "If we had to kick everyone responsible for the trouble we have, we couldn't sit for a week". First I put a folded red backed card in paper clip a la Jay Sankey on to the table. I then force a card from a blue deck (the card has a red back that they don't see) that is tabled and have it signed: this create the personal psychological projection I need. Then using a top change for a gaffed blue backed duplicate of the signed card I get into David Williamson's gag with the lettraset film (but use it as a trick, the gag being merely misdirection). I "keep the signature" for my collection put it in an Himber wallet which is left nonchalantly on to the table (but with the opening properly directed for a natural opening later) and ask the person "please replace your signature on the card, we need it for what's coming" (this is now the blue backed one). For the audience and for himself, he signed That Card only once. But I gained the Time Displacement recommended by Darwin Ortiz in Designing Miracles: I have both a blue backed and a red card both signed but they are only "aware" of the blue backed one. My post of Dec 3, 2008 then continued as follow: "More than anything we need a script which can be adjusted in length. Mine is about the fact that we (not a card) all get put down sometimes but still try to make it to the top. So we always get replaced down into the anonymous crowd but whether in professional life (even if we are amongst the regular employees and get put down to the bottom of the list), in social circumstances (even in a dinner in the middle of shining personalities when we get placed at the very end of the table), in sport (even if our chrono is average, we sometimes get touched by the grace and pull a winner), in love (even when we get lost the darkness of a nightclub, sometimes a nice lady will find us)... Even when society puts us down, we always manage to somehow get to a special place or even to the top. There is always however someone (the spectator who signed the card) doing better (climax) I have fillers with variants in the handling and with all kinds of social situations if I feel that the audience wants to see more of the effect (class room when younger, graphic design referring to the signature, magic competitions, subway and the station I'm trying to get off to when the crowd blocks the door...) To avoid repetitive intermediary effects the card comes back face up (color change), rises from the deck (Fred Robinson), turns over... but it's always about the same story The only thing I really pay attention to is where do the people stand in their desire to see more so that I can bring the climax before (I use Jay Sankey's tabled folded card in the paper clip left in full view from the beginning)" [end of the Dec post] Now you understand that I will exchange the signed red backed Mercury folded card for the one in the clip and using the psychological projection of the signature referring to the original paradox: "so if we have problems we just need to understand that we have the power 'to change it' (feint: I suggest an impossible switch because the cards are blue and the clipped one is red) we take the chance to miss the fact that we are unique and can solve any situation (Jay Sankey's paper clip effect but with a signed card with contrasting back). It is the signature that travels in an impossible way at the last second... and we don't stay in somebody's wallet (using the Himber wallet to casually prove that his signature is no longer there and "prove" with the time distance that there was only one and it's on the contrasting red back card: red is psychologically a more active color, see Lüscher on colors) Thus I'm glad that you, Patrick, raised the point. My routine is not bad in terms of technique, plot and story but my paradox is weak. Before Whit brought in the "cognitive dissonance" I could not realize that it was the only thing weak in the effect. My take on the Ambitious card is what I would use to prove that we can make spectators not even consider rewinding when THREE criteria are met 1) the virtual cause (the magical moment) of the climax is placed just before the final effect and the solution is way too far from anything possible: Al Schneider supplies the best possible analysis (that I know of) about how the rewinding process works, up to where it rewinds and how to blow up the recorder 2) they projected so much in the effect (no challenge: massive use of "we" placing the performer on their side against virtual hostile situation they can recognize) that they are not interested in how the trick was done but on their own intake from the fake proof we supply: the emotional brain is so selfish that they are more interested in themselves than in the trick but they still can't get it. So their brain is a sort of inner conflict between narcissism and willing to understand. But since the ego centering is easier to reach that the cause which agitated it -the modus operandi of the trick-, they chose the ego 3) the story suggest a help (personal progression or social recognition in the future): this forces them to "look forward" with the lesson learned instead of backwards. No challenge whatsoever during the whole routine, neither in the patter nor in the gesture: things happen to the cards which represent (in this effect) society and the person. If we were doing fancy moves, we would be the ones "manipulating" them, it would no longer the magic (this is exactly where I diverge from Whit): remember that "we" are on their side: MAGIC pulls "us" out of intricate unpleasant situation. I want them never to think that I fooled them (because I know I do! That feeds my fire spitting dragon keeping it on a tight leash): magic can help them in their life. Waow! That should work: thanks! I thought that this was not off topic and hope it drives you more on the love than on the hate side for the trick. Quote:
On 2009-02-12 09:34, Lawrence O wrote: Lawrence- Just a quick note here- At this stage of the game the definitions and terms are not all that important. It seems to me that the true value of your contributions here are to be found in the process you sugests and not in the definitions of the terms themselves. Interesting to note that your terms "crossing rules" "paradoxical proof" and "paradox proving" are also a bit confusing- if I am correct in that the ideas are similar- Henning Nelms simply called these ideas "the proof". It is not necessary to view your ideas through a microscope- some of the terms can simply be taken on faith. I think the whole "steeplechase" process is interesting- (I'm sure it's not a final or completed one) but that seems to be the direction you could go- and hopefully someone will get something out of it even if they don't agree. I will take a look at your proposed "King Midas" thread in Secret Sessions- Mark In the Food for thought purpose of magic thread, Mick Ayres commenting a Big Daddy Cool post wrote Quote:
On 2009-02-12 23:07, Big Daddy Cool wrote: True, John. A mystery without relevance is pointless. + + + mystery (or distorted paradoxical proof) with relevance seemed to me to be "relevant" to this exploration.
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
cinemagician Inner circle Phila Metro Area 1094 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-02-12 09:34, Lawrence O wrote: Lawrence- Just a quick note here- At this stage of the game the definitions and terms are not all that important. It seems to me that the true value of your contributions here are to be found in the process you sugests and not in the definitions of the terms themselves. Interesting to note that your terms "crossing rules" "paradoxical proof" and "paradox proving" are also a bit confusing- if I am correct in that the ideas are similar- Henning Nelms simply called these ideas "the proof". It is not necessary to view your ideas through a microscope- some of the terms can simply be taken on faith. I think the whole "steeplechase" process is interesting- (I'm sure it's not a final or completed one) but that seems to be the direction you could go- and hopefully someone will get something out of it even if they don't agree. I will take a look at your proposed "King Midas" thread in Secret Sessions- Mark
...The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity...
William Butler Yeats |
|||||||||
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
I'm not a definition fanatic either. My goal is definitely practical.
In "Workers 2" Michael Close reminds Quote:
"In the Introduction to Workers 1, I ...tried to express my feelings that magic should be something that (for the spectators) has no explanation. Now I'm still after both elements of the Double Bind (or whatever less scary name we find) to achieve the Cognitive Dissonance: The first two steps however remain: That can't be true because it's against everything I know from experience. That must be true because you just prove it by making it happen right in front of me. Expressing these announces the plot and constitutes the first barrier in the steeple chase. How to express the "everything I Know from experience" naturally must not be possibly denied. In the first book supporting his phenomenal Wonder Words audio tapes, Kenton Knepper supplies, amongst other very proper suggestions, many tools to (say) establish what is known from experience that we are going to demonstrate live as false: Quote:
UNSPECIFIED REFERENTIAL INDEX: The above is only a very condensate form of some of the profound teachings in Kenton Knepper's important books on Indirection, Suggestion, Q, Cold Reading which are a must read unless we have it naturally (IMHO) for jumping the first fence in the steeple chase. Since we are going to tear up the spectator about something he believes from experience, we need to make him mentally pin point in his imagination that he believes it strongly without running the risk to be contradicted. The same wording techniques are even more important in the way we introduce the sensation of magic supporting our paradoxical proof. What we present will be, due to its inner contradiction, be psychologically rejected before being evidenced. Thus the way we word it must not be arguable either. Thank you for accepting to explore the Midas myth in the Café "Secret Sessions": it should turn interesting as it's a direct application of what we explored so far and the differences in approach become a wealth of solutions when, in theory, they can be a subject of argument.
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
The more impressive the magical feat the deeper the dilemma so it seems to me. In other words, take care of the magic and the dilemma will take care of itself.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Lawrence O Inner circle French Riviera 6811 Posts |
Tommy, you're right on target: this is the reason why I had come with this "magical double bind" thing which is more a "tearing apart in another direction" or a "stretching mind's chains " to get to a "disturbingly disjointed belief".
The more clearly their experienced truth is anchored in their brain and soul AND the more it splits from such strong belief by what appears to be real magic (not by a performer with skill which would then constitute the explanation) the deeper and longer lasting the boiling dilemma. The dilemma is the end result and, as you say will take care of itself. Thus we need an "impressive magical feat" to use your word. I find risk in this wording to get over spectacular in the proving. It seems to me that the magical feat must follow an entertaining but unbreakably progressive DIGRESSION from the belief. It can only become spectacular around the climax otherwise it would be at risk of not achieving evidencing the paradox proven right there in 3 dimensions. With unbreakable magical progression , people can neither disprove the magic nor accept its consequence and are left with the dilemma. Would "unbreakable magical progression" supply a more precise guidance for magicians than "impressive magical feat"? Tommy Wonder without going as far into the reasons for a proof to be magical, was advocating for the "rule of three": one time to see (surprise), one time to doubt but gain confirmation of the magic, and one time to be persuaded that it really is demonstrated by the magic. Even though I don't remember Tommy speaking about progression, it seems to me that it's underlying in what he wrote. My point is that, since your statement seems to unite our various thinking, we have to understand what an "impressive magical feat" is, and how it has to be delivered to be accepted by the logic as magical (irrespective of any specific method naturally). Is entertainment and temporary suspension of disbelief the second barrier in the steeple chase (rather than, as Whit discovered, the steeple chase itself)? Posted: Feb 14, 2009 5:49am Tommy I'd like to rephrase my previous post as follows (the 30 minutes time granted by the café for rephrasing had elapsed). You're right on target: this is the reason why I had come with this "magical double bind" thing which is more a "tearing apart in another direction" or a "stretching mind's chains " to get to a "disturbingly disjointed belief". The more clearly their experienced truth is anchored in their brain and soul AND the more an unbelievable flawed cause to effect relationship splits their minds from such strong beliefs the more it will appear to be "real magic" (if it's obviously due to a performer's skill, it would then constitute a sufficient explanation and there would be no magic). This process should create deeper and longer lasting the boiling dilemma. The dilemma is the end result and, as you say will take care of itself. Thus we need an "impressive magical feat" to use your word. I find risk in this wording to get over spectacular in the proving. It seems to me that the magical feat must follow an entertaining but unbreakably progressive DIGRESSION from the belief. It can only become spectacular around the climax otherwise it would be at risk of not achieving evidencing the paradox proven right there in 3 dimensions. With unbreakable magical progression , people can neither disprove the magic nor accept its consequence and are left with the dilemma. Would "unbreakable magical progression" supply a more precise guidance for magicians than "impressive magical feat"? Tommy Wonder without going as far as this into the reasons for a proof to be magical, was advocating for the "rule of three": one time to see (surprise), one time to doubt but gain confirmation of the magic, and one time to be persuaded that it really is demonstrated by the magic. Even though I don't remember Tommy speaking about progression, it seems to me that it's underlying in what he wrote. This would take part in explaining the long lasting strength of repeat effects like the cups and balls or like René Lavand's bread crumbs in the café cup... My point is that, since your statement seems to unite our various thinking, we have to understand what an "impressive magical feat" is, and how it has to be delivered to be accepted by the logic as magical (irrespective of any specific method naturally). Is entertainment and temporary suspension of disbelief the second barrier in the steeple chase (rather than, as Whit discovered, the steeple chase itself)? Should we hold off being spectacular for the latest barrier in the steeple chase? Is it not what the final killing of the bull in a corrida teaches us? It's only when the bull is bleeding and in desperate rage that the time to finish it spectacularly has come?
Magic is the art of emotionally sharing live impossible situations
|
|||||||||
cinemagician Inner circle Phila Metro Area 1094 Posts |
Lawrence-
It seems that initially you were inspired by the studies of Gregory Bateson on the Double Bind and Antonio Damasio’s work in "Descartes' error", "The feeling of what happens" and "Looking for Spinoza". I assume your exploration into these subjects may have broadened your horizons, but even if these studies are “truths” in psychology that does not mean that they will directly lend themselves to making magic stronger. Nor will incorporating these principles to effect design / routining structure necessarily make them more meaningful. You quote Bateson as saying, “A double bind is a dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, and one message negates the other; a situation in which, if they succeed at responding to one message, they fail with the other and the person will be put in the wrong however they respond. The person can neither comment on the conflict, nor resolve it, nor opt out of the situation.” While, “cognitive dissonance” and “double binds” may help describe certain components of a spectators total experience when viewing a magic trick or routine, I find the terms remote and disconnected. IMHO they are not helpful in providing a direct route towards what we want to accomplish as magicians. In a reply to Tommy, you state, [this] "magical double bind" [is one] which is more a "tearing apart in another direction" or a "stretching mind's chains " to get to a "disturbingly disjointed belief". This suggests that you want to extend the “double bind” or cognitive dissonance concept beyond it’s existence in the “dilemma sense” (a direct response to the illusion) and also apply or marry the concept it a thematic way. As you well know, incorporating a theme or a “moral of the story” to a routine doesn’t not have to result in a “double bind” in fact I don’t this would be a necessarily pleasurable or positive experience for the spectator. The overall result I think, would be that you are championing chaos over order- based on your contributions here I don’t think that’s what your want to do. The result of a “double bind” leaves the spectator with an essentially negative experience. Just note how the terms “tearing apart” “stretching mind’s chains” and “disturbingly disjointed” are extremely different from instilling in the spectators “the sensation of magic.” You also state: “The more clearly their experienced truth is anchored in their brain and soul AND the more an unbelievably flawed cause to effect relationship splits their minds from such strong beliefs- the more it will appear to be "real magic". I don’t see any need to further anchor the spectator in his own reality. He already knows that bills do not float. Although this thread has thread has been intellectually stimulating and has brought up some other good points and ideas. For now, I think you should disband the “double bind/ cognitive dissonance ideas. Perhaps they may in the future make for a good essay but I don’t think they are good for helping to create a framework for practical routining structure. I see how hard you are working and that is why I have taken the time to respond yet again. I think it would be more helpful to explain, “Lawrence’s approach to routining an effect” or “Lawrence’s Steeple-Chase” - keeping it simple for now. -Cinemagician
...The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity...
William Butler Yeats |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Whit Haydn Cognitive Dissonance resulting from Double Bind (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.28 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 < |