|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
"Some advice I am taking myself: lighten up, don't let things here bother you."
sound advice. I posted these thought in an attempt to stimulate thought and discussion on an issue that has bothered me since joining the Café'. I do believe (or hope) that those attracted to performance magic do answer to a higher standard than the main of our disolving culture. I keep looking for hints that some see a greater purpose and impact in what we do than making money or fooling people. Unfortunately, the occasional glimmer is quickly trampled beneath personal attacks, miss-quotes, logical fallacy and deliberate attempts to scuddle the original thread. Yes, one can learn a lot about magic and mentalism by sifting through the chaff, but I look for something more. My error. In his book "The Handbook of Mental Magic," Marvin Kaye states, "As entertainers, mental magicians capture the attention, tust, and imagination of audiences. They have the moral obligation to see that they do not abuse the privilege..." When you post on the Café' we are all your audience. Why should not the same moral obligation apply here? It isn't just the Café' or the subjects of the threads that is the problem , but the nature of Internet communications itself. Without the benefit of non-verbal clues and time-controlled response, any social graces seem to disappear -- with a lack of respect, courtesy and reasoned argument heading the list. It brings out worse traits in people -- myself included. I do not like to be attacked. I do not like to be misquoted, and especially do not like being told what I must think. I love to hear the opinions of others and the experiences upon which they are based. I learn new things by weighing argument and balancing diverse ideas. I keep hoping. Now we have people leaving the Café' because of the abuse. What is wrong with suggesting that Mentalists take the lead in modeling effective communiation based on respect and genuine interest in the opinions of others? I do believe that the qualities required to engender trust and rapport for successful mentalism should carry over into everyday life -- including Internet communications. I will continue to believe that. Bill is correct that this thread quickly came to exemplify the very type of posts I would hope we can eliminate. Hardly a prophesy -- just a shattered hope. I found myself asking, "Is this the way you talk to people face to face? Is this the way you talk to volunteers from your audience?" No? Then why do it here? Let us all be more kind.
"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 |
|||||||||
Tony Iacoviello Eternal Order 13151 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-27 19:44, funsway wrote: Words to live by! Thank you. Tony |
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
I am a bit mystified by all this. I think false humility is the greater sin. A mentalist can do things that others can't. Whether you believe they have the innate capacity, most do not have the immediate capability. To acknowledge that the mentalist has a superior ability in that particular realm is simply a statement of fact, not, and Tom seems to miss this distinction (and it is a distinction) a value judgment. Equality, while a lovely idea, is, in practical fact, quite fuzzy. My millionaire friend and I are not equal. My mentally ill ex and I are not equal. Tony and I are not equal. Between all people there are qualitative as well as quantitative differences. To deny that is to be out of touch with reality.
The teacher does not merely have "different" knowledge than the student; he has more knowledge and, in turn, better knowledge. (For those who will quibble: if ignorance is a privation, then the positive presence of knowledge, the contrary of ignorance, is objectively better.)By the same token, the artist has better knowledge and skill than the amateur. It may be that Vladimir Horowitz knows less at the theoretical level than I do on, say, Stravinsky's Les Noces. It is certainly true that his capacity to play the piano part is vastly, yes, superior to mine. I think this aversion to the word is rooted in a visceral response to one connotation and not in rational thought. |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
I agree that false humility is a great sin. Is the aquiring of a skill set really reason to be un humble? My aversion to the word is it's emotional charge in the face of non-specifics. Disregarding that very real element of interaction gets one, well, this thread. Those who turn a blind eye to the emotion of the word "superior" are doomed to repeat the experience here throughout their life in many different ways.
I also disagree that a teacher must have "more knowledge" and "better knowledge". There are things to be learned from people with lesser amounts of knowledge. Sometimes learning comes in the form of different, rather than "more" or "better". Who said anything about "false" humility. I'm talking about true humility regardless one's talents. When one goes out and simply states facts, one runs the risk of alienating people. If I were to say, "John, I am smarter than you, by which I mean I have the superior intellect to you." most of the Johns I know would feel a range of poor emotions toward that statement and toward me. You see, telling someone you are superior to them or acting in some manner superior to another person is likely to be taken as a challenge toward them or an attack on their being. Im not talking about theory, or antiseptic definition conditions, I'm talking about the real world. Whether it fits your model of thinking or mine does not matter. Most people will feel slighted by the inference that one is better than them in some way. Argue it however you like. Tell me you've found a niche where this simply doesn't exist, and I will show you someone who isn't working for the generally public. But hey, I'm the first to agree with find your niche, be the best in it, and never look back. So as I've already said, if anyone is in that zone," go for it, go with it, go completely wild!" It just doesn't mesh with my experience of the general public in many, many different facets of life. So while I may understand the intent of the performer, that is of little consequence. Isn't what matters to us as performers is that we connect with and are understood by an audience. So again, my experience is if you say or act in a way which displays your sense of your own superiority, you as a performer are on the road to alienating a segment (maybe small, maybe large) of your audience. I contend such claims and actions put you just a stammer or off hand mis-statement from being the "I can do this and you can't" guy. So why am I being so vocal about this? Because I believe the likelihood that many will be misled by what was written and go in the direction quite the opposite of what funsway intended. |
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
I think you confuse humility with deprecation. I will agree that to stand up and say "Spectators, I am superior to you" would be both alienating and offensive, whether or not it was true. That, however, is not what Ken was suggesting, and I'm not satisfied you've read his post carefully enough to evaluate what he weas suggesting. That being said, to acknowledge yourself as superior in a particular respect, which is true humility (self-knowledge) is entirely different from judging yourself to be ontologically superior, a distinction you fail to acknowledge. Your entire line of argumentation assumes the latter, wrongly I think, and fails to take into account the former. You then in turn argue only from a scenario in which a performer behaves as though under the latter impression, again missing Ken's point, the expected behavior from the former standpoint. Put simply, your argument derives from an overly narrow consideration of the question.
As to your disagreement with the idea having more knowledge or better knowledge (I'm not sure what "more knoqwledge" is or "better" unless you mean more knowledge or better), I'm not sure how to answer. If somone knows something you don't, they know more than you do. Knowledge is better than non-knowledge, objectively speaking. You're welcome to disagree, but I'm not sure you can do so rationally. |
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
And just in case you try...why knowledge is better than non-knowledge.
Definitions: knowledge-something you know. Very straightforward. Better-more good. Here's a tricky one. Good-desireable. Something good is something desired. I'm not making a value judgement as to whether something should be desired, merely acknowledging that to desire something is to see it as a good. Argument 1 1. A good is something desired. 2. A thing's desirability is directly proportionate to its perfection. We prefer the unbroken cookies. 3. A thing's perfection is directly proportionate to its actuality. An actual good is more desirable than a merely potential good. 4. An existent good is more desirable than a non existent good. Argument 2 1. Knowledge, of itself, is a good. We desire to know things, knowing them is knowledge. 2. Knowledge is more actual than non-knowledge; ignorance is a privation. 3. Knowledge is, thus, a greater good, that is, is more desirable than knowledge. Knowledge is better than non-knowledge. Note, this treats only knowledge per se, knowledge objectively speaking. It does not consider the questions of subjective knowledge, is it better to know your spouse cheated on you or not if it were never to be repeated, etc. This is plain logic, not casuistry. |
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Ok Tom, let's assume that your view is correct; that your personal experience is more in tune with what people really feel that what the dictionary says. You are then taking your personal view and projecting it onto "most people will be feel slighted." In your last line you indicate that your higher order of ethics and perception motivates you to protect others form themselves. To me these indicate and demonstrate a very superior attitude about our culture and your peers. So, you might be correct in your experienced view, but your statements prove the very point you wish to deny. We might all agree that "telling someone you are superior to them or acting in some manner superior to another person is likely to be taken as a challenge toward them or an attack on their being." Yet, that is eactly what you have done. But do not take offense -- this is how the world works.
Each of us gets firmly entrenched in a set of beliefs and values that we then defend with passion, even though those ideas were often planted there by others or dogmatic teaching. Ideally, one learns to reevaluate those beliefs in light of new evidence or experience. I personally believe that performance magic, and especially mentalism, provides unique expreiences and new evidence that can be used to enhance learning. the goal should not be just to be a btter performer, but to be a better person. Here we have seen the collapse of a potentially worthwhile thread because of different opinions on how a particular word is perceived by our audiences -- lay persons and peers. Both of us err in assuming or projecting our personal experienced view onto what "most people" think. Hopefully the readers here can look at both views and decide what works for them -- but that does not mean telling anyone what they must think. Each person probably substituted a different term and consider further arguement futile and even silly. One might reasonably say, "That word superior doesn't sit well with me and I would prefer an alternative that does not have any negative connotations. I like 'empowered' and 'knowledgeable' -- how about 'adept'?" Someone else might then chip in and we all agree to use that term "adept" in place of superior, taking us to the heart of the issue of how a mentalist should position himself relative to the audience on matters of paranormal stuff. Being "Adept" has some negative connotations for me, but I could accept that replacement for the purposes of fruitful discussion. Above all, we must all avoid making a judgment that our particular biased view is better thans some one else's. Tom is right on in suggesting that the use of any particular term, or presenting any character runs the risk of alienating some of the audience. Some may, in fact, have come to the performance predisposed to find fault and "take offense." [the following are opinions] So, in planning our character, disclaimers, routine flow of effects/demonstations we attempt to learn from the experiences of others. We read books and participate in online discussions. We also appraise each performance, balancing success and failure, and making changes in our perceptions of how best to engage an audience. This process should enhance our "pretend character" and our real character and make of us a better performer and a better person. However, as John pointed, this automatically but us in a position of being more knowledgeable that the audience -- a fact that definitionally is superior. No, we should not use that term in describing out character, but with a demonstration or statement that "I know something you do not" there is no magic. Now, the entire point I was trying to make from the start is that we become more adept in relating to other people, better able to learn and teach -- and better prepared to influence others with our experienced. This should not stop at the edge of the stage. Why should these skills be abandoned just becasue one is one the Internet? If being judgmental, arrogant, pedantic, rude, etc. does not work on stage with an unknown audience, why would it work with peers in a discussion? We practice our tricks and subtleties with friends and peers before going on stage. Why don't we use Internet exchange as practice for the character we wish to present to an audience as well? Congruency of character, values and "screen of logic" is essential to being professional -- or so it seems to me. So, Tom -- I would be very interested in learning your experienced views on why a mentalist should have one character on stage and another on the Internet? Tehn others might be encouraged to express their views as well -- and we can all learn.
"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 |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Really, John. You believe I confuse humility with deprecation. Please let me know how you arrive at this belief. I'm interested in your process.
|
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
While I just crashed out a very fine response to most of your post, funsway, I will address, before my eggnog latte binge wears off, the more inspiring (to me) part of your post. The reason one may act differently with their peers than on stage is simple. One is a performance, the other may be an impassioned discourse of the details of one's art. While I don't feel certain dignities should be ignored, certain pleasantries may be bruised in the reality of impassioned discourse. The true respect between artists is in knowing that even through such discourse, in the act of discussing and sometimes progressing the art in an animated way, may become heated; it is because of our passions for the art, not hatred of each other.
I am reminded of some of the "conversations" amongst impressionists and amongst dadaists which I have read about, second or third hand. Not perfect representations of what transpired, perhaps, but as close as I may ever get to those actual discussions back then in time. |
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-28 05:12, Tom Cutts wrote: Is the aquiring of a skill set really reason to be un humble? Here goes. 1. Your question implies the expectation of a negative answer and may thus be converted to the positive statement "Acquiring a skill set is not reason to be un-humble." 2. This is informal discourse, so I infer that by "reason" you do not simply intend the efficient cause but some sort of formal causality, a warrant for belief. I may then render yout statement, "Acquiring a skill set is not a good reason to be unhumble." 3. Now, unhumble may imply one of two things, either an overestimation of your own value or an underestimation of your own value. Context suggests the former. Your sentence could then be rendered, "Acquiring a skill set is not a good reason to overestimate your own value." 4. Now, I would agree with this statement. However, in the context of the discussion, you would seem to define this sort of non-humility as the act of believing yourself to be superior to your audience on the basis of the new skill set. 5. If you mean intrinsically superior, I would, as noted above, agree with your assessment, however, in this case, you were discussing superior ability. The hidden premise in your statement produces the following result. "The acquisition of a new skill set is not sufficient warrant for the performer to believe his skill set to be superior to that of the audience." 6. If you read my argument for the superiority of knowledge over non-knowledge, you may simply substitute skill and non-skill for knowledge and non-knowledge. Skill is superior to non-skill, objectively. 7. Humility is self-knowledge. Nothing more or less. To acknowledge my superior skills in, say, card handling, is in fact, perfectly humble if it is true. To say that my skills are not better than my audience, but merely different, is not humble, because it is not a factual assessment of my abilities. That negative humility is called deprecation. 8. The negative tone of your initial question implies that you view the second position (that my skills are not better, merely different) as preferable to the first (acknowledgement that my skills are superior). 9. The first position, since it is factual, is better and truer, than the second position. 10. Since you seem to reverse these values, I must conclude that you have confused one with the other. There's my thought process. Please show my missteps. (Also, note the distinction between accidental and intrinsic superiority. That is where the error in your logic lies.) |
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
Tom Cutts: I also disagree that a teacher must have "more knowledge" and "better knowledge". There are things to be learned from people with lesser amounts of knowledge. Sometimes learning comes in the form of different, rather than "more" or "better".
But, we aren't really talking about knowledge as a sum total, like flour in a sack, but about knowledge of a particular thing. Undifferentiated knowledge does not exist. To know is to know something. To know something that another doesn't is, in that instance, to know more. To know more is better. Knowledge is better than non-knowledge. |
|||||||||
nimrod Special user 881 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-27 09:08, Tom Cutts wrote: I agree with funsway. A mentalist is a superior human being in the audience eyes. That's what your audience always think if you do your job well. Always. Mentalists fail when they fall in the pits of arrogance and bragging, and that's a whole different story. Nimrod p.s. superior doesn't mean beyond reach. The secret is letting the audience understand that they can do it too. It's only a matter of knowledge, practice and... secrets. |
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-27 09:43, Tom Cutts wrote: Again, there is a distinction to be made between ontological, or intrinsic superiority (what you are referring to) and specific superiority (what Ken is referring to). You are merely quibbling over, not even a word, but a particular usage of a word that was not even intended by its user. This entire thread comes from a simple error on your part. |
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Fine thoughts, tom -- but I question whether what happens on Internet thread is "discourse." Not only does the "time-warp" problem lead to missunderstanding, but the lack of interpersonal feedback makes any discussion "fraught with peril."
I would love to have "face-to-face" discourse with many on the Café', having little confidence that Internet "snippets of thought" can properly convey one's thoughts or passion adequately. Your example of "conversations" were live interactions that I do not believe can occur on the Internet. The ability to control one's emotions during discourse is often cited as a measure of intellect. "Bruised pleasantries" are not the same as deliberate disrespect and rudeness. If one desires to be professional, why not make it a full time job? If anything, being precise, courteous and non-judgemental is even more critical for Internet communication (an artificial envirnoment) than in true interpersonal relations. Yet, what I see as "cut and run" tactics seem to prevail with more "dis" than "course." Another thought -- should not a "performance" be an empassioned communication of details of one's art? Isn't an objective of self-actualization to have "who you are" and "who you are perceived to be" merge? Thanks for planting that seed.
"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 |
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
Let me acknowledge that I intend no venom in my remarks. I'm not a particularly nice person; I don't claim to be. But there is no emotive quality to my analysis.
|
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Quote: Interesting. I thought the entire thread came from the original post. A post in which the following shortcoming of communication is made.
On 2010-11-28 06:46, JohnWells wrote: The author wrote Quote:
Successful mentalism requires establishing oneself as being somewhat superior, more empowered or more knowledgeable that the common folk. when it appears he meant "Successful mentalism requires establishing oneself as being somewhat superior in a skill set, or a knowledge set, and thusly is more empowered than the population at large." [Alternately, Ken could have meant by "more empowered", that a mentalism performer must establish oneself as more anointed by a greater power than the general public.] The thread is further compounded by continued disagreement over what is written vs what is meant... to the point that the author, abandoning it, asks for us to answer his baited question, which bait another member points out. But respectfully the thread starts heading in that direction. It appears to change subject until you, John, interject and restart the debate over what was actually written. By your logic it would seem, wouldn't it, that every post after yours is the cause of your post? If not, why not! If you submit that your post was "caused" by my post, then you must admit that my post was caused by the original post. A lot of round about to point out that your logic is flawed. I do not accept that more knowledge is better knowledge, just because it is more. More is just more, when it's only purpose is to have "more" it becomes functionally useless. Case in point torrent culture. They harbor knowledge, they hoard it and covet it, but most of it is useless to them. They have knowledge with absolutely no idea what it is capable of. Sometimes "more" is just more, not better. I'll be back to methodically dissect your every statement in response to your replies, if that is what it takes. I think most already get it. That would just be "more", not necessarily better. |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Quote: Yet still you push on here and in new threads you are starting. Are you hoping for something you question exists? Are you pontificating under the guise of starting a discussion?
On 2010-11-28 06:47, funsway wrote: When the Internet is the quintessential place for ego starved nobodies to come and pretend to be somebody, and anonymously attack the established famous names in our field, is it any wonder those famous names tire of it. The lack of respect begins in the way people with decades of real world experience are treated by people who only perform for friends and family, or to impress people at the local pub. That darn dog gets out of the neighbor's yard for the twentieth time and comes nipping at someone's heels they are within their right to either ask the authorities to remove the dog, or to retrain it by a reasonable aversion therapy. Quote: I suppose that depends on what you mean by communication. Details are brush strokes, pigmenting techniques, perspective cheats and such. Empassioned communication is a beautiful painting. Do we communicate the details, or de we communicate through the details?
Another thought -- should not a "performance" be an empassioned communication of details of one's art? Quote: Some claim that we are not responsible for the perceptions others have of us. By that I believe they are trying to protect "who you are" from being changed by the inaccurate "perceptions of others". I think that objective of self-actualization might be better served in saying "achieving a better understanding who you are and who you want to be, and then learn how to better communicate that to others.". But at the same time I hear the die-hard self-actualizers saying "forget about the perceptions of others".
Isn't an objective of self-actualization to have "who you are" and "who you are perceived to be" merge? Thanks for planting that seed. |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-11-28 06:47, funsway wrote: Art vs. Reality We are PERFORMERS (those of us who actually perform). As Mentalists we play the ROLE of people with amazing mental abilities. We create that ILLUSION. We are not what the audience may think we are. (A picture of a pipe is NOT a pipe.) If we believe that as Mentalists we genuinely ARE who we are PERCEIVED to be, we are delusional. Sean Penn played a mentally handicapped man in a film. He doesn't need the audience to believe that he is really mentally handicapped after they leave the theater in order for them to enjoy and appreciate his performance, nor does he go away from his job believing that he is truly mentally handicapped. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Quote: Right now I envision a darkened room where a Dadaist is fashioning a pipe out of a picture of a pipe. Probably only to take a picture of it, though.
|
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Great Entity -- but I was talking about the PERSON you are, not the mentalist you pretend to be. From the beginning I have forwarded the idea that performing as a Mentalist should have a beneficial effect on who you are as person, and that typical postings on the Internet hardly show any desireable traits at all. Why not?
If you wish to be consider a person whose opinions have weight, why not demonstrate that "worth" in the way you chose to communicate with others? I don't care if you peform three times a day for twenty years. If your postings are crude, rude, irrational ot judgemental, then your opinion was little worth. Yet, you offer, "As Mentalists we play the ROLE of people with amazing mental abilities," which sounds very much like my opening statment. Thanks for that. Ok Tom, I think I am finally beginning to understand you. If someone holds an opinion different from yours they are pontificating, but your personal opinion should be accepted as gospel no matter how irrational or inconsitent the various claims. I can understand why you object to the word "superior" when applied to others. I am glad you know a lot of "die hard self-actualizers." In my life I have met very few persons interested in actualizing themselves at all. Perhaps my problem is that I keep looking for more in life than pretending to do something on a stage or telling people what they must think on the Internet. Yes, I will continue to explore deeper questions about performing magic in all of its venues. If you don't like those questions you have the option not to read them.
"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 » » Penny for your thoughts » » Noblesse Oblige (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.1 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 < |