|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
christopher carter Special user 660 Posts 
|
John,
OK, that does make this issue look kinda trivial! --Chris |
|||||||||
Looch Inner circle Off by 3399 Posts
|
On that note I think this topic should now be locked
|
|||||||||
|
appletruth New user 81 Posts
|
Quote:
Surely you are smart enough to know that one can be watching a show they like and all of a sudden, something comes on that they did not expect, too late to change the TV. -Banachek Why is it too late to change the channel? If they stay its seems itâs because they have an interest. Quote:
Media is a part of almost all people's life in the US, I never said they were a necessity, never. Just that they are part of every day life. Surely you know that too. -Banachek I never said that you said it was a necessity for life, nor did I imply that you made such a comment. It was to help illustrate that they are activities taken in interest and not inescapable parts of everyday life. Quote:
And yes it takes time to find the program you may want to watch, however, what is on that program, like the McKenna statements are unexpected, surely you also know that. You seem very smart. Seems this was the problem with the Janet Jackson fiasco on the superbowl. Kids were watching, not enough time to change the set and they all saw some unexepected booby. -Banachek Iâm not sure what youâre getting at with these statements but that maybe unexpected events are unwanted. Is that correct? You would need to explain the purpose of these statements for me to give a response to whatever theyâre suggesting. Our expectations cause the unexpected to happen us. Quote:
Surely you also know it takes very litte effort to pick up the remote and switch on the TV to your favorite show. Very little effort at all. I don't have to turn the computer on and order it since I get cable (yes I have to pay the bill and yes I had to subscribe but heck even you know that was not to get the McKenna statements unlike a magic book you would have to be specifically going out of your way to purchase for specific information) -Banachek So whatâs the point youâre getting at, Banacheck? Life is a subscription to the unknown. What do you think? Quote:
you have to be stating that either exposure is okay or two that that magic books are wrong. If the exposure is equal in each case (as you stated) it has to be one or the other. To put it nother way in case you still do not understand, if magic books and tv exposure equal the same as you suggest, then if if exposure is wrong, magic books are wrong. If magic books are okay then exposure is okay. Your rules Appletruth, not mine. I personally think there is a dfiference, from your words you either do not think there is or are arguing for the sake of arguing. -Banachek No, I have not suggested this out of my own beliefs but I have suggested it from the reasoning youâve provided. On your terms I tried to show that how you discerned a difference did not actually show a difference. My words are just an extension of your own reasoning. That magic books and TV exposures equal the same, whether wrong or okay, is whatâs suggested by the consequences of the reasoning you have put forward so far(as I perceive it). Quote:
I'm tiring of this actually, it is silly. I did not want to get into an argument on this, just wanted to calm things down on both sides. I felt we should be concerened about exposures and work on stopping them in a positive civil way and not get fantatical about it. Seems that message has been lost. -Banachek It seems one should be clear at what actions quantify exposure first before they can effectively stop exposures in a positive civil way. Tiring and silly if one is incapable or does not want to change when ones reasoning cant squeeze out the exact results one desires. Your message isnât lost Banacheck, its just seems (to me) you find it tiring and silly to put the work in to solve the problem your message is concerned with. Regards, Appletruth Quote:
No, I am saying the burden lies with the giver.. The media in which a person puts out information is the discussion here. Information given for study to further someone in the art of magic is not exposure. A TV show called Mentalists / Magicians 'Exposed' is, and has been put into this format for an explicit purpose...-salsa_dancer Oh, ok. So a TV show called âLearn the art of being a Mentalist and Magicianâ would not be seen as exposure to you because the information is given to further someoneâs learning in this art. Do I have this correct? Quote:
I didn't dance through anything, you stated you were arguing for understanding... I just fail to see how one can 'argue' to understand. By its very nature it cannot happen.. now if you are 'questioning' to understand then that is a different matter entirely...-salsa_dancer Argue: To debate or discuss; to offer reasons to support or overthrow a proposition or opinion; to call into question⊠In what way, salsa_dancer, did you come to believe arguing by its definition or by its nature cannot bring about understanding? Please explain. Quote:
It is hard to have a discussion using this medium as tonal inflections cannot be expressed and words can be taken to mean different things, and of course you have the language barriers that transcends the Internet...-salsa_dancer Why do you think that tonal inflections cannot be expressed in this medium? Quote:
I don't want to be drawn into philisophical discussions, I am here to further my learning so I will kindly bow out of the conversation. Thank You..-salsa_dancer Odd statement. By any chance you decide to look up the word argue in the dictionary take a look at philosophy as well, it might further your learning. Regards, Appletruth |
|||||||||
Banachek V.I.P. Houston 1164 Posts
|
Appletruth, you are way to smart for all of us. I can't compete with your intelligence so no point in doing so. Have fun.
In thoughts and Friendship
Banachek Campus Performer of the Year two years in a row Year 2000 Campus Novelty Act PEA Creativity Award Recipient http://www.banachek.com |
|||||||||
MrCyNic Loyal user England 238 Posts
|
... and here comes Appletruth with a steel chair! My God, what a shot! He's cleared the ring! Appletruth has cleared the ring!!!
Ahem... Sorry, just got the Wrestling Channel in the UK. Interesting discussion. Cheers, Cy. |
|||||||||
|
appletruth New user 81 Posts
|
Quote:
Appletruth, you are way to smart for all of us.-Banachek How did you come to this conclusion? It seems to me like an impertinent assumption thatâs only purpose in this discussion would be to try and alienate me from others. Quote:
I can't compete with your intelligence so no point in doing so. Have fun.-Banachek I wasnât aware this was a competition of intelligence (if there could be such a thing) but thought it was an inquiry into what constitutes an unwanted exposure of information. An understanding of what establishes unwanted exposures from other wanted forms, I think, would be needed before one could even consider what the problem is or how to deal with it. Maybe you did not have this goal in this discussion. Well, Banachek, I hope you had fun and will have fun. Regards, Appletruth |
|||||||||
salsa_dancer Inner circle 1935 Posts
|
[quote]On 2004-05-25 11:53, appletruth wrote:
Quote:
No, I am saying the burden lies with the giver.. The media in which a person puts out information is the discussion here. Information given for study to further someone in the art of magic is not exposure. A TV show called Mentalists / Magicians 'Exposed' is, and has been put into this format for an explicit purpose...-salsa_dancer No you don't. There is no difficulty in tuning in to a TV show in comparison to researching via a book. Quote:
Odd statement. By any chance you decide to look up the word argue in the dictionary take a look at philosophy as well, it might further your learning. Oh dear... the term argument, regardless of the dictionary definition is often taken to mean a discussion with hostility, and often by its very nature people are unable to see another point of view. Very different to a discussion... I come to 'The Magic Café' to further my learning in this subject not play the 'who is cleverer than who' game... I maintain that you are unwilling to see the point of view offered by others and resort to the constant 'why?' questioning, without giving the impression that you are remotely interested in the answer.. I agree with Banachek, I am not sure I am intelligent enough to be able to offer you a constructive discussion. Regards, Richard P.S. Out of curiosity what the hell is it that causes the crazy symbols to appear in your posts? Makes it difficult to read... |
|||||||||
|
appletruth New user 81 Posts
|
Quote:
Oh, ok. So a TV show called âLearn the art of being a Mentalist and Magicianâ would not be seen as exposure to you because the information is given to further someoneâs learning in this art. Do I have this correct?-Appletruth So are you telling me that unwanted exposure is measured by comparing the difficulty of engaging in one medium over another? If this is the case then all one needs to do is compare the difficulty of engaging in a magic book to something that is perceived more difficult to engage in to make the magic book an unwanted exposure. That, I think, would seem to be a funny way to define unwanted exposure. Quote:
Oh dear... the term argument, regardless of the dictionary definition is often taken to mean a discussion with hostility, and often by its very nature people are unable to see another point of view. Very different to a discussion...-salsa_dancer I canât tell if you still think I used argue incorrectly for my purpose. You just had an incorrect (one-sided) conception of the word. Quote:
I come to 'The Magic Café§ to further my learning in this subject not play the 'who is cleverer than who' game...-salsa_dancer Do you perceive this discussion with me as a game of âwho is cleverer than who?â If your answer is a âyesâ then are you aware that youâre contradicting your stated intentions by having participated in this discussion? Quote:
I maintain that you are unwilling to see the point of view offered by others and resort to the constant 'why?' questioning, without giving the impression that you are remotely interested in the answer..-salsa_dancer To ask âwhy?â is to be curious. To be curious is to be interested. My questions relate to and arise from the answers given thus showing my interest in the answers. To not get the impression Iâm interested, salsa_dancer, just seems to tell me that one is trying to paint a false picture of the situation to uphold ones vacuous opinion that I do not care about the subject in discussion. Quote:
I agree with Banachek, I am not sure I am intelligent enough to be able to offer you a constructive discussion.-salsa_dancer This sounds like a cop-out. Quote:
"P.S. Out of curiosity what the hell is it that causes the crazy symbols to appear in your posts? Makes it difficult to read..."-salsa_dancer Sorry. I donât know what youâre speaking of. Regards, Appletruth |
|||||||||
|
salsa_dancer Inner circle 1935 Posts
|
Appletruth,
I guess I should stop replying, but I am easily drawn into conversation. The bottom line, in MY opinion (not saying this is right but it is how I view it) is that TV exposure is likely to be viewed by more people than will pick up a magic book to find out how things are done. Let me give you an example.. My girlfriend will ask how something is done and I will direct her to my bookcase filled with books. To this day she has never once opened any of the books, yet I have come home and found her watching the Masked Magician and saying she knows how some things are done now.... You are right in one respect where you said I am using a line as a cop out in your post. You seem intent on littering your argument with dictionary definitions and big words, it is very easy to read something and then pick it apart. I don't particurlarly have time to check word definitions before I post, so if I use something in a different context to the definition that you are using then I apologise. I love a good discussion, but I don't think you realise the frustration you cause when all you do is pick apart what is being put forward, this is not conducive to a good discussion. For this you would need a modicum of understanding and possibly 'some' compromise. With regard to the strange symbols, you may not be aware but every time you use an apostrophe it puts 3 strange symbols in it's place (â ) which makes it difficult to read. I look forward to my post being picked apart 
Richard |
|||||||||
|
dg Regular user 122 Posts
|
I agree this topic should be locked. There are varying opinions about exposure from different sources.
The main point should be the type of exposure which damages magic and reveals magic principles which are at the cornerstone of our art, should be stopped. Exposure for exposures' sake is wrong. The other argument is, the wealth of knowledge on the internet means it is easy for people to learn a lot about magic without ever walking into a magic shop or buying a book/dvd. In my opinion the best way to keep on top of this is to constantly create new effects, based on existing principles or not; by this I mean to reinvent your existing routines to give different presentations and try to keep your audience on their toes. Magicians have been doing this for ever. OK now you can lock it |
|||||||||
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts
|
The discussion is worthwhile, not because we will reach agreement, but because it will help each of us refine the ideal to which we strive.
The point of these discussions, I think (and the reason the thread is useful and should not be locked), is that it helps us refine our definitions of the factors and helps us to weight them. I know, for instance, that my discussions with Chris Carter have helped me clarify my thoughts and, as a result, have made me a better magician. It's probably true that there will always be disagreement as to what constitutes unacceptable exposure of magical secrets since each of us is likely to define factors and weight them differently. Off the top of my head, I can think of four major factors:
2) The likely recipient of the information. The balance we try to strike is to make the information available to those who will use it to entertain while keeping it secret from the merely curious. The best way to do this is difficult to determine. Ed Marlo, for example, had a series of treatises on shuffling techniques. At one time, you had to buy them directly from him. He decided if you were worthy to receive the information, and, he would only sell them to you in a specified order. That's probably the most restrictive approach I've heard of. So, to answer a question that appletruth has posed: yes, the difficulty of accessing the medium is part of the equation. No system of dissemination that we design will be foolproof, but we can try. 3) The likely impact. Here, we have a great split of opinion. Some magicians believe that any exposure of any secret, no matter how trivial, is a breach of some ethic. Others believe that the likely impact of the exposure on magic is just one more factor to consider. I fall into the latter category. It's not that I condone the exposure of small secrets, it's simply that I don't get too upset about it --- it's the same reasoning we use to refrain from imposing the death penalty for jay-walking. Some things are simply more important than others. 4) The intent of the person who is revealing the secret. Again, there is great division among magicians on this point. I personally think that intent is an important factor. Others adhere more to a "strict liability" theory. For me, this factor has to do with how I respond to a person's revelation of a secret. However, it is a factor I consider in the whole calculus. So, does anyone want to discuss other things that factor into the mix or how they weight the ones I have listed? I'd like to discuss the ideas, though, not specific individuals. :nose:
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
|
shrink Inner circle 2609 Posts
|
God what a lot of hot air and wasted time in this thread! .....
Im gonna read a book on Zen... :) |
|||||||||
|
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts
|
Quote: Thank you, shrink. I think you should read a book on Zen.... but only if it makes you happier than hurling insults at other people.
On 2004-05-26 10:27, shrink wrote: When you finish the book, perhaps you could contribute some thoughts to the thread. :nose:
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
|
dg Regular user 122 Posts
|
Just a quick question, throughout the history of magic has exposure been such a problem? or is it the case that the information is easier to come by these days?
|
|||||||||
|
MrCyNic Loyal user England 238 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2004-05-26 10:01, John Clarkson wrote: Beautifully put, John, and one of the most lucid and thought-provoking posts I've read in a long time. As you've stated, the focus of this thread belongs firmly on the issue, and not the personalities involved. The only "hot air" I've read in this thread has been a few incidences of (IMO) belligerent and childish name-calling, of no value to the discussion. Cheers, Cy. |
|||||||||
David Todd Inner circle 1810 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2004-05-26 10:01, John Clarkson wrote: Great list , great post , John. This one is a keeper . I think intent is a huge factor. Some people try to pooh-pooh the impact of the Valentino /Howard Becker types of crass exposing by saying that they are really not much different than , say, the Mark Wilson Course in Magic, or Bobo's MCM being widely available in Barnes & Noble or other popular bookstore chains. However, for me the intent and the attitude of the authors of an instructional book vs. the "hey look how it's done" attitude of the exposers changes everything. |
|||||||||
|
christopher carter Special user 660 Posts
|
John's questions are worth hashing out. I don't entirely agree that it is better to examine them purely in the abstract, without reference to real-world incidents. While I very much agree that it our first priority is our own behavior, I still believe that our obligations to the secrets we hold in trust also requires us to police the actions of others (hopefully wisely and cautiously.)
If the rules are that we can't discuss real-life examples I'm still up for the talk, because at least we can discuss something. --Chris |
|||||||||
|
DaveS Veteran user New York 329 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2004-05-26 12:32, christopher carter wrote: Chris, As a resident of the US East Coast, I had hoped to attend one of Ian Rowland's lectures during his planned tour this Spring. Then I learned from his web-site that: "The vocal minority of people who hold the sincere, passionate and yet misguided view that 'Ian is a magic exposer' contacted some of the magic traders and organisations who were participating (e.g. hosting or sponsoring a lecture) and made various threats. So people pulled out, so the tour wasn't viable any more, so it's been cancelled." It's not my intention to re-open a can of worms here, nor am I suggesting that this is the sort of "policing" action you have in mind or that you would use "wisdom and caution" to describe the actions of a few who would take it upon themselves to act as police, prosecutor and jury on matters of "exposure." Just that, IMO, without the sort of standards John is proposing for discussion and some semblance of "due process" (not sure what that would be in the mentalism community) the business of "policing" exposers is a slippery slope. DaveS
We shall not cease from exploration/And the end of all our exploring/Will be to arrive where we started/And know the place for the first time. (TS Elliot)
|
|||||||||
|
appletruth New user 81 Posts
|
Quote:
Let me give you an example.. What if you pointed to a stack of magic videos and lets say she did watch one, then would that make the video unwanted exposure? Or lets just say she did read one of your books, would that book become unwanted exposure now? It sounds like, according to what youâve said, that what she decides to do (the receiver) is what will determine what is unwanted exposure. I thought you rejected this stance in an earlier post. Quote:
You seem intent on littering your argument with dictionary definitions and big words, it is very easy to read something and then pick it apart. I don't particurlarly have time to check word definitions before I post, so if I use something in a different context to the definition that you are using then I apologise.-salsa_dancer My argument, I think, is not littered with dictionary definitions for I only gave them in one post to clear up an incorrect and empty point you made that was to call into question my intentions. I feel (by these comments youâve made) that you resent me for clearing up your misconception. Quote:
I love a good discussion, but I don't think you realise the frustration you cause when all you do is pick apart what is being put forward, this is not conducive to a good discussion. For this you would need a modicum of understanding and possibly 'some' compromise.-salsa_dancer The frustration, I would imagine, is a result from someone struggling with their inadequacy to deal with the problems of their own reasoning (a struggling against the self) or communication (a struggle to make known). My observations and questions in this case are to illuminate (to make apparent) what I find as incoherencies and failings in the reasoning put forward by someone to support their beliefs. They, I think, have themselves to blame for their frustrations â the tiring and the silliness. I would think having things made apparent that maybe otherwise werenât would be conducive in a discussion. Could one learn in a discussion if everyone was in agreement and everything was apparent? It is these aspects in a discussion, disagreement and ignorance, that indicates to me the promising possibility that learning and a greater understanding can maybe take place in the discussion. To avoid these aspects, to compromise the struggles of understanding, is to accept some vacant account of how things seem by way of our preconceived notions and wishful thinking. Quote:
With regard to the strange symbols, you may not be aware but every time you use an apostrophe it puts 3 strange symbols in it's place (â ?) which makes it difficult to read.-salsa_dancer We may, Iâm guessing, have some aspect of the site setup differently. I donât see the symbols. ----------------------- Quote:
I agree this topic should be locked. There are varying opinions about exposure from different sources. What would be the motivation for wanting to lock this topic? It would only seem to paralyze people from expressing their opinions and prevent any potential there may be for a better understanding of the subject at hand. For someone to express that this topic should be locked and then go on to add other thoughts can draw one to the conclusion that this someone, is either unknowingly contradicting their statements as to what they want, or, does not find it distasteful to express ones-self to others and then promote the prevention of others to do the same. If one wants to have a topic starve to death then donât feed it, donât refortify it. The nutritional value of what one feeds the topic can be debated but just because someone might perceive it as suffering from malnutrition it does not mean it will always suffer⊠for it may grow healthy if given the chance to be nourished. Regards, Appletruth |
|||||||||
|
salsa_dancer Inner circle 1935 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2004-05-26 16:42, appletruth wrote: I think you may misunderstand me here. The point I am making here is out of the choices offered, including DVD's, she went with the one that she happened to stumble across on the television, the easy option... In the example I stated, 'I' was the exposer for offering the chance to look in the books. She, as the receiver, turned this down, I have asked her why she watched the show on TV and she said 'because it was the only thing on worth watching' there was no desire to learn the secrets and without that show being made she never would have... does this make a difference? |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Magic names and the media » » Paul Mckenna exposes! (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: May 25, 2004 01:02 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.38 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 < 
|