Research
after the lesson which touched on how wrestling matches try to get the audience to root for the face and to oppose the heel, I went off to watch more videos on it.
such as this one
such as this one
https://youtu.be/4AzE3m9d1zM
Of Slates and locke
we touched a bit on blank slate theory which is the idea that every man or woman is born as a metaphorical blank slate ready to be fully programmed, leans heavily into the idea of nurture on the nature vs nurture debate. I, While I respect locke have ventured away from these beliefs in the past few years. mainly because of the idea that different ethnicities can obtain different amount of calories from certain foods such as rice, the percentage of lactose intolerance tied to certain groups along with many other mutations across the world shows us there is a great deal of variety within human groups. physical mutations are linked to mental mutations since 80% of your genome is in the brain. therefore large amounts of physical mutations would needlessly say correlate to mutations in the mind and therefore naturally different ways of thinking. As well as a secondary but equally persuasive argument being that you can only nurture what is allowed within the parameters of the individual's nature. That being that only individuals of certain genetic makeup can be programmed to do certain things through nurture (Coercion).
Saussure
Saussure was apparently a bit of a genius.
That is to say that a group of people in the government or media could manufacture the language to work differently
Putting ideas in ads, movies, news etc
Because the idea is that, what’s the point of the BBC. Is it to tell you the correct things, or is it to tell you what is politically correct to believe?
I would point to the latter
But not have the narrow definition that the current political landscape has given the term ‘politically correct’ and to instead understand it as being something that all regimes and nations have in some shape or form
- He came up with this theory of “Langue & Parole”
- Langue being the abstractly conceived language.
- And Parole being specific instances of speech in practice.
- He states you don’t have to have a full understanding of language, just of the instances of speech.
That is to say that a group of people in the government or media could manufacture the language to work differently
Putting ideas in ads, movies, news etc
Because the idea is that, what’s the point of the BBC. Is it to tell you the correct things, or is it to tell you what is politically correct to believe?
I would point to the latter
But not have the narrow definition that the current political landscape has given the term ‘politically correct’ and to instead understand it as being something that all regimes and nations have in some shape or form
Jean Baudrillard
This is hands down, a pretty hefty set of ideas
1981 Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and simulation
- Reality is mediated by images
- Introduces concept of “hyper real”
- stems from architecture, ads, movies etc
Hyper real are representations so realistic, our brains stop thinking about the fact it’s not real and just a representation
Example: illness.
What can we make of a person who is really ill or someone who was convinced they were ill?
The two may as well be real. We cannot tell the difference in any practical sense until one says they recover from a placebo, and one doesn’t.
This ventures into Catholic vs Orthodox Iconoclasm splits.
Where orthodox believed you cannot simulate divinity through images. Because it would become just a poor substitute for the real thing. With no divinity behind it. That then becomes people’s ideas of divinity. In a cycle.
Phases of symbols
1 - faithful copy
2 - unfaithful copy
3 - pretending to be a faithful copy
4 - no correlation to reality what so ever.
TVs show us how people live, we then model ourselves after that, tv then copies us, we then copy it, in a loop.
Until we’re a mutated copy of a copy of a copy, who don’t even know what we are anymore, or why. Devoid of meaning.
This brings us to the present.
“Why does the modern world lack meaning?”
He answers saying
This then goes on to talking about how the media talking about movements creates artificial solidarity with certain groups, these people in solidarity are in fact doing nothing. They are just stimulating that part of the brain that they’re doing something. While they are in fact watching TV.
The movement therefore goes nowhere, energy and support goes nowhere and is destroyed.
Categorizing creative things destroys them by limiting them to a genre and stereotype of things. Giving it nowhere else to go
Higher education is non-functional, lacking in cultural substance and having no concept of knowledge.
Even in decades prior it was said to just be an experiment ground for new social ideas and political formulas to inject into the populace.
We have now fallen further, it is now merely a part of the apathetic empty vale structure of wider society.
1981 Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and simulation
- Reality is mediated by images
- Introduces concept of “hyper real”
- stems from architecture, ads, movies etc
Hyper real are representations so realistic, our brains stop thinking about the fact it’s not real and just a representation
Example: illness.
- - Truly ill people will lay in bed, maybe not show any symptoms
- - The pretender will exhibit every symptom known.
What can we make of a person who is really ill or someone who was convinced they were ill?
The two may as well be real. We cannot tell the difference in any practical sense until one says they recover from a placebo, and one doesn’t.
This ventures into Catholic vs Orthodox Iconoclasm splits.
Where orthodox believed you cannot simulate divinity through images. Because it would become just a poor substitute for the real thing. With no divinity behind it. That then becomes people’s ideas of divinity. In a cycle.
Phases of symbols
- reflection
- mask
- illusion
- pure simulation
1 - faithful copy
2 - unfaithful copy
3 - pretending to be a faithful copy
4 - no correlation to reality what so ever.
TVs show us how people live, we then model ourselves after that, tv then copies us, we then copy it, in a loop.
Until we’re a mutated copy of a copy of a copy, who don’t even know what we are anymore, or why. Devoid of meaning.
This brings us to the present.
“Why does the modern world lack meaning?”
He answers saying
- the modern world gives you too stimulation too fast. Too much info too fast makes it meaningless.
- information DESTROYS meaning and significance.
This then goes on to talking about how the media talking about movements creates artificial solidarity with certain groups, these people in solidarity are in fact doing nothing. They are just stimulating that part of the brain that they’re doing something. While they are in fact watching TV.
The movement therefore goes nowhere, energy and support goes nowhere and is destroyed.
Categorizing creative things destroys them by limiting them to a genre and stereotype of things. Giving it nowhere else to go
Higher education is non-functional, lacking in cultural substance and having no concept of knowledge.
Even in decades prior it was said to just be an experiment ground for new social ideas and political formulas to inject into the populace.
We have now fallen further, it is now merely a part of the apathetic empty vale structure of wider society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|