HI David,
I feel I AM GOING TO PISS YOU OFF WITH THIS ONE, so enjoy the ride.
You said:
> On the other it seems to me that Mary might feel a little cheated,
> because there is certainly such a thing as emotional manipulation.
> Hitler springs to mind. He could whip the crowds into a frenzy. He
> persuaded millions to die for his cause. He was a master of emotional
> manipulation.
I say:
This is true, there is such thing as human manipulation, it gets you
convinced, but it is difficult to HOD THIS VIEW FOR LONG. This why Hitler
needed his Gestapo.
You said:
Maybe that's not a great example because any failure to be
> persuaded might be fatal. Thank god there's no chance of that happening
> here. (Accept my point of view or I'll hunt you down and kill you!)
I say:
START HUNTING ME DOWN. It's possible everywhere. Realizing its possibility
is the first step in inventing means to stop this possibility from
happening.
You said:
> then there are the television evangelists....
I say:
Yes, In the realm of Religion it is difficult to urge with people's belief,
unless you compromise the freedom in what to believe in. But there is a way
out [I think]. It lies in my opinion, in the relationship between believing
and knowing [epistemology my friends, one of my favorite fields of meaning].
If you turn your belief into an "a priori knowing" then you're dogmatic, the
other option will be to turn the tables on the relations between belief and
knowledge, namely, believing is there where knowledge is lacking. And then
you may turn against these preachers. The question is if society is ready
for such a change, substituting false [secure] knowledge with true unsecure
openness. Nobody knows the answer so the only way is to try and fail, the
moment you stop failing you got the answer.
You said:
> It seems to me that its harder to manipulate people with logic.
> Rationality is usually cleaner, clearer and subject to independent
> verification. Two plus two equals four and its simply NOT a matter of
> opinion or taste.
I say:
It's a matter of Quality. 2+2 = 4 is true in mathematics, however it is
abstract, IT'S EXPERIENCE IS NOT ENJOYABLE [of high quality]. The problem is
to make the experience of 2+2 =4 ENJOYABLE. Solve that, and we are half way
trough. We moved from a literary culture [intellectuality in an abstract
form of language and mathematics, without intervention of the senses] to a
digital culture were sensory data is "part of the picture" in more than one
way, hence experience is vital to any understanding. So to prove that 2+2 =
4, is one thing [necessary but not sufficient], but to make it tangible
"what does it do for me" is quite another task. The experience [usually] of
excepting that 2+2=4 is more of a rape then of a hug. How to get people to
embrace truth USING THEIR FREE WILL is the issue.
You said:
However, one is the loneliest number, it takes two to
> tango and three's crowd. Blah blah blah.
I say:
Here I failed to understand you, please elaborate.
You said:
> Rush Limbaugh, the most popular talk radio personality in the USA, seems
> like an apt example. He uses pathos very effectively. He flatters his
> audience at every opportunity, telling them that they right, good, and
> decent Americans. Their enemies, the liberals, are wrong, bad, corrupt
> and UnAmerican. I'm sure its very charming for a conservatives to
> believe this.
I say:
Rush Limbo way has quality. It establishes an "us", a secure [false, but
secure], body of identity, which is stable warm patriarchal etc.. Why can't
you come up with a similar quality of bond between listeners and you,
creating the same quality of identity, but holding your ideas? The answer to
why you haven't developed it so far is that in your opinion, truth is self
evident, it needs no PR etc. Well, it is not true. You neglected the side of
the listening experience, you failed to make it an experience of quality. In
MoQ as in baking, to produce a good cake, ALL INGREDIENTS HAVE TO BE OF
QUALITY. It is enough that you forgot one thing, to let the cake become bad.
So flatter your audience, let them have fun, show them what they win if they
prefer you over Rush Limbo.
You said:
> He uses ethos very effectively too. Although his self-proclaimed
> authority must seem pathetic to those with real credentials, the
> audience is quite willing to believe that Rush's talent is "on loan from
> God", as he puts it. He refers to his radio network (EBI) as the
> "excellence in broadcasting" network. And the show itself is called the
> "Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies". This
> moniker is obviously meant to imply that the host is a great teacher and
> the audience members are flattered to think that they are like grad
> students. Its pathos and ethos.
I say:
Rosh is playing with quality. He says "I am quality". Prove him wrong, not
in a dire way, but in an enjoyable way in a quality way. Rosh is an
excellent example of an upset that can encourage creativity.
On one hand you cannot say that he is moral [has quality], on the other you
can sense his quality and so can his listeners. So you have to accept that
he has some quality, one that can trigger you into producing a better way of
Radioing.
You said:
> But when it comes to logos, there's no there there. Zip. Zero. Nada.
I say:
This is not a necessary requirement to quality radioing, but don't despair,
if you can come up with a better form of radioing, whatever he is doing plus
logos, then you have a real chance "to kick his ass" qualitatively. Rosh
Limbo is an excellent school for quality radioing.
You said:
> The truth is that talk radio is aimed at the least educated of the
> political class. Rush certainly has no advanced degrees of any kind. I'm
> not sure if he ever went past high school. In any case, he is mostly
> ignorant and irrational, even if he is a very cleaver speaker
I say:
So, what? DQ is NOT ABOUT HAVING A DEGREE, IT IS ABOUT QUALITY OF
EXPERIENCE. Now YOU sound very conservative to me [unilateral to say the
least]. If he is clever that's enough so far, nobody gives him "a good
[qualitative] fight". Not if you prefer your degree [which undoubtfully you
have] to your actions in Radioing. The very idea that you have a national
radio to flee to, is more than Rush Limbo has, if he is out, he is out. The
cultural immune system is on your side, he is the one on the attack, and he
wins [because quality is on his side], you want to win him, act in
accordance to quality.
You say:
>This is
> not just my liberal opinion. Entire books have been written about his
> ignorance and irrationality.
>
> There a numerous book that point out where Rush has presented facts that
> are simply not true or failed to present relevant and crucial facts that
> he failed to mention. That sort of task is relatively easy because facts
> can be independently verified. But its interesting that a Philosophy
> professor, whose name escapes me, wrote a book about Rush's logical
> errors. This approach avoided the disputation of facts and aimed instead
> at his inability to think clearly and logically. The professor showed
> how the host's conclusions just didn't follow from the facts. He showed
> how his thought simply didn't add up or make rational sense. His
> analogies held no water. Very often Rush would spend a great deal of
> time defeating positions held by no one. He'd invent straw men and then
> knock them down, rather than debate an actual person. In fact, he is
> credited with inventing a whole new talk-radio format and its been
> imitated by nearly everyone in the business. Its called "non-guested
> confrontation". This is where the host confronts a guest who does not
> exist.
I say:
HA HA HA, how many people READ THE BOOK ABOUT RUSH LIMBO REFUTATIONS?
This Philosophy professor was either an idiot in communication, or he chose
his elite comrades to become his sole audience. Show me one book, that
convinced people out of a TV or radioed idea. The literal medium is weaker
then Radio or TV, it is a less convincing medium, its convincing on a lesser
[more abstract] quality.
The idea that Rosh Limbo gets imitated is the best proof for his quality.
PEOPLE RECOGNIZE QUALITY WHEN THEY SENSE IT.
Nobody prevents YOU to create a qualitative countermovement.
You said:
> I worked as a talk-radio producer and host between 1993 and last summer.
> In that time all the liberal hosts were fired and replaced with folks
> who are as uneducated and irrational as Rush. A civil rights attorney
> was replaced by a cop. A classical music conductor was replaced by a
> guardian angel. A veteran journalist was replaced by a pro football
> player. A feminist was replaced by Dr. Laura. The list goes on. You can
> probably see why I quit talk-raido and went to public broadcasting
, eh?
I say:
All It proves is that intellectuality is NOT THE ONLY MEASURE FOR QUALITY in
radioing.
You say:
> I mention all this for a reason; It's a prime example of dishonest and
> manipulative rhetoric and our nation is drowning in it. It would be
> pretty easy to make a case that Rush and his imitators had a lot to do
> with the conservative take over of the US House of Representatives. The
> dishonest manipulation in talk radio was very effective.
I say:
Yes, that's right, you got a point, but find a way to convey it, with
quality, so it holds water not as an idea only, but as a point of
identification [like hustler magazine campaign against corrupted
conservative politicians]. Make a show letting people win money prizes to be
truthful and innovative, make them date supermodels who admire a good
analytical mind etc..
You say:
>
> The folks at the radio station know what they're doing, but don't see
> anything wrong with it. They know that commercial radio is not
an
> intellectual medium, its a social medium.
I say:
It can be both. It can be socially popular and intellectually superb, BUT
YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE QUALITY TANGIBLE.
You say:
I was criticized repeatedly
> for being a "wonk". (A person who is familiar with political policy
> issues.) I was told, more than once, to stop using fancy vocabulary
> words like "manifesto". (The unabomber's manifesto was a topic in the
> news at the time.) And several times I was asked, "What do you think
> this is, public broadcasting?"
>
> Management told me to stop being such a brainiac and just "feel the
> issues with your gut". "You gotta go for the visceral reactions", they
> said. And the audience essentially reacted in the same way. I got tons
> of hate-mail and even a couple of death threats. (Which have to be taken
> seriously these days. Alan Berg worked at the same station before he was
> gunned down by some militia guys.) One of the listeners even tried to
> organize a boycott of the station in order to get me off the air. The
> whole scene produced a very strange mix of feelings. I was
flattered,
> proud, disgusted and terrified.
I say:
Karl Popper says: Let your ideas die instead of you. I agree. The time of
dry abstract intellectualism AS THE ONLY FORM OF QUALITY is over, so change,
accept the fact that YOU are not QUALITATIVE ENOUGH, just to start a journey
toward quality. Quality is a holistic phenomenon, it is of the situation as
a whole, so change yourself, BECOME BETTER.
You say:
> I'm aware of Marshall McLuan's "THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE", but still
> can't believe that what's happened in talk-radio is "normal" of
> "natural". It sure felt like a concerted effort to me. It seems to me
> that the mass media managers and owners are threatened by intellectuals.
I say:
That in order to survive without central funding, they have to break free
from intellectualism [as the ONLY form of quality] and allow themselves to
relay on other forms of quality [such as entertainment, fun, economic
qualities] that will make their listeners identification stronger [this
includes hosts who are less intellectual].
You say:
> Corporate media, and that even includes public broadcasting to some
> extent, is much more interested in the bottom line than they are in the
> value of ideas. But I don't understand why this should be so totally
> dominant.
I say:
They found out a qualitative formula. Find a better way.........
You say:
There are forty-something radio stations in this market and
> there is not a single liberal or intellectual voice among them. Not even
> one. It feels like a conspiracy, even if it isn't. It feels like the
> Giant wants to kick my ass.
I say:
You probably experience the will of society [or of Radioing] as a complex
creature which you are part of [MoQ is very useful here].
You say:
> Why can't talk-radio make a little room for real confrontation with
> actual living guests, rather than just straw men. Conversation is an
> art, among other things. Those who read and write make good talkers, no?
> I don't know why television and movies can't be intellectual and artful.
I say:
Does it have an audience? Will they be loyal as Rosh Limbo's audience are?
Can you MAKE THEM AS LOYAL? This is the way to change al this.....
You say:
> It seems that these forms have been appropriated by commercial interests
> and that has a degenerative effect, dragging the intellectual level down
> into the realm of social values.
I say:
Right now it seems that society prefers economic value to intellectual
value. So why not try to create something which has both?
You say:
It feels like some kind of corruption
> to me. Its emotional and manipulative because that's the easiest way to
> get attention and keep the ratings high, but it does a dis-service to
> democracy insofar as democracy depends on a well informed citizenry.
I say:
Did I piss you off already? Because if not THIS IS GOING TO PISS YOU OFF.
Well, What you call corruption is a social preference to shift from
intellectualism to commercialism [substituting one form of quality with
another]. This is highly democratic, rating is democratic, but it doesn't
produce [enough] quality, as you can clearly sense. So you have to give up
either democracy as quality or intellectualism as quality, because in your
case they obviously collide.
If you say, Radio should be democratic, then all opinions and voices should
be EQUALLY heard. Then please accept this AS QUALITY.
But if you think intellectualism IS QUALITY, you should be honest and label
yourself as antidemocratic.
But you can also say, I don't like what is happening and try to find a new
way to combine intellectualism in a way that will allow for the masses to
identify with [and the rating will follow].
You say:
>I
> mean its not just that my views are under-represented. It actually harms
> the larger society and sometimes even gets people killed. (Like Alan
> Berg)
I say:
This is a direct result of the cultural immune system.
You say:
> "Thinking with the gut" and "going for that visceral reaction" must be
> one way of describing the way AROUND the intellect. If one is trying to
> persuade a person to adopt an irrational position, then one has to find
> a way to circumvent the intellect. The main thrust of the idea is that
> we ignore the mind and try to effect to emotions and the body directly.
I say:
This is a RESPONSE, or correction to the previous state of abstract
literacy. Our culture moves from Abstract ideas quality to Sensory quality,
this is a wise move [in my opinion]. It says that in order to convince
somebody, to show him your brilliant way of thought is not enough, YOU HAVE
TO TOUCH HIS GUTS, CONVINCE THE MARROW OF HIS BONES, be more total in your
communication. The dawning of a new quality.
You say:
> TV ads seem like an apt example here. Do you really want whiter teeth
> and fresher breath, or are the advertisers just tapping into feelings of
> inferiority and insecurtiy? Do you go to McDonalds because its wholesome
> food, or because you think "you deserve a break today"? Is it the best
> hair color on the market according to Consumer Reports, or is it just
> "because you're worth it"?
> Can smell the obsession? Yea, Tricks are for kids, but the trick is
> there's hardly any food in that box of colorful sugar. See what I'm
> getting at?
I say:
And what is Rethorics, but a bag of tricks [since old Greece] till today?
You say:
> Even the most rational over-educated philosophy professor in the world
> will react to images of sex and death. The most Stoic of Stoics can't
> stop themselves from being aroused by sexual images. The most saintly
> sage can't prevent the feeling of horror and disgust engendered by the
> sight of a mutilated body. Those images appeal directly to the gut. They
> go into the eye, run right past the intellect, and effect the organism
> itself. That's why sex sells everything from cigarettes to automobiles.
> It doesn't matter what the content is because the rational mind has been
> excluded from the process. As long they associate their product with
> getting laid, people will buy it. (Are you as turned on as I am right
> now? Pant pant pant) This kind of manipulation seems even lower that
> using sentiments and emotion. Here the advertisers are using involuntary
> physiological responses to their advantage.
I say:
It is QUALITY. IT IS FUN. WHY NOT? MANIPULATE ME, BRIBE ME, SEDUCE ME.....
I'll have fun all the way. This is sensory quality. This is lacking from dry
intellectualism, this is WHY I enjoy pissing you off, in the name of
QUALITY.
You say:
>Its not even social, its
> just biological. Now that's degenerate !
I say:
Biological is lower then social, but this doesn't mean that you can live of
Social Quality only. You tapped into one of Pirsig's blind points. His
mistake about the fully independence of the layers from each other. I have
"a patch" for this "bug", but right now it is too long to go into it now.
Biological quality is independent of social quality, and as quality is
holistic quality will be present only if all the layers reflect quality in a
given situation.
You say:
> Letterman did a brilliant parody of this last night. The show was
> allegedly sponsored by America Online, which promised that computer
> nerds can date supermodels, if they subscribe to the service. It was
> very funny.
>
> Even when ads in the mass media appeal to the intellect it is usually a
> degenerate form and really comes down to dazzling the audience with
> words that sound scientific. Visine get the red out because it has
> "tetrahydrozoline"? Certs freshen your breath because of the "retsin"?
> Only a stinky, blearly-eyed chemist knows what these things are. To most
> of us the psuedo-scientific words are just ethos, they lend an air of
> authority like the guy who is not a doctor, but plays one on TV.
I say:
So have a laugh, enjoy the show.
You say:
> The advertiser probably doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. We know
> the motive is money, not truth or clarity. Nor should we expect
> scientific accuracy among political partisans, but this forum is neither
> commercial nor political. But having said all that about emotional
> manipulation, I want to point out that no one here has anything to sell.
I say:
Here you go wrong again. Here we all are selling attention. [If I want to
put it into economic SPQ]
You say:
> As far as I can tell there are no political activists here. We can be
> suspicious of the motives of others only to a certain point.
> Personally, I would like to persuade others.
I say:
Yes so would I. This is a game. Understanding + persuasion = quality.
You say:
>But its not about money or
> power. Its about Pirsig's ideas.
I say:
Can you imagine how many people died on holding ideas only in western
culture? Yes it is about money, about power, they are EXPRESSIONS OF
QUALITY.
You say:
>I am also happy to be persuaded by
> others.
I say:
So do I, as I enjoy to sell my talent and buy Coca Cola instead.
You say:
And I don't think its possible to participate and take it
> seriously without risking some hurt feelings and bruised egos. Anything
> less would be a dry, boring, strictly academic exercise.
I say:
Now you got it, the transition of quality from dry [abstract] academic
quality to a more sensory quality of broken ego's and hurt feelings, gut
persuasion, and if I get lucky, a few beautiful supermodels to adore me...
You say:
>This ain't no
> tea party, this is philosophy.
I say:
It's high time to return to old Greek way of Symposium, meaning not only a
tea party but a whole banquet. So qualitatively I would rather say:"Not only
is this philosophy , it's a wonderful tea party too.
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:09 BST