What our world has become. by Fremdfirma

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Very interesting post which, as always, gives me a lot to consider.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 9:10 AM

Well, HK, in the first place, I wish you would have given me the dignity of talking to me, like an adult, rather than about me, like a child. You decry many of the remarks I made, and yet you show me absolutely no respect? Come on, how am I not supposed to be offended by that alone? The fact that you talked about me and Khyron and AgentRouka instead of to any of us makes me think that you're less interested in actual dialogue than you are with conversing with people who already agree with you. And for someone who prides himself on his ability to think clearly and make his own judgments, your startling disinclination to even talk to people who disagree with you is just sad.

As for your remarks, I wish that you would have reacted more cognitively and less emotionally because very little of what you said actually responded to what I was saying. Most of it was reaction to what you thought I was saying, and I wish that you'd taken the time to figure that out. But in the second place, you did give a sterling example of the sort of sneering that I was talking about, and for that I suppose I should be grateful. So let me try to respond a little to your post.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Well, we could sneer about "what our world has become" or we could try to examine it phenomenologically, like Weingarten did. Is it that these people are fools? Or was there some validity to the art-without-a-frame thing? Seriously, we're conditioned to register street musicians as annoying presences and move along.

Okay, stop right there, seriously. We are "conditioned?" Who or what is conditioning us? Who or what has taken away Causal's ability to make his own judgements about what is and is not annoying? "Causal" indeed!

If you think that culture doesn't exert an extremely powerful influence on the way that people think about and process things, I suggest you may have another think coming. Nearly everyone, I think, will say, "Yes, that's true, but not in my case!" because I think most people don't like the idea that culture has made an impact on the way they perceive and think about things. But I believe that that's just the case. If you deny that, feel free to make an argument for why that's not the case, but please don't just insult me. That's called an ad hominem fallacy: you attack the person making the argument and not the argument itself. Because I really do think it's the case that for most people, context plays a huge part in how they process their environment. And because typically a subway station isn't the context for fine art, they tune it out. Don't make it right, necessarily, but I do think that that's true. Have you got a counter-argument that doesn't involve an insult on my mental faculties?

Quote:
Originally posted by HK:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:That sort of environment is the one where people see a musician and say, "Homeless schill wanting my money" and then walk right by.

I'd want to know who the heck Causal is talking about when he says "people" but there's evidence all over this thread of exactly who he's talking about.

Where did all this contempt for street musicians come from?

Again, as with my comment above, what I was trying to get at was context. Music is phenomenologically different in a subway station than in a concert hall (and when I say "phenomenologicall" I mean the total experience of it, not just the music as such). And I do think that our culture conditions people to have certain expectations of the phenomenon of music in a subway station, and certain other ones of music in a concert hall (or open-air park, or bar, or wherever). Again, if you disagree that it's phenomenologically different in different contexts, you're free to argue that. But don't accuse me, personally, of having contempt for street musicians as though that accusation makes me wrong about everything I've said. That's the ad hominem fallacy all over again.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:But if they got dressed up and went to a concert hall, the experience would be phenomenologically different. Because there people see a musician and say, "Genius playing masterpieces."

Quote:
Originally posted by HK:
In Causal's utopia, any musician can just get dressed up and go to a concert hall--the artist's version of "boot-strapping," I guess. Street musicians may not be homeless, but most musicians across the board can't get booked at a concert hall--and plenty of them wouldn't want to anyway.

Well, if you'd bothered to actually invest any thought in what I was saying, instead of just reacting to it viscerally, you'd have realized that the "they" in that first sentence refers not to musicians but to the people having the experience of the music. Once again, I was referring to context. Once again, my point you can't just isolate one component of a phenomenological whole and try to analyze that on its own merits. That denies the power of context to influence the way people think about things. Take, for instance, the Prelude to Bach's English Suite No. 2 (A Minor). It is a gorgeous piece of music, and very stirring (have a listen to an excerpt here: http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=6755969&style=classical). But it so happens that the same piece of music is used in Schindler's List during the scene when the Warsaw ghetto is being searched for remaining Jews who, when found, are machine-gunned. In the scene, a German infantryman sits down at a piano and plays the piece, while two of his comrades argue over whether he's playing Mozart or Bach. Now, listening to the prelude in say, the comfort of my living room, or in a concert hall, or in some other setting in which I expect to encounter and appreciate beautiful music, I can relax and allow myself to be transported by Bach's genius. But during the scene in Schindler's List, my stomach was turned listening to the exact same music because of the incongruity of the soldiers bringing such a thing of beauty into a place of death. My point is, context matters. And it's not just for the mindless and soulless, or those who've "lost the ability" to make our own judgments. Context is part of the phenomenological experience and it's intellectual naive to divorce a single element from its phenomenal whole and think that you can assess it entirely in the absence of the context from which it came.

In the second place, I have no "utopia." I'm not under any illusions about the difficulty of being booked into a major concert hall. I was not referring to the musicians when I said the experience of music is different there--I was referring to the patrons of such places. People who can listen to the same artist play the same piece of music and enjoy it in the concert hall are probably many (if not most) of the same people who would have rushed right past Bell in the subway. What do you make of that? My contention is that context is in large part influencing the way people interpret what's happening in the subway. If you disagree, please, tell me why. But please make sure you understand what I'm saying before you mischaracterize my contentions for a second time.

Quote:
But beyond that, Causal is saying that beauty is all a matter of framing and packaging and that's about the worst thing anyone could say about beauty.

Actually, that's not at all what I'm saying. Again, I'm saying that when you consider the experience and start asking questions, maybe it would be better to consider the situation holistically rather than make snap judgments about the people who didn't stop. That commits the Fundamental Attribution Error--attributing some phenomenon to the agent in the situation (whilst ignoring sociological forces that might also be playing a part). My point was that it's all to simplistic to say something like, "They have no soul. I'd never do a thing like that." I contend that we should look at the entire phenomenon as such, and not just what piece of music was being played by whom. Because the "framing and packaging," does influence how things are perceived. Note that I am not saying that the "framing and packaging" is what makes a thing beautiful. But I am saying that when you combine a thing of beauty with other things, those other things influence the way the thing of beauty is percieved. I think Weingarten's conversation with the curator of the National Gallery was instructive. He said that if he took an Ellworth Kelly painting and removed it from its frame and hung it in a restaurant, the most it would get would be a second glance from another curator. Now why would that be? Because it's not altogether common for a restaurant to display a 5 million-dollar painting. Some environments arouse different expectations than others. I'd never expect to see a 5 million dollar painting at a flee market, for instance, so I'm not even looking for fine art there. But I do expect to see fine art when I go to the MOMA, so the way I look at things is different. Context matters. That was, in fact, a main point of discussion in the article.

Quote:
[ Causal has ] abdicated his ability to make his own judgement of what is and is not beauty--apparently because making one's own judgements is just too dang inconvenient in this fast paced modern world.

Again, I wish that you would have actually read what I posted. You'd probably be spending less time insulting me and more time actually engaging me in my argument. But I guess ad hominems are easier than actual argument.

In point of fact, I have not "abdicated" my ability to make my own assessments of what I do and do not find beautiful. But there are times when I want to go looking for beauty, and times I don't; there are times when I have time to appreciate found beauty (like the way railroad tracks converge in a single point over a long, flat, straight stretch of country) and times I don't (like when I'm about to miss my bus). And I refuse to be painted as some sort of soulless automaton because I make those choices. I could just as easily level the reverse accusation, that people who feel compelled to stop and listen are the ones not in control, because they don't have the ability to say, "I don't have time right now." But I won't make that accusation, because it's more complicated than that. Different people have different value systems, and who are you (or anyone else, for that matter) to imply that those of us who would have kept walking should conform to what you think is the appropriate action when confronted with beautiful music? For that matter, who are you to decide what someone should find beautiful or not? Shall I cry hypocrisy? Don't I have the right to dispose of my own person how I see fit? And doesn't that mean I have every right to choose to enjoy or not enjoy music when and where I see fit? Who are you to judge anyone else for what they do or do not do?

Quote:
Sorry to belabor Causal's remarks like this, but I think the relationship he describes to art and beauty and self determination, his self-concept as the poor victim of societal forces "conditioning" him to view street people with contempt and telling him what and what not to applaud as beautiful is shared by a lot of others here.

Well, I hate to belabor your remarks, but you've completely misread my argument. My argument is not that beauty is what someone else defines it as. It's that the total context of a situation plays a crucial part in the way people interpret the situation as a whole. You seem to think that the total context is completely unimportant when it comes to reacting to some element of that whole. If that's the case, why didn't the Jews arriving in concentration camps stop to appreciate the music the Nazis played as they sorted workers from those they sent to be gassed? I think I know why: because the total context of the situation led them to interpret the music differently than they would have in other contexts.

As far as your suggestion that I have some flawed understanding of the relation of human self-determination to artistic beauty, you seem to be on very shaky ground. You've suggested that my reading of the relationship is flawed, but haven't really given a reason as to why. But I can just as easily accuse you of misreading that relation. Because it seems to be the case that you think that in the face of artistic beauty (or any other type of beauty, for that matter) the only live option is to stop and consider that beauty. But how can that be the case? Because the people on the subway platform didn't. So it would seem that not stopping is a live option. So if you want to persist in saying that there's something wrong, maybe you could say that none of the people on the platform were capable of recognizing artistic beauty. But you have no grounds for making that kind of assertion, because the only thing that you know is that they didn't stop, and that doesn't entail that they're incapable of artistic appreciation. Or perhaps you could suggest that there was some moral flaw in their choice not to stop. But then you've have to justify two things: in virtue of what does Bell's music have objective aesthetic value and in virtue of what is not appreciating artistic beauty objectively morally wrong? My assertion is that the best explanation for why people didn't stop was that the total context was prohibitive. Doesn't mean it's not damned sad that we live in a society where people don't even have the time to take a few moments to smell the roses, but it's a better alternative to what you've offered for the fact that they didn't stop and listen (which at this point is nothing at all). I'd be interested if you could even offer such an alternative that wasn't judgmental as hell.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 11:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Listen: if pausing and listening to Bach in the subway for--what?--a minute and a half is going to get you fired, then your life--your actual life--is not running smoothly.

If you don't have an extra minute and a half to spare on any given morning, you're killing yourself.

If you were to be late to work that morning and you were to blame it on the minute you spent listening to the musician, you'd be kidding yourself and your boss.

Here's the thing though, do we have to stop at EVERY SINGLE STREET MUSICIAN? Most of the people going by him lack the knowledge of classical music to recognize the skill he has so for most of the people there he's just another pretty good street musician.

If I'm 1 minute late I'm not going to get fired, but I don't pass by one street musician every day, I pass by dozens. If I devote a minute and a half to each one of them the time adds up quickly and I WILL get fired if I show up a half-hour late every day.

So who decides who I should stop and listen to? You? Should I get your phone number and call you every time I go by a street musician to ask if I should stop and listen? No. I make the decisions about which ones I should stop for, and I (probably) would not have stopped for him.

The problem is that people like you seem to think that there is some pressing reason why we SHOULD stop for every decent street musician and listen for a while. If you can explain why I should structure my life around street musicians please do as I'd love to hear your arguments.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 11:22 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"People who can listen to the same artist play the same piece of music and enjoy it in the concert hall are probably many (if not most) of the same people who would have rushed right past Bell in the subway."

Though it seems that those who know music, especially the violin, where the ones who stopped.

I think the people who would fill a concert hall for that music would be a very small percentage of the overall population. It's possible the general population isn't as 'sophisticated' as the ad-hoc study presumed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 11:26 AM

But isn't it the case that the study just wanted to see if anyone would stop to hear a world-class musician? I'm not sure they were really interested in how many classical-music afficionados would stop.

And when I said that many (if not most) of the people in the concert were the ones that rushed by, what I meant were that those same types of people who would attend the concert would be the same types of people rushing off to work in the morning. The point is, one and the same person can hear one and the same piece of music in two different contexts, and the contexts will exert a pretty dramatic shaping influence on how the person reacts to the piece of music.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The problem is that people like you seem to think that there is some pressing reason why we SHOULD stop for every decent street musician and listen for a while. If you can explain why I should structure my life around street musicians please do as I'd love to hear your arguments.

Right, exactly. It seems like a moral "ought" is being smuggled into the discussion. It seems like there's a presupposition that one has not just the option of stopping but an obligation of some sort. And of course, because it's on the presuppositional level, it's not being explicitly stated, just taken for granted. So when someone stops in and contradicts that notion, the argument isn't listened to because it's just being taken for grant that there is some sort of moral imperative at work.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 1:44 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If you think that culture doesn't exert an extremely powerful influence on the way that people think about and process things, I suggest you may have another think coming. Nearly everyone, I think, will say, "Yes, that's true, but not in my case!" because I think most people don't like the idea that culture has made an impact on the way they perceive and think about things. But I believe that that's just the case. If you deny that, feel free to make an argument for why that's not the case, but please don't just insult me. That's called an ad hominem fallacy: you attack the person making the argument and not the argument itself.

Causal I think you mis-perceive HK's argument. You miss the dialectic that culture makes the people... but people also make the culture. You become victim to a culture when you disavow any ability to change it.

Quote:
Music is phenomenologically different in a subway station than in a concert hall (and when I say "phenomenologicall" I mean the total experience of it, not just the music as such). And I do think that our culture conditions people to have certain expectations of the phenomenon of music in a subway station, and certain other ones of music in a concert hall (or open-air park, or bar, or wherever). Again, if you disagree that it's phenomenologically different in different contexts, you're free to argue that. But don't accuse me, personally, of having contempt for street musicians as though that accusation makes me wrong about everything I've said. That's the ad hominem fallacy all over again.

I don't know Weingarten, but I DO know that people are very 'contextual". Their experience of the music is different but the music itself remains the same. Is this a failure to differentiate between subjective and objective phenomena? Unfortunately smart people - politicians and advertizers- know the power of context and take full advantage of it. Being so contextual is one of our biggest weaknesses as thinking beings.

Quote:
if he took an Ellworth Kelly painting and removed it from its frame and hung it in a restaurant, the most it would get would be a second glance from another curator. Now why would that be? Because it's not altogether common for a restaurant to display a 5 million-dollar painting. Some environments arouse different expectations than others. I'd never expect to see a 5 million dollar painting at a flee market, for instance, so I'm not even looking for fine art there. But I do expect to see fine art when I go to the MOMA, so the way I look at things is different. Context matters. That was, in fact, a main point of discussion in the article.

I don't think "context" matters as much as previous exposure and knowledge.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 1:51 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"It seems like a moral "ought" is being smuggled into the discussion."

I think that was the point of the article. Not in the sense that we ought to be 'better' individuals, but that we ought to look at our society which creates the context.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Causal I think you mis-perceive HK's argument. You miss the dialectic that culture makes the people... but people also make the culture. You become victim to a culture when you disavow any ability to chage it. Again, as with my comment above, what I was trying to get at was context.

You make an excellent point. There really is a dialectic going on. The old sociological question is: do people make culture or does culture make people? I think the answer is: yes, both. So what interests me, working off your post is this: does the fact that people ignored Bell mean that something is wrong? Or not? I'd like to suggest that it's not as cut and dried as saying, "Change it!" I think that before we can really answer that question, we'd have to get an answer on the question of why people ignored him. And that's sort of been the bone I've had to pick with this thread: I don't think it's as simple as some inability to appreciate art, or some draining of compassion or zest for life. As with most things, it seems like the answer to the question of why Bell was ignored is going to more complex than a sound bite.

Quote:
I don't know Weingaten, but I DO know that people are very 'contextual". Their experience of the music is different but the music itself remains the same. Is this a failure to differentiate between subjective and objective phenomena? Unfortunately smart people - politicians and advertizers- know the power of context and take full advantage of it. Being so contextual is one of our biggest weaknesses as thinking beings.

Or you might look at it as a strength. One artificiality in our thinking is that things can be pulled from their context and set to the side to be considered on their own merits. Humans are hopelessly contextual. You can't not be contextual. I'm not sure it's as simple as saying something can be considered apart from its context on its own merits. Because the total experience just is the entire context. Pulling something out of it makes it not be what it is anymore. I think of it not as "Bell, playing in a subway station," but "Bell-playing-in-a-subway-station." I think to examine the thing phenomenologically, we have to let it stay in it's total context--because it's not just in a context, it is an integral part of the entire context as such.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 2:53 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I knew someone who knew someone ... who was a petroleum geologist by training and trade. And who was also someone who followed a creationist religion. On the one hand he would date strata as being so many million year old, on the other he believed the earth was only ~5000 years old.

The problem with rampant contextualism is that one can have a fractured approach to a single reality.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I knew someone who knew someone ... who was a petroleum geologist by training and trade. And who was also someone who followed a creationist religion. On the one hand he would date strata as being so many million year old, on the other he believed the earth was only ~5000 years old.

The problem with rampant contextualism is that one can have a fractured approach to a single reality.

Well, with all due respect to that guy, I'm a guy who believes in a "creationist" religion and who also believes that the earth is 4.5b years old and the universe is 14.5b years old. I happen to believe that truth is that which corresponds to what is actually the case. It seems pretty compelling that the earth is old so to hold a belief that doesn't correspond with reality isn't really very intellectually responsible. Of course, God's existence is still and open question, so I also happen to think that we should pursue the truth of that matter as well. /soapbox

Maybe the solution to what you describe as "rampant contextualism" is to recognize the3 singular context of reality.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 3:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I agree. But while his example is extreme (I truly wonder how he never put the two ideas side by side in his head) I've met many people who do similar things. Iraq - started on a lie but a justified war nonetheless. Or, to use SignyM's example, the US culture praises goodness but rewards greed. And so on.

Anyway, I have to go (family stuff), but I truly hope we all can discuss this further.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
(I truly wonder how he never put the two ideas side by side in his head)

Very simple, he probably believes that the world was created with "apparent age", meaning that those layers he was dating to millions and billions of years ago were actually only a few thousand years old but had the appropriate balance of isotopes to appear much older. This is the sort of mental gymnastics required to be a Young-Earth Creationist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 5:37 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
So because you would have walked by this man - you are a better human being than those that say they wouldn't? They are lying? Or self righteous?

Well, I'm not sure where you might have gotten that impression, but thanks for the accusations.

I'm not saying I'm better than the people who would stop. I'm just saying I'm not worse. And this thread (at least, when I wrote my initial post) had an awful lot of sneering about the people who would have walked. So my point was not that I'm better than others, but that I'm not worse. You've got the time and the loose change to stop and appreciate? Good for you. But don't look down on me for choosing not to.

And I'm quite sure that most of those who claim they would have stopped aren't lying. But a goodly number have been self-righteous about it--as if their choice is somehow morally superior to mine. And it's that implication that I resent. I think I have the freedom to be entertained at a place and a time of my choosing, especially if I have somewhere else to be. I don't want people acting as though I'm somehow a soulless robot because my choice would have been to keep walking.

Quote:
Casual, I always stop to listen, I always drop a little change and I always put money in a beggars hand. That is who I am and what I do, doesn't make me better than anyone else and doesn't make me self righteous either.

Not saying it does. I'm not sure exactly why you're taking me completely personally. I'm not suggesting that everyone who has said "I'd stop" is a self-righteous prig, and I'd appreciate it if you would recognize that that's not the case. But I don't always stop, and don't always drop change, and don't always put money in a beggar's hand. And that doesn't make me a monster. So perhaps what you're really saying is, "I'm not self-righteous!" to which I reply, "I know; I never said you were." And what I'm really saying is, "I'm not a soulless bastard!" To which I await your reply.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html]

As I am sure you know I do not think you are a soulless bastard. Quite the opposite. But, at the same time when you make a broad statement that "there is a lot of self-righteousess comin of this thread" you imply that anyone that doesn't agree with you is self-righteous. I simply choose to point out that in saying that, well it makes you sound as if you are. Slippery slope my friend. At some point in the next 500 years or so we have GOT to stop making personal attacks in these threads. I would hold my breath, but then I would die. "crap:

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 6:40 PM

MARINA

There was n article in the NY times about Marcus Ross, a creationist paleontologist.

I don't know how to split a link (

sorry!), but here's the intro:

His subject was the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago. The work is “impeccable,” said David E. Fastovsky, a paleontologist and professor of geosciences at the university who was Dr. Ross’s dissertation adviser. “He was working within a strictly scientific framework, a conventional scientific framework.”

But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.

For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”

Don't make faces.

http://amaranton.wordpress.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 6:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
As I am sure you know I do not think you are a soulless bastard. Quite the opposite.

Thanks for saying. Sorry I got touchy.

Quote:
But, at the same time when you make a broad statement that "there is a lot of self-righteousess comin of this thread" you imply that anyone that doesn't agree with you is self-righteous. I simply choose to point out that in saying that, well it makes you sound as if you are.

I'm don't think that I can agree with the notion that my statement implies what you think it does, but I'm sorry I made you feel that way.

Quote:
At some point in the next 500 years or so we have GOT to stop making personal attacks in these threads. I would hold my breath, but then I would die.

Don't do that! Who'd bestow titles??

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 7:33 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

from the article:

"For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”

Either he has a serious fractures in his view of reality, or he's a hypocrite comfortable with pretending to be a scientist.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 12:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Back to contextualization: Rue once gave this example of even animals being able to abstract from experience: If animals couldn't abstract from context, then each appearance of (say) water- in a bowl, a puddle, falling from the sky, in a stream- would lead to a whole welter of questions each and every instance: Do I fight it? Mate with it? Avoid it? Eat it?

Somehow they are able to abstract a generalized feature (water) from its context. I concluded from this example that the real function of brains is to be able to abstract a general principle from a welter of details (context).

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 2:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Back to contextualization: Rue once gave this example of even animals being able to abstract from experience: If animals couldn't abstract from context, then each appearance of (say) water- in a bowl, a puddle, falling from the sky, in a stream- would lead to a whole welter of questions each and every instance: Do I fight it? Mate with it? Avoid it? Eat it?
.

Who say they don't? Water in a river is a whole different experience than water in a puddle and I think an animal would indeed contemplate before acting. Avoid or drink, definitely.

But if the animal didn't naturally view water in context, it would ask those questions any time it encountered water at all. The same puddle, the same questions, every day.

No one says the ability to break away from context isn't there, but even that requires a certain context: the will to do so. We pay attention to what is already familiar because we want to pay attention, not because we are compelled to do so. Familiarity breeds safety and inattention. That's what frees us up to focus on particular things for any length of time at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 2:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by marina:
But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.

I believe the literal truth of the Bible, too. But there's some contention on what's meant to be read literally, literally-concretely, and figuratively. For instance, where it says Jesus will return with a sword in his mouth--surely that's figurative, right? So what else might be? Or take the 10,000 year thing. That's predicated on a particular reading of a Hebrew word with not one but three literal definitions.

And just to keep us all honest, let's not play epistemological imperialism with the scientific method. That just follows logical positivism, which fell out of vogue 50 years ago (due, I might add, to an abysmal failure to defend its first principles).

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 5:55 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Here's the thing though, do we have to stop at EVERY SINGLE STREET MUSICIAN? Most of the people going by him lack the knowledge of classical music to recognize the skill he has so for most of the people there he's just another pretty good street musician.

If I'm 1 minute late I'm not going to get fired, but I don't pass by one street musician every day, I pass by dozens. If I devote a minute and a half to each one of them the time adds up quickly and I WILL get fired if I show up a half-hour late every day.

So who decides who I should stop and listen to? You? Should I get your phone number and call you every time I go by a street musician to ask if I should stop and listen? No. I make the decisions about which ones I should stop for, and I (probably) would not have stopped for him.

The problem is that people like you seem to think that there is some pressing reason why we SHOULD stop for every decent street musician and listen for a while. If you can explain why I should structure my life around street musicians please do as I'd love to hear your arguments.

Hey Fred,

did you read the final paragraph of my post? The one that goes like this:

Quote:
And just to be clear: were I there, I may or may not have stopped to listen based upon my own judgement in the moment. I would blame no one but myself if I missed out on some great music. Whether or not people would stop, doesn't interest me. Why we think we do the things we do, the amount of personal responsibility we, each of us, take for "what our world has become" is of the utmost importance to us all.

"Whether or not people would stop, doesn't interest me." Not once did I say that anyone should have stopped to listen to the violinist. Not once. Nor did I imply it.

My beef was with the absurd 5th grade excuses people were making for not stopping (and more importantly, though you didn't have anything to say about it, the contempuous language people were using to describe street musicians; the implications of such language in terms of free will and the search for beauty). My concern is with people being able to take personal responsibility for their actions and their choices without scapegoating "societal pressure" or "my boss" or "capitalism," etc.

There seems to be an awful lot of guilt and embarrassment (hence the many silly excuses made in this thread) on the part of folks who wouldn't have stopped (guilt and embarrassment, therefore, over a hypothetical--people, isn't life too short to be making up situations to be embarrassed about?).

It bothers me, actually, that adults like yourself would lend credence to an argument that you should have stopped to listen to a street musician during rush hour in the subway.

It drives me (rhetorically) crazy that you read a post in which I extol free will and personal responsibility and you think I'd want to dictate your actions in any goddamn way!

Here's my first and only law then, as Dictator of the World:

LIVE YOU'RE OWN LIFE AND DON'T MAKE EXCUSES! VIOLATORS WILL BE MISERABLE!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 6:13 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

No one says the ability to break away from context isn't there, but even that requires a certain context: the will to do so.

Context-free categories are a result of something akin to fuzzy logic which happens in brains* whether it's willed or not. (* birds, mammals, probably reptiles and possibly others)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 6:20 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It's true that society creates people and people create society. People create society by the stories they tell themselves. If you want a different society you need to tell yourself different stories.

HKC - I remember when I was young and I read about the murder of 'Kitty' Genovese. I vowed to try to never be like those 38 witnesses who watched and did nothing, like the Germans who just followed orders at the death camps, like the subjects who turned up the 'electricity' until they 'killed' the trainee. I hoped, and hope, never to go along just because everyone else was doing it, or it was expected, or it's what I always did. I have to say it's tough, trying to come to a personal non-habituated response.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
"Whether or not people would stop, doesn't interest me." Not once did I say that anyone should have stopped to listen to the violinist. Not once. Nor did I imply it.

Sorry then. The problem is that you are seeming to jump in on the side of the people who do insist that we should have stopped and listened.

Quote:
My beef was with the absurd 5th grade excuses people were making for not stopping...My concern is with people being able to take personal responsibility for their actions and their choices without scapegoating "societal pressure" or "my boss" or "capitalism," etc.

I really don't see what you are trying to say here, you are saying that because I don't want to be late for work because of the potential consequences that I'm trying to scapegoat the system? That's a bit of a stretch, it seems like you have a preconceived notion of what the answer SHOULD be and since we aren't giving you the answer you expect that there's something wrong with us. I don't see how you can see not wanting to get fired as scapegoating the system.

Quote:
(and more importantly, though you didn't have anything to say about it, the contempuous language people were using to describe street musicians; the implications of such language in terms of free will and the search for beauty)

You don't need to preach to me about this, my opinion is that they are sometimes annoying (see my previous post about the stoners drumming outside my office building), but that there is nothing inherently wrong about what they do.

Quote:
There seems to be an awful lot of guilt and embarrassment (hence the many silly excuses made in this thread) on the part of folks who wouldn't have stopped

I don't see where you are getting either of these, I for one don't see any reason at all to be guilty or embarrassed about saying that I probably wouldn't have stopped, and I don't think anyone else here does either.

Quote:
It bothers me, actually, that adults like yourself would lend credence to an argument that you should have stopped to listen to a street musician during rush hour in the subway.

I don't, which is why it's annoying when it seems that argument is made.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Or consider this unfortunate victim of art:

Why so huffy? Can you stay calm, please? And if you have something to say to me, why not say it to me instead of trumping me around as a bad example? Rude, much?

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
With a musician on the street, their art is pushed onto you, whether you're in a frame of mind to receive it or not. It's like a child demanding your attention - and then asking for your money. *Snap* Appreciate on demand - or you have the wrong priorities? Some enjoy that, but some don't. Many don't.

I gotta wonder what bizarre clauterphobic distopia these folks live in that they feel street music is "pushed onto" them. Good god, what about the birds that sing and the sunsets every last night of the week? Thrust upon us without our say-so! Oh, the misery!

Let me reply while trying to ignore your really aggressive language. (I'm judging you for that, btw.)

I was talking about it in terms of attention - the attention it is implied SHOULD be paid to them, in terms of stopping or paying them money. Many people didn't do either for Bell, and people somehow find that noteworthy. Why? Because apparently people SHOULD have stopped.

I disagree. It's a choice.

It's not the music that bothers me, it's the hypocrisy of saying that it's a choice and then finding it oh so troublesome that people chose not to stop.

You say that we are defensive and use "excuses" for our "behavior" but you don't admit to the judgment inherent in your own position. It may not be a moral one, but it's still a judgment. "Droid" has been implied.

I like most street musicians, but it's still a bid for one's attention, not something sought out. Maybe "pushed" was a strong word to use, but it's applicable.

Quote:

And this insinuation that street musicians demand money! What, indeed, has our world become when people perceive the passive invitation of a violin case open at the feet of a musician as a demand thrust upon them? It's as if the simple presence of the artist offends these people! Oh, wait...

Oh, right. The presence of the artist offends me. That must be it.

I did not say that "demand money". I said they demand attention - or rather, the people who keep being astounded that people didn't stop for Bell are demanding that we pay them attention.

I said they ask for money.

Some street musicians are so painfully bad and play with so little motivation that - indeed - the only reason they can be doing this is the coin-littered hat at their feet.

No, not all of them ask money. I may have over-generalized, because I was exaggerating to make my point about attention. But some do ask for money.

You really took this quite personally, geez. All of this could have been said with a lot less arrogant snippiness.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Our society works because it is based on precision. People being in certain places, doing certain things at very certain times. In between that we're supposed to fit our lives, families and sleep.

Does it rob us of certain freedoms and is that sad? Yes. But with as many people as we are, inparticular concentrated in one place in big cities, it's probably the only way to keep things running smoothly.

All this sacrifice in the name of that holy grail of modern control-freak culture: "running smoothly." What in this world that matters, seriously now, runs smoothly?

I said society, not culture.

It may not matter to you, but I consider emergency rooms to be a better place in the world when nurses and doctors are on time to take over shifts for their coworkers. I consider any workplace better for the courtesy we pay each other by being on time and doing our job. (Not, not the company or my boss - my coworkers, people I spend 8 hours a day with. People who are nearly friends.)

I like when repair people come when they said they would, so I don't have to wait for hours when I could be doing something fun.
I like when shops open and close when they claim they do so I can buy food or things I need.
I like public transport being on time.

"Running smoothly" means nothing other than being able to rely on each other. Lots of little people doing a part in a big thing - a city. It's not oppression. It's teamwork.

It's not the meaning of life, but it reduces stress in what is otherwise an unmanagable crowd of people. And less stress also means we all get to pay more attention to, say, those things that matter in life. When we choose to.

Quote:

Listen: if pausing and listening to Bach in the subway for--what?--a minute and a half is going to get you fired, then your life--your actual life--is not running smoothly.

No, and if Bach was never being played on the subway ever, I would have stopped, too. But music. Is. All. Around.

Being late is not an "excuse" for not having stopped for that one musician. Why should I have stopped for that one musician and not every single other one? Should I have magically known that Bell was a genius? Well, I wouldn't have.

I keep repeating: Street musician = not actually super-special. Even classical music. Even violins.

If I'm on the way to somewhere else with business in mind, I'm not going to spontaneously stop for one in a crowd of many unless it is something I am capable of recognizing as actually unusual - and I fully admit that I have too little knowledge of classical music for Bell to have been that.

Quote:

If you don't have an extra minute and a half to spare on any given morning, you're killing yourself.

Which is entirely irrelevant, because there really are people who live that way.

Quote:

If you were to be late to work that morning and you were to blame it on the minute you spent listening to the musician, you'd be kidding yourself and your boss.

Says who? Two minutes can make or break it, depending on whether you can catch a certain bus or tram or subway!

You must never have been late in your life, ever. (See, I can make broad assumptions about you, too! Only less offensive ones, of course.)

Quote:

And just to be clear: were I there, I may or may not have stopped to listen based upon my own judgement in the moment. I would blame no one but myself if I missed out on some great music.

Whether or not people would stop, doesn't interest me. Why we think we do the things we do, the amount of personal responsibility we, each of us, take for "what our world has become" is of the utmost importance to us all.

Again that implication that stopping would have been the Right Thing To Do. "Missed out". "Blame". Who's blaming? Why should I feel sorry?

THAT is what is resented!

It's like feeling sorry for not having been born in 1793 with the knowledge of modern day science. The money that could be made!!!! OH NO!

It's just a fact. Nothing to feel responsible about.

If you were going to walk by, you were going to walk by, and if the music didn't catch your attention, maybe you weren't in a frame of mind to enjoy it to begin with? If you weren't in the frame of mind to enjoy it because you were headed for work, then that's fine, too. (Except, of course, it's only an excuse!)

There is not a single thing wrong with having walked by.

Yet people keep calling it "sad" and ask what has become of the world.

Why, if not because of the reasons people have stated, do you think they walked by? Because, obviously you must have reason to believe they are lying and making excuses for something particular - and if there was nothing to be made excuses about, you could consider the option that they aren't just weak, defensive people who are embarrassed by their choice?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 8:56 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Yet people keep calling it "sad" and ask what has become of the world."

But it's a valid question.

Why is it people haven't learned about classical music? Why is it enough people haven't learned to play any instrument so that they can appreciate the art of another's playing? Why is it people can be so preoccupied standing in line to buy a lottery ticket (and doing nothing, not even rushing to work) they don't even remember a violinist nearby? Why is it an (apparent) lack of money is akin to being a leper, such that people not only didn't stop for a second or two, they didn't even turn and look in acknowledgment.

The question wasn't - what's wrong with YOU? It's, rephrased - is this the society you want to live in?

Is it ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 9:27 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

I wonder how many people lamented the lost art of cave painting during the Renaissance?

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 9:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But it's a valid question.

I'll answer these for myself YMMV

Quote:
Why is it people haven't learned about classical music?

Couple reasons, first to appreciate classical music you can't take it in 4 minute cuts like you can with most other styles, I am not a big enough music buff to dedicate a half-hour to 2 hours to what is essentially one extremely long song. This is why I'm not big on the idea of concept albums for instance. Second, a lot of the people who are into classical music come across as pretentious asses so the culture of classical music isn't always welcoming IMO.

Quote:
Why is it enough people haven't learned to play any instrument so that they can appreciate the art of another's playing?

I did, I'm sure that the classical musicians here will probably scoff, but I took Bass lessons for a while and I recognize the amount of work it takes to get good at even a relatively simple instrument as the Bass (I was pretty good at playing but I sucked at composing). But that in no way means that I should automatically pay complete attention to everyone who plays well. Consider, Kerry King is an excellent guitar player, but if you put a recording of him playing on in a room full of classical music snobs they'd probably freak out and kill the CD player, why? because they don't like it, not because it isn't technically skilled.

Quote:
Why is it people can be so preoccupied standing in line to buy a lottery ticket (and doing nothing, not even rushing to work) they don't even remember a violinist nearby?

The only real answer I can give here is the one that's come up repeatedly, after spending enough time having street musicians on all sides you eventually learn to tune them out completely. Is it right? maybe not, but just like everything else in life, when you are exposed repeatedly to something you get inured to it. Perhaps if music was rare and difficult to obtain things would be different, but in our world you can listen to music 24\7 with ease.

Quote:
Why is it an (apparent) lack of money is akin to being a leper, such that people not only didn't stop for a second or two, they didn't even turn and look in acknowledgment.

I don't think that this was actually the issue, there's a couple of people on this thread who've mentioned feeling like this but I think most people don't think street musician=homeless vagrant, I know I don't see it that way.

In a broader sense I think that we as a society have been conditioned to believe that if someone is down on their luck that they probably had something to do with it, be it drugs, gambling, bad business decisions etc. So we as a society connect homelessness with personal weakness which isn't usually valid (many of the homeless people are ex-soldiers who couldn't re-adjust to civilian life ala Rambo in First Blood (not the blood and guts sequels)).

Quote:
The question wasn't - what's wrong with YOU?

Unfortunately that's the way it comes across

Quote:
It's, rephrased - is this the society you want to live in?

Meh, there are a lot of changes that I would like to make and I suspect that there are other societies that match the way I think things should be better, but all in all it not bad enough for me to leave...yet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 9:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Yet people keep calling it "sad" and ask what has become of the world."

But it's a valid question.

You know, just to say this up front, I do not say that our world right now is perfect at is it.

I just really vehemently disagree that the Bell experiment is in any way a valid indicator for that. At all.

The experiment has more to do with human nature than it does with the flaws of society.

I have a long list of things I would like to change about the world, but I doubt that in my perfect utopia people would have stopped for Bell in a noticably higher number.

Quote:

Why is it people haven't learned about classical music? Why is it enough people haven't learned to play an instrument so that they can appreciate the art of another's playing?

If I read this right, people should all be taught to play an instrument and learn enough about classical music in order to arrive at the preferred level to recognize the distinguishing amount of Bell's talent on the particular instrument violin in the first place.

Since I don't know how high that level is, how easily attainable, I honestly can't say if that's a reasonable approach or a haughty one. I know that not everyone is musically inclined, even though that number is smaller than the number of people who tend to not find out.

Neutrally speaking, I'm not against giving children greater access to creating music. It's on my list.

You could teach everyone the practical and theoretical bits necessary to recognize art in all its forms (because, why favor one over the other), and whenever someone decided to try the Bell experiment, crowds would gather and they would recognize the true talent among them. If they want.

I'm not against that, at all.

I just don't think that this current lack of specialized knowledge is hurting people's ability to enjoy life very much right now. They might enjoy music on a more "shallow" level, but they do enjoy it. Dance to it. Listen to it. Write teen-angsty Mary-Sue song fic to it.

And if they wanted, they could learn more already.

Can it be better? Yes. Is the status quo horrible and worth weeping over because people are sad victims? No. Not to me, anyway.

Quote:

Why is it people can be so preoccupied standing in line to buy a lottery ticket (and doing nothing, not even rushing to work) they don't even remember a violinist nearby?

Maybe they were preoccupied writing Gilmore Girls fanfiction in their heads. Maybe they were imagining how to break up with their boyfriend. Maybe they were contemplating the Iraq situation. Maybe they were imagining biting into the snickers bar in their pocket.

I think it is very easy to be preoccupied. I don't see how there is anything wrong with that. The more things we are surrounded by, the less we can focus on, and in a city, being preoccupied strikes me as a self-defense against overstimulation, which would be stressful.

To me, it seems entirely natural. Not always to our advantage, but not inherently harmful, either.

Quote:

The question wasn't - what's wrong with YOU? It's, rephrased - is this the society you want to live in?

Is it ?

If the only thing wrong with society was what the Bell experiment touched upon? Yes.

I care about different things, such as combining working and parenthood in a harmonious way, moving away from punishing criminals toward turning them into something that's not a threat upon release, the question of how screwed up our relationship with love and sex and its combination can be, how much we judge and make each other miserable...

I'm not saying that human artistic expression and reception and questioning our immediate environment isn't necessary and important. But it's much lower on my list of what is wrong about the world I live in.

I don't think art is as endangered as Bell's experiment makes it seem. Art should reach its audience on account of itself, and if Bell's music couldn't, maybe it's not the right medium for a broad audience right now. What is art, anyway. Big question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 3:25 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Ask the larger questions. Mine were only a starting point. Do we WANT people to appreciate classical music? AFAIK maybe not. Do we WANT people to be so consumed with their jobs and their things that they don't appreciate pleasant moments? Do we WANT a society that can't place a value on things unless there's a dollar sign on it? And so on.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 4:24 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Why is it people haven't learned about classical music? Why is it enough people haven't learned to play any instrument so that they can appreciate the art of another's playing? Why is it people can be so preoccupied standing in line to buy a lottery ticket (and doing nothing, not even rushing to work) they don't even remember a violinist nearby? Why is it an (apparent) lack of money is akin to being a leper, such that people not only didn't stop for a second or two, they didn't even turn and look in acknowledgment.

The question wasn't - what's wrong with YOU? It's, rephrased - is this the society you want to live in?

Is it ?

Pretty much.

Of course I don’t think I know anyone who looks at people with an apparent “lack of money” as "lepers." I’m sure there are people like that, but they are the exception not the rule. And I don’t see any way of drawing such a conclusion about people in this article. As far as society is concerned vis-à-vis street performers, it seems to me that society allows people to play the violin in the street if they want, allows those who find something meaningful in the music to stop and enjoy it and those that don’t or have other more pressing issues, not to. And I like that too.

Lot’s of people listen to classical music, rue. I’m not one of them, but many do. And there are many, many choices of music. I don’t listen to them all. We live in time, when there is so much culture and entertainment that few will ever be able to experience it all or even want to. To attempt to develop an ear for all the different types of music or enjoy all the entertainment or experience all the culture that is available to us would become overburdening and completely defeat the purpose. Most people know about classical music and choose, for reason or another, not to pursue it. And I like that too.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 7:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

People'e response reminds me a lot of the cab driver segment of TV Nation. When asked why they didn't pick up the Black man, the drivers said they 'didn't see him'.

But there's even more going on. People are visually oriented. That no one should look at the violinist as they passed by indicates more than being city-blase. They were avoiding looking.

Yes, buskers, pan-handlers, people shouting to themselves on the street - people look away.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 10:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ask the larger questions. Mine were only a starting point.

What I would enjoy, seeing as how you keep repeating these "open your mind" and "is this what you want" questions, a little more concrete ideas of what it is YOU want.

And, please, another example to draw your conclusions from than Bell, because this same situation could still have occured in a world with 2-hour lunches and 6-hour work days. Because it's not about the amount of free time or preoccupation with money, it's about the numer of people, the amount of stimuli available and the fact that even in a holiday world we would occasionally have reason to be precise in our timing.

Quote:
Do we WANT people to appreciate classical music? AFAIK maybe not.

And you're drawing this conclusion how? And do you have any direction this is going? Because I don't think anyone is being actively prevented from appreciating classical music any more than they are prevented from enjoying any other cultural pursuit.
So it's really, do people want to appreciate classical music? And if they don't, is that actually a problem?

Quote:
Do we WANT people to be so consumed with their jobs and their things that they don't appreciate pleasant moments? Do we WANT a society that can't place a value on things unless there's a dollar sign on it? And so on.

See, here you're losing me again, drawing these extreme conclusions from the experiment.

Do you honestly think this one incident is any indication on whether people are capable of enjoying pleasant moments? Or just your own personal idea of a pleasant moment?

I think that some people run themselves ragged out of ambition or greed or whatever. But I do not think that it's the majority at all. I think that the people who walked by Bell were happy and well-adjusted and that they walked by him not for "bad" reasons but for completely harmless ones.

If he's lying in a puddle of his own urine or blood or even just beer, babbling and confused, and no one pays him any mind - and that's something I can see happen, too - that is something worth talking about. That's something that raises complicated questions I consider to be relevant. (Such as, is there a right to be publically miserable and harmful to one's self?)

And I STILL don't think it would have anything to do with whether they would have walked by him as a healthy man playing the violin.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 11:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
What I would enjoy, seeing as how you keep repeating these "open your mind" and "is this what you want" questions, a little more concrete ideas of what it is YOU want.

Why does that matter? The point of the article was the question, not any one particular answer.

Quote:
And, please, another example to draw your conclusions from than Bell, because ... it's not about the amount of free time or preoccupation with money, it's about the numer of people, the amount of stimuli available and the fact that even in a holiday world we would occasionally have reason to be precise in our timing.

1,097 people passed by that day. Out of all those people, how many even turned to look at where the music was coming from? So in one sense, you are right. It's not about free time, because surely many could have spared a half-second glance.

Quote:
Rue: Do we WANT people to appreciate classical music? AFAIK maybe not.
Agent: So it's really, do people want to appreciate classical music? And if they don't, is that actually a problem?

Didn't I say that ? I could have sworn ...

Quote:
Rue: Do we WANT people to be so consumed with their jobs and their things that they don't appreciate pleasant moments? And so on.
Agent: See, here you're losing me again ... Do you honestly think this one incident is any indication on whether people are capable of enjoying pleasant moments? Or just your own personal idea of a pleasant moment?

Roughly 1000 walked by. Given when and where, that's roughly 1000 well fed, well housed, well educated, gainfully employed solid urban citizens - the achievement of urbanized society. That very few stopped, and almost no one apparently could spare a glance is, given the numbers, statistically significant. "... 1,070 people who hurried by, oblivious, many only three feet away, few even turning to look." And this question ties into the next -

Quote:
I think that the people who walked by Bell were happy and well-adjusted and that they walked by him not for "bad" reasons but for completely harmless ones.

We agree. So the question is NOT (let's say this again) - what's wrong with those people, but rather - is that the normality we want to have?

Quote:
If he's lying in a puddle of his own urine or blood or even just beer, babbling and confused, and no one pays him any mind - that is something worth talking about. That's something that raises complicated questions I consider to be relevant. (Such as, is there a right to be publically miserable and harmful to one's self?)

Commonly the publically miserable and harmful to one's self is someone pushing a shopping cart down the sidewalk, or walking down the street mumbling and shouting. And yes, you'd walk by one of those every time. I'm guessing the difference in your mind between the noteworthy and ignorable is whether or not someone can stand up.

Quote:
And I STILL don't think it would have anything to do with whether they would have walked by him as a healthy man playing the violin.

The homeless and Bell draw the same response - purposeful ignorance. Given every instinct to turn and glance, people did, and do, not. That's something worth thinking about.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 3:10 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

So now if I don’t listen to classical music, I hate homeless people? Wow, this moral imperative has really gone crazy. But I’ve already responded this particularly issue. As I said earlier:

"...I don’t feel any social requirement to pay panhandlers, in general. I pay a fair amount each month to local and national charities, several of which run, missions or shelters. If a street musician needed food, he could probably go to one of those shelters or get a real job."

Most homeless people suffer chronic drug addiction and mental illness. The truth is that homelessness is almost never as simple as an “(apparent) lack of money.” It is generally a product of an inability to function in society because of alcohol and drug abuse or several psychological and mental problems. I’ve dealt with both of these problems in my family and they can be daunting, if not virtually impossible to solve. In at least two cases that I know of it led to the family member becoming homeless, despite attempts to help him. Now if we were unable to prevent our own family members from becoming homeless, what is suppose to make me think I can provide any meaningful assistance to some stranger? So I don’t feel any need to provide personal assistance to homeless and I would caution other people in doing so as well, since not only will such assistance likely become drug money to further the problem, but it can be dangerous. Instead, I would suggest that you locate a charity or church and provide them with the assistance, which they will put to much better use through shelters and soup kitchens.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 3:59 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

I'm sorry for your family problems. While people in my family haven't had those problems (yet) I've personally known people who have. And yes, it's often an intractable problem.

If you read my post, I hope you'll notice that my point is that the same thing that makes people ignore buskers is the same thing that makes them ignore panhandlers or the homeless. The response to them is the same even though the situation is not.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:36 AM

Before I tackle your longer reply above...

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

If you read my post, I hope you'll notice that my point is that the same thing that makes people ignore buskers is the same thing that makes them ignore panhandlers or the homeless. The response to them is the same even though the situation is not.

But how do you know it's the same thing?

Finn gave a pretty good, rational reasoning for why he doesn't pay much attention to homeless people or panhandlers, and I don't think that the same reason has him ignoring street musicians (if he does).

One is an awareness of not being able to help, anyway. The other probably has nothing to do with an impulse to help at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:04 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The response is: I pretend not to see it b/c it's uncomfortable for me.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How many people do you think passed by that day. 500? 1000? 3000? Out of all those people, how many even turned to look at where the music was coming from? So in one sense, you are right. It's not about free time, because surely many could have spared a half-second glance.

It appears we agree that it's not about free time. I'm still, however, waiting to see a real point from you. One that is not "Ask questions!" because without an actual statement from you, this is just "Ask questions randomly!" Which can be fun, sure enough, but is less interesting to me.

Quote:

Quote:
Rue: Do we WANT people to appreciate classical music? AFAIK maybe not.
Agent: So it's really, do people want to appreciate classical music? And if they don't, is that actually a problem?
Didn't I say that ? I could have sworn ...

You said "do WE want PEOPLE to". What a subset expects of the group. A "what should people do" floats in there.

I am asking what the individuals of the group want for themselves. A choice they are already free to make and are making.

Quote:

Given when and where, that's roughly 1000 well fed, well housed, well educated, gainfully employed solid urban citizens - the achievement of urbanized society. That very few stopped, and almost no one apparently could spare a glance is, given the numbers, statistically significant. And this question ties into the next -

Quote:
We agree. So the question is NOT (let's say this again) - what's wrong with those people, but rather - is that the normality we want to have?

And I keep asking WHY NOT? Your question implies a dissatisfaction with the current state of things. What is the actual problem that you perceive with people not stopping? What is the reason you keep asking us to ask?

You keep demanding questions, so why not offer up a statement or reason for once? A nice, actual exchange of opinions?
I swear, I am not going to accuse you of dictatorship ambitions if you merely committ to an idea of what kind of world YOU want to live in.

You don't say WHY the mere act of being preoccupied is supposedly harmful to people, except when you imply or outright assume that they were preoccupied by some kind of brainwashed need to increase their wealth unnecessarily, a presumably "unworthy" reason.

I say that this presumption is not justified. Can you allow for the option that they are actually preoccupied with positive things? Things concerning their lives that are not necessarily worthy of dismissal?

Quote:

And yes, you'd walk by one of those every time. I'm guessing the difference in your mind is whether or not someone can stand up.

Believe it or not, I consider acute danger a more pressing reason to pay attention than a healthy person's free choices. So yes, "standing up" or "not appearing ill/injured" are categories that my attention is filtered through.

Hell, it's already an entirely different visual stimulus. Attention snaps to those bearing the signs of physical distress and/or really abberrant and potentially dangerous behavior.

The difference here is: acute harm to people vs. no harm to people.

Quote:

Quote:
And I STILL don't think it would have anything to do with whether they would have walked by him as a healthy man playing the violin.

They draw the same response, I draw the same conclusion.

I consider that short-sighted.

Two different things can cause the same response.

Ignoring a street musician = at WORST an unhealthy preoccupation with one's trivial life problems. If one feels the need to judge. Harm only potentially done to oneself.

Ignoring an injured person = callous refusal to lend aid.

Do you really think that a street musician is the same ind of visual trigger as a person lying down or slumped over, which indeed rates as much more unusual within a safe and familiar environment?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:08 AM

Who says that street musicians make people uncomfortable?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:28 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Agent,

The more I considered the article, and the more people posted, the more interesting it got.

The article, if I read it correctly, wavers between several potential directions. One is that encountering a street musician is a moral choice as to what to do next; and/ or that people have a classical music appreciation deficiency; and/or a surfeit of busy-ness; and/ or that people don't recognize art without a frame.

HKC posted something that took my ideas in a different direction - it's not the choice per se, it's the reasons for that choice that are interesting. On reconsideration, all the reasons come down to - that's just not what we do in this society. We're too busy, too preoccupied, too inured, too scheduled, too tamed, and so, it's just something we don't do.

But on even further consideration, what I found interesting is that people didn't even glance. As I posted above, we are a highly visually oriented society. We look for the source of sound. And a glance is certainly not time-consuming. So what is the disincentive to, without breaking stride, turning around to look ?

And the reason people pretend not to see - why they override their instinct to glance - is that something makes them uncomfortable. The same way people drive past the homeless without turning to look, or walk past pan-handlers without turning to look, people will walk past a violinist 3 feet away without an instinctive, natural glance.

So I propose that all the 'reasons' - too busy, too scheduled etc - the reason why it's just not something we do in this society - come down to personal discomfort and the moral dilemma proposed above. And what does that personal discomfort hinge on? It's the apparent lack of money. Rather than value the skill, artistry, passion of the violinist he (or she) is judged on one single parameter - an apparent lack of money. And that makes us uncomfortable.

So, I don't know if I addressed your questions here, but these are my current musings on this topic.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The article, if I read it correctly, wavers between several potential directions. One is that encountering a street musician is a moral choice as to what to do next; and/ or that people have a classical music appreciation deficiency; and/or a surfeit of busy-ness; and/ or that people don't recognize art without a frame.

All of which are reasonable answers, NONE of which can be remotely proven. Given the experiment I don't see any way to draw a meaningful conclusion out of it, which is what people keep trying to do on this thread.

Quote:
On reconsideration, all the reasons come down to - that's just not what we do in this society. We're too busy, too preoccupied, too inured, too scheduled, too tamed, and so, it's just something we don't do.

But once again this implies that there is some reason why we should be paying attention to street musicians, an assertion that no one has backed up so far.

Quote:
So what is the disincentive to, without breaking stride, turning around to look ?

How about this: I don't want to walk into that guy in front of me? You can't be sure that the people in front of you will keep going the same speed and I would rather not bump into random people on the street if I don't have to, that's a recipe for unpleasantness.

Quote:
And the reason people pretend not to see - why they override their instinct to glance - is that something makes them uncomfortable.

Can you back this up? I mean the part about a street musician making people uncomfortable? They don't really affect me at all unless they are interesting in some way.

Quote:
people will walk past a violinist 3 feet away without an instinctive, natural glance.

I would contend that that is an instinct that would be suppressed in cities because the desire to not run into people, step in something, step off of a curb etc. would train people to keep their eyes forward as much as possible.

Quote:
So I propose that all the 'reasons' - too busy, too scheduled etc - the reason why it's just not something we do in this society - come down to personal discomfort and the moral dilemma proposed above.

Disagree, unless you can prove to me that there is a moral dilemma or discomfort (neither of which you have proved IMO).

Quote:
And what does that personal discomfort hinge on? It's the apparent lack of money.

BS, I can't judge someones monetary situation without glancing at them and even then it's easy to be wrong. Most people in cities will interact with people of all monetary situations constantly so implying that someone without money makes us uncomfortable doesn't make much sense.

I'll agree that people ignore the homeless in a manner like that which you are applying here, but as Finn said most people are homeless for a reason and I for one try to stay out of other people problems when I'm not likely to be able to actually help. I'll toss a little change to a homeless guy now and then and if I'm in a good mood I'll buy them a little food (better than giving them money) but for the most part I just ignore them because as tragic as their situation may be it's still probably something that only they can fix.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:46 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Sigh ...

I'm sorry but all this reads as so much blah blah Blah blah blah, blah blah.

"But once again this implies that there is some reason why we should be paying attention to street musicians, an assertion that no one has backed up so far." No one has even implied it except to say that it's instinctive to turn to look at the source of a sound. Don't believe me? Make a loud noise at work and see how many people look over.

"How about this: I don't want to walk into that guy in front of me?" So you never look at a poster on the wall? The sign on the tram? The hottie off to the left? Your suitpants to see if they got wet? I mean really, your comment is just ridiculous.

"They don't really affect me at all unless they are interesting in some way." They are a source of sound. The article talks about 6 minutes before a person, without breaking stride, GLANCING in the direction of ... not stopping, not turning, not even slowing down, just glancing over. Walling yourself off that way in an urban area is common in the US, it invovles an active suppression of an instinct to look in the direction of a sound.

"I would contend that that is an instinct that would be suppressed in cities because the desire to not run into people, step in something, step off of a curb etc." Again with the bogus argument. Give it a rest, already. It's like saying people are too inept to walk and chew gum at the same time. How about you go to a large Canadian city - say Toronto - and see how many people manage to walk and look around.

"unless you can prove to me that there is a moral dilemma or discomfort" What is the disincentive to glancing in someone's direction? You tell me.

"I can't judge someones monetary situation without glancing at them" Then you are dumber than the average mugger.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:01 AM

Rue -

The thing I disagree with is the instinct argument you make.

Is it really instinctual to turn toward a sound that is not unfamiliar? We don't glance up at all birdsong we encounter. We don't glance at all traffic noise. We don't glance in the direction of every conversation we overhear.

I think that music, even life and a few feet away, is not unfamiliar enough to draw an instinctual glance. And even beautiful music is common enough to make people indifferent toward it as a phenomenon. It can and does become background noise unless we are sufficiently stimulated/choose to focus on it. You assume that there must be a reason NOT to look, but there is no reason TO look, either.

We are visual creatures, yes, but more so with actual visual stimuli. We can't always choose what draws our eye when it enters our field of vision, but we usually can choose to shift our field of vision toward something that stimulates us in another way. Or choose not to.

So.. there doesn't have to be some kind of moral dilemma or discomfort at play. It's not shame that has people not looking. It's indifference bred of familiarity and the option our brain gives us to categorize/prioritize input.

Not looking is no more a conscious decision than looking is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"But once again this implies that there is some reason why we should be paying attention to street musicians, an assertion that no one has backed up so far." No one has even implied it except to say that it's instinctive to turn to look at the source of a sound. Don't believe me? Make a loud noise at work and see how many people look over.

Right, because where I work we don't make loud noises, on the street musicians and other loud noises are the rule not the exception.

Quote:
"How about this: I don't want to walk into that guy in front of me?" So you never look at a poster on the wall? The sign on the tram? The hottie off to the left? Your suitpants to see if they got wet? I mean really, your comment is just ridiculous.

Like I keep saying there's nothing interesting or abnormal about a street musician, like agent said there's no incentive to look. Do I look at every poster? Every sign? No. Only the ones that catch my eye, the rest of the time I'm paying attention to where I'm going.

Quote:
"They don't really affect me at all unless they are interesting in some way." They are a source of sound. The article talks about 6 minutes before a person, without breaking stride, GLANCING in the direction of ... not stopping, not turning, not even slowing down, just glancing over. Walling yourself off that way in an urban area is common in the US, it invovles an active suppression of an instinct to look in the direction of a sound.

Go into a big city, try to look at every source of sound at once, you can't do it. Try to look at every source of sound constantly and you'll only give yourself whiplash, we are trained to notice important sounds (tires screeching, sirens going off), but ordinary unimportant sounds are usually ignored. It's the only way to function in a city.

Quote:
"I would contend that that is an instinct that would be suppressed in cities because the desire to not run into people, step in something, step off of a curb etc." Again with the bogus argument. Give it a rest, already. It's like saying people are too inept to walk and chew gum at the same time. How about you go to a large Canadian city - say Toronto - and see how many people manage to walk and look around.

Again Agent answers for me, there is no incentive to look at any given street musician. Yes I can probably navigate an entire city safely with only a glance ahead of me every few seconds, but there is no reason for me to ignore what's ahead of me for every street musician I pass.

Quote:
"unless you can prove to me that there is a moral dilemma or discomfort" What is the disincentive to glancing in someone's direction? You tell me.

There is little incentive to look so a disincentive isn't really necessary, and you still haven't backed up your "moral dilemma" or "discomfort" arguments.

Quote:
"I can't judge someones monetary situation without glancing at them" Then you are dumber than the average mugger.

First off, fuck you. Second, any mugger who chooses his target with a single glance is either extremely good, or isn't likely to be a mugger for to terribly long.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:45 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL

I way off topic here. Well, not way off, but far enough off to hesitate posting.

You've been debating various aspects of urban life, music appreciation, and I don't know, time? It all gets blurry after 100+ posts. These people are effectively on their employers' and schools' time. They're in work mode or trying to get in the work mode. Minds are overclocking. It's fair to say, I think, even if our society was more relaxed, morning rush hour is still morning rush hour. On your way to work is the worst time to try to alter your outlook on life.

I think a better example of what our society has become is a fight Wednesday night at the Boston Pops. A perfectly nice evening of music, presumedly with music fans, brought to a halt. Why do people think it's okay to brawl in public, heck, at all? People are carrying way too much stress. Does our society condone this type of behavior?

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:47 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

How does one know a baby is deaf? When they don't LOOK to the source of a sound. It's THAT instinctive.

How does one know a toddler is autistic? When they don't LOOK at the people around them. It's THAT instinctive.

How does one know people don't accommodate to city noises? When their blood pressure goes up and stays up due to background noise. It's THAT intrusive. (Sensory habituation, which Agent alluded to, happens to ongoing sensations, not day to day ones.)

Suppression of the urge to look at new sounds or to look at people is a LEARNED response which doesn't happen in every city. Canadians, in general, stand out from Americans because they walk head up, looking around. So no, I don't buy it that somehow USers have different biologies.

FredG
And I hope you have a good fuck yourself too.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:06 AM

Every sound is new to babies. Most sounds are new to toddlers. The comparison is not valid because I am talking about exactly that learned response of ignoring familiar sounds.

No one argues that city noise isn't stress, so whether blood pressure goes up or not is largely irrelevant.

Is there some kind of evidence that backs up how Canadians react in a completely different way to their surroundings and sounds they commonly hear to how Americans do? Did they run the Bell experiment there to different results? If not, why not, if this is an apparent phenomenon, as you claim?

... is this now about what America should be like because, apparently, Canadians already do it right? I'm not either, mind you, but.. that would be a helpful thing to know in order to keep discussing this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:49 AM

@Agent

This is about a bunch of people trying to take a highly specific experiment that was not designed to produce any meaningful information, valid in only one extremely specific situation and use it to make a commentary on our entire culture.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:51 AM