Thank you, Nicholas, for the review and encouragement to view!

-Chance

On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 6:32 PM Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
> Forgot to put this in my last email. These were some brief reflections
> that the movie stirred in me:
>
> Roles more a factor of function than fit? Mediated (explained) by emic
> role availability within any social system (etic), play the hand we’re
> dealt according to the game we’re playing and who we’re playing with
>
> We assume that we are told or presented with all we need to know/we don’t
> know what we don’t know/”what you see and what you here depends a good deal
> upon where you are standing” (card shuffling)
>
> We attach meaning to objects for no reason inherent to the object (brick)
>
> "I don’t know who I am," embarrassment of riches, *necessity of identity
> is an assumption*
>
> “This is what a reflection looks like”
>
> People telling us/others what/who we are based on their experience of us –
> we are the elephant (Reverse elephant)
>
> We are defined by our relationships, part-whole, self-other, all possible
> dualities, any way we can give meaning to something we do
>
> We are already complete, and have secretly hidden from ourselves the
> pieces of experience we feel are missing from a full experience that
> suggests in no way that anything is wrong or broken or missing
> We all just want to be seen and given permission to be who we already are
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 3:37 PM Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
>> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
>> safe.
>> ------------------------------
>> I haven't seen the show yet but I'm interested in discussion about
>> cultural identity from the ToK perspective.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 2:22 PM Peter Lloyd Jones <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click
>>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
>>> content is safe.
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Hi Greg, et.al
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__et.al&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=m_s3BzjPrgFs1VXLkKviXUyQuX20E2G4pxMO2yuDEC4&s=OGSvjvE0W2ahkBSpkOVZIsxGU6nJ5M6fMSVrySv2VIg&e=>.
>>>
>>> In response to your question, in this film of a stage show by Derek
>>> DelGaudio, he explores people’s concept of identity, starting before his
>>> audience even leaves the lobby to enter the auditorium. As a stage
>>> production it requires the community of an audience to exist, so as a film
>>> we are shown his audiences as they participate with him. Its message is
>>> to question who we see ourselves as, who we see others as, and the inherent
>>> issues with labeling ourselves and others. For my interests, as you’ve
>>> likely already surmised, he is basically exploring Sartre’s concept of bad
>>> faith, a facet of which is labeling ourselves and others making everyone
>>> into narrowly defined inert objects—being-in-itself, rather than the ever
>>> nascent being-for-itself.
>>>
>>> Revealing DelGaudio's message is not a spoiler of the film, but sharing
>>> my opinion of his methods might be. I don’t want to put a weight of bias on
>>> how others might perceive the film. On Rotten Tomatoes the film has 100%
>>> rating from reviewers, and an 89% viewer rating, which is impressive for
>>> whatever it means.
>>>
>>> I’ve been reading up lately about cognitive bias as it is
>>> a psychological definition of Sartre’s concept of bad faith, which might be
>>> a remarkable bit of psychology by a philosopher, from back in the days when
>>> the two fields were actively sparring. Which reminds me to ask, do you
>>> consider yourself a practitioner of mathematical psychology?
>>>
>>> Anyway, to get back to Derek DelGaudio’s film, I shared it because it
>>> reveals the power of rhetoric, slight of hand, and emotion within the
>>> context of cognitive bias and ontological identity. I saw the film as a
>>> weird demonstration, sort of like the Stanford Prison “Experiment", in this
>>> case where we were the audience to its audience.
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> Peter Lloyd Jones
>>> 562-209-4080
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 3, 2021, at 6:12 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> This did look interesting.
>>>
>>> Peter, can you share a bit about the kinds of “ontological questions”
>>> this film raises? Magicians seem to manipulate our epistemological frames
>>> to make it appear as if our ontologies are flawed, but as you said, they
>>> are “lies,” in that there is no “real magic.” As such, I am now curious
>>> what the message is. If you don’t want to spoil it, no problem.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Gregg
>>>
>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>> following link:
>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1