I’ve been holding off from saying what I think about the film so as not to sway opinions, and I much appreciate those who have watched it or soon will watch it. Thank you Nicholas for sharing your opinion. Within the next couple of days I will share my opinion. For now, I will share that after the film I felt manipulated and used. 
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 5, 2021, at 3:51 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.
> 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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