I must say Peter I have a very different sentiment regarding the content of the message. This man is a showman, thinking he is anything more is something few would fall for (e.g., that's he some sort of demigod or something). You seem to have far more disease for the periphery of the message, the manner I which it is delivered, which is indeed manipulative. Most social anything are manipulative in their nature though, it's the intent of the manipulation that matters, and in this case it's getting people to watch his movie. The messages about identity are certainly no secret truths but they are related to the most central discussions pertinent to human existence. Identity is still a phenomenal construct mind you, it itself is illusion. I would encourage you to reflect on that as far as your own reaction goes. He does not create your opinions he merely sways them, we see the world the way we are not the way it is. Your points are nonetheless valid, of course, and I regret you not enjoying the movie. I guess I found it much more tolerable, but that's me and my way, to each their own right? Regards, Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D. On Mon, Dec 6, 2021, 6:35 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. > ------------------------------ > Spoiler Alert. > As I said in my last note, I felt used and manipulated by this film. > Though magic shows are based on deception, there remains a necessity of > moral honesty to the audience. I think DelGaudio violates that. > > The film plays with our emotions, crafting highly moving events by means > of style of presentation. Producing a letter from a loved one to an > individual at each show creates powerful moments due to the magic > (trickery) involved. Had they each received their letter under different > circumstances, the letters would have instead just been looked at as kind > and supportive, nothing more. It’s due to the shock of each letter’s > existence that they are deeply moving to who each letter is for, and to the > entire audiences. Our emotions confuse us into forgetting that these > letters exist simply by way of deceptive trickery. > > In the second emotional event, when DelGaudio tells each participating > audience member which “I am…" card they chose to define themselves, again > the audience, and us, are moved by the seemingly secret truths DelGaudio > is revealing. In doing that, DelGaudio becomes a sort of minor God, > knowing each of our inadequate "self-assigned” labels (that he supplied to > the audience). > > DelGaudio’s ability to move the audiences to such degrees that they feel > they have learned a hidden truth, is very good, high-quality magic. But as > Greg here reminded us, and as I think Daniel Dennett > first eloquently pointed out, real magic is fake, and fake magic is > real. DelGaudio himself hints in his show that he may well be all wolf and > not man’s best friend. Keep your fingers in your pockets. > > The reason I am a fan of magicians Penn and Teller is because they make > the audience feel as though they are in on the joke, if not also in on the > trick, being careful to respect the audience. I’ve read about Penn relying > on the Amazing Randy as a mentor to help him understand the moral > responsibility of being a trickster. He had doubts about pursuing the > career due to its moral difficulty. DelGaudio does not seem to comprehend > that responsibility. > > I do not think the film reveals much about ontology or how > we inadequately perceive ourselves or others. What DelGaudio reveals is > the power of slight-of-hand, deception, rhetoric, and emotion. He carefully > frames each event for maximum manipulation. He drives the audience to where > he wants to take them. Under the pretense of revealing truths about > identity, he instead provides a great lesson about the power of persuasion. > In the end I am left angered that he brought me to tears only for the > purpose of confusing me into thinking he had revealed hidden truths. > 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]> > 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 > > > ############################ > > 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