Originally posted by Serial_Apologist
View Post
3beebies aka Breakfast
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by mercia View Postyou're not saying that emotion has nothing to do with the brain? (rhetorical question)It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
[Perhaps there is a case for arguing that illiberalism has certain cultural 'benefits'. Russia, it seems, and China, have the kind of public cultural standards that we might prefer.]
Comment
-
-
I didn't think my comment was any kind of recommendation for illiberal regimes themselves! The point is surely that 'freedom' may be seen as a good thing, in an abstract way, but the effects can be less than desirable. Popular culture (and I mean 'culture' in the broad sense) is provided and devoured. A dictatorship might well clamp down on the excesses, declare them anti-patriotic or whatever. We might still prefer freedom, in the abstract, but let's not pretend that the results - of mass culture and mass media - are universally beneficial.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
John Skelton
Just a quick post - there is nothing in Mark Fisher recommending or endorsing totalitarianism (either Stalinist or Maoist or neo-liberal): the quote I posted needs to be read in the context of an argument concerning the totalitarian effect of freedom to choose whatever it is we already know you'll choose and you will because it's entirely natural for you to do so, that's freedom of choice.
He does point to the paradox that Tarkovsky's films emerged from the inertia and nullity of Brezhnev's USSR. He doesn't say anything about post-communist Russia, though the frenetic post-modern kitsch of this http://rt.com/news/prime-time/abramo...oscow-gallery/ tells a story.
Comment
-
Yes, when the term 'illiberalism' was mentioned, I wasn't in any case thinking exclusively of political regimes, but also of cultural illiberalism. You could, for example, say Poland had an 'illiberal' culture to the extent that it is strongly influenced by the Church. And you seemed also to be querying the implications of 'paternalism' which could also be applied to the Church's power over people's behaviour.
It's taken for granted (I think) that the teaching of young children has to be in a measure 'paternalistic' in that the teacher, or educational system, teaches the children what is agreed is 'right and good' for them. At what point does this form of paternalism - 'teacher knows best' - become not acceptable and not accepted? [And what is it that is 'right and good' for pupils?]It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
The point is surely that 'freedom' may be seen as a good thing, in an abstract way, but the effects can be less than desirable. Popular culture (and I mean 'culture' in the broad sense) is provided and devoured. A dictatorship might well clamp down on the excesses, declare them anti-patriotic or whatever. We might still prefer freedom, in the abstract, but let's not pretend that the results - of mass culture and mass media - are universally beneficial.
the quote I posted needs to be read in the context of an argument concerning the totalitarian effect of freedom to choose whatever it is we already know you'll choose and you will because it's entirely natural for you to do so, that's freedom of choice.
Comment
-
-
the individuals in charge of bbc radio are under the direction of a senior marketing executive from pepsi cola .... we therefore suffer from highly inapropriate models and metaphors being applied to the msission and performance of R3 ..... additionally, even if R3 were to rediscover more fitting metaphors and models for their activities, it is doubtful whether they would have the requisite authority and nous to actually deliver it in quite the way some of us may have become accustomed to .... the fact that senior execitives in the bbc are now paid disgracefully inflated salaries and benefits would indicate that the corporation is not immune from the zeitgeist ....their response to listener commentary on their performnace is further evidence of their coformity to this spirit of the times .... most call centre script writers and executives must be envious of the sheer impenetrability of the bbc shield against critique .....According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by kernelbogey View PostIs this true or a rhetorical flourish aCDJ?
The results indicate that he was appointed to promote BBC radio, not develop or improve it.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by aeolium View PostBut surely that's an unavoidable quality of freedom that it can result in effects that can be less than desirable, and that the results of mass culture and mass media are not universally beneficial (I don't think anyone's pretending that they are).But I think that those effects and results are infinitely less damaging than the effects and results of an illiberal culture, and 'approved' views and art.
How can people make free choices if they are ignorant of the choices available to them? And that applies to the artists as well as the general public.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
John Skelton
Originally posted by aeolium View Postan illiberal culture, and 'approved' views and art. And the freedom to express views concretely - not just in the abstract - and with few restrictions is surely a basic requirement these days for any kind of art to flourish. I don't think we realise just how diverse and multifarious cultural expression is compared with what it used to be under more paternalistic cultures. You may think that's for the worse, but I don't.
Comment
-
barber olly
Originally posted by aka Calum Da Jazbo View Postthe individuals in charge of bbc radio are under the direction of a senior marketing executive from pepsi cola ..most call centre script writers and executives must be envious of the sheer impenetrability of the bbc shield against critique ..... ..
BBC mug us for our licence fee and then give us what they think is appropriate, it's about time we were given shareholders' rights!
Roger Wrong get it right!!!!!!
Comment
-
Perhaps I should have dared to go further and suggested that the effects of mass culture can be damaging, not necessarily on the artists themselves and how they choose to express them, but on a uniformly populist public.
That there are many more outlets and opportunities to experience popular culture compared with minority interests like classical music is certainly true, but it doesn't mean that there still aren't a lot of opportunities to experience the latter - far more so and far more accessibly (I mean in price, frequency, variety) than in earlier more paternalistic days.
How can people make free choices if they are ignorant of the choices available to them? And that applies to the artists as well as the general public.
Comment
-
Comment