Re: [FRIAM] Target Practice with your Television
I share your lament about the homogenization of culture. As I get older, I pine for those early days of requesting files through ftpmail and e-mail addresses with lots of ! in them. Back then, the internet was fun and cool. Now it's a cesspool of TL;DR people like me yapping about stuff nobody cares about or people uploading pictures of their food in centralized databases used by corporations to deny them employment. But, analogous to TV, there's a certain beauty lurking deep in the horror. Personally, I'm grateful to be a part-time inhabitant of the cesspool and I am constantly amazed by the sanctimonious who hold themselves above the cesspool. I probably wouldn't be so amazed if I were totally immersed in it. Using your analogy, my tendency to tunnel from one deme to another gives me the added perspective that comes from being able to partly immerse myself in the cesspool, but still escape sporadically and immerse myself in other pools. I stand in awe of the evolution of culture, just as I do with the evolution of the universe. But I don't let my awe prevent me from getting a little cess on me on a regular basis. It's difficult for me to imagine _wanting_ to isolate myself any more than I'm already isolated. But to each his own, I suppose. On 05/07/2013 04:30 PM, Steve Smith wrote: Glen - Obviously you find your Television useful and feel you can thoughtfully mitigate any negative side-effects having it in your life might present. I was mostly making fun of your (deliberately idiosyncratic?) choices of programming as described. You are not alone, and I recognize that at least half the (relatively small number of) people who share my own response to TV are bigger cranks than I am. It is the constant stream of pop-culture and push-advertising (not just commercial, but all kinds of social and political agendas embedded everywhere) that I respond so negatively to. I am not desensitized as are people who watch/listen to it regularly. I get edgy when in a big city bustling with advertisements, loud cars, pushy people, beggars and streetwalkers. Having a TV on is a bit like that to me. Not being desensitized, when I am exposed, I immediately notice the worst elements whether it is the infomercials, the regular commercials, the inane game shows, the yammering (not just talking) news-heads, the Jerry Springer-style talk shows, the soap operas, or the reality shows. We *do* (now) watch made for TV movies and series when they catch our interest through the magic of Netflix and iTunes. But rather than having to operate the *off* button when crap starts spewing out of the screen, we simply operate the *on* button, choosing *what* to watch rather than *what not to* watch. I was not socialized to TV. I grew up in places where there was no reception to speak of, and my parents had little interest in it when we did. I (once again) live somewhere where there is no reception (neither pre-digital nor post). My wife came to me with a TV which she used very little (mostly with a VHS player). We read a lot. Once we had alternative methods for watching video tapes (then DVDs), the TV set went into the shed. On 9/11/2012 my wife pulled it out, dusted it off, plugged it in and made me order up a satellite dish. A week later she took it back to the shed. I tried to cancel the Satellite service (ha! one year contract!). It was giving her nothing (that she wanted) that she couldn't get by A) reading a daily paper, B) listening to a modicum of radio when driving into town (every day or two), C) searching on the internet (dialup at the time!), D) talking to friends who were more plugged in. We found the TV news stations to be highly repetitious, redundant and often inane.We found the rest to be ... mostly just sad. Neither of us follow sports. We read a lot. I watch maybe 10-30 minutes of TV a week with the sound turned down and subtitles (sometimes) turned on. It may be while standing in line waiting where one is on, at the barber, the mechanic or in a bar, etc. I am often intrigued by the flashing lights, the semi-attractive talking heads (speaking quite authoritatively about something, but I suspect more likely nothing) and the level of hyperbole being emitted in a constant stream. This is usually *more* than enough for me. TV is to me like leaded paint or leaded gasoline, or maybe at best like white sugar and white flour. The former has been outlawed and I think few people pine for the good ole days of leaded gas/paint... it is recognized as an anachronism... the lead served an important function, but the risks were eventually recognized and alternatives found. I don't need to keep a gallon of each around to remind me of the good ole days. I *do* keep white sugar and white flour in my cabinet and even use the sugar often in my coffee. I use the flour occasionally to make up some biscuits and/or some
Re: [FRIAM] Target Practice with your Television
Glen - Thanks for the perspective. You may remember I insisted on referring to my own version of Owen's Digital Ecology as a Digital Swamp. My point to that, which I hope parallels your perspective, is that no matter how much we want it all to be a nice, orderly, well understood environment, it is a complex, seething mass with unexpected/unintended consequences. I'm afraid I'm a compulsive dead-horse beater. I also understand your reaction to those of us who might sanctimoniously try to hold ourselves above. I don't necessarily have any judgement against those who are able to frolic in the cesspool (your word) of pop culture and thrive in it's fecundity. I use the term pop dismissively and have to acknowledge that in some sense all culture is pop. I'm not speaking from an elitist position that suggests Wagnerian Opera is better than Sing Along with Homer Simpson, as Television Characters go I kinda like Homer and don't care so much for Opera. One may be more rarified or expensive than the other but in some sense it is all part of a collective experience that both reflects who we are and perhaps establishes who we become. You may not believe the paradigm of bread and circuses, I tend to. What I think I'm reporting is that having grown up (childhood and adulthood) somewhat *naturally* separated from the more obvious sources of popular culture (television, urban centers and suburban consumer culture) I am not inclined to seek it out in large doses (excepting those all night motel binges with the remote now and then). I'm also reporting that I think the push nature of TV in particular is insidious. Yes, the TV has an off button, but it is easy to forget to use it. If I'm reading a newspaper (online or in print) and I get a little disturbed by what I'm reading my failsafe position is to put it down and read/do something else. I guess I feel that TV is an attractive nuisance. Having watched most of my television as an adult (in passing) in the mute state, I feel that I have a unique perspective on it. I think TV reads differently without sound, especially if it is a rarity rather than a constant companion. And TV sound reads differently than Radio sound. Having been a DJ in a border town in the 70's I listened to my share of Mexican Radio. Though I understood Spanish well enough and was not unfamiliar with Mexican culture, I was always taken aback by all the *selling by yelling*. TV sounds a lot like that to me, whether it is news or advertisements. And I share your concern (for myself in this case) about isolating myself any more than I already am. But somehow I don't think my lack of TV is what isolates me. Though there may be a correlation. - Steve I share your lament about the homogenization of culture. As I get older, I pine for those early days of requesting files through ftpmail and e-mail addresses with lots of ! in them. Back then, the internet was fun and cool. Now it's a cesspool of TL;DR people like me yapping about stuff nobody cares about or people uploading pictures of their food in centralized databases used by corporations to deny them employment. But, analogous to TV, there's a certain beauty lurking deep in the horror. Personally, I'm grateful to be a part-time inhabitant of the cesspool and I am constantly amazed by the sanctimonious who hold themselves above the cesspool. I probably wouldn't be so amazed if I were totally immersed in it. Using your analogy, my tendency to tunnel from one deme to another gives me the added perspective that comes from being able to partly immerse myself in the cesspool, but still escape sporadically and immerse myself in other pools. I stand in awe of the evolution of culture, just as I do with the evolution of the universe. But I don't let my awe prevent me from getting a little cess on me on a regular basis. It's difficult for me to imagine _wanting_ to isolate myself any more than I'm already isolated. But to each his own, I suppose. On 05/07/2013 04:30 PM, Steve Smith wrote: Glen - Obviously you find your Television useful and feel you can thoughtfully mitigate any negative side-effects having it in your life might present. I was mostly making fun of your (deliberately idiosyncratic?) choices of programming as described. You are not alone, and I recognize that at least half the (relatively small number of) people who share my own response to TV are bigger cranks than I am. It is the constant stream of pop-culture and push-advertising (not just commercial, but all kinds of social and political agendas embedded everywhere) that I respond so negatively to. I am not desensitized as are people who watch/listen to it regularly. I get edgy when in a big city bustling with advertisements, loud cars, pushy people, beggars and streetwalkers. Having a TV on is a bit like that to me. Not being desensitized, when I am exposed, I immediately notice the worst elements
Re: [FRIAM] Target Practice with your Television
On 5/8/13 9:06 AM, glen ropella wrote: I share your lament about the homogenization of culture. What is a counter example of non-homogenization of culture? It seems to suggest that culture is a thing that leads individuals, rather than individuals leading it. I've always thought of culture like education. The people that know, try to tell the people that don't know so that they don't make a mess of things. (In so doing, they may well make a mess of things themselves. Which is a possible claim about television.) I think the efficiencies we witness, whether it is the content on television or the billions served at McDonalds or juggernauts like Costco, are just a reflection of the vast redundancy inherent in a large population. Most of that population is not in the tails, it is in the center of the distribution. Culture and education won't change that. If anything, the problem in the U.S. is that people think their problems are unique and that their clan is special. So, we fail to factor out the common bits of everyday life into shared systems like mass transport, affordable housing, health care, etc. There's something to be said for put up or shut up. Prove you're special. Oh, so you're not, here's a nice television for you to watch. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Target Practice with your Television
I think we agree on most of these points. Another reason I like TVs is because I'm mostly a wall flower at parties. Smalltalk irritates me and I only talk to people after a given party passes through that phase transition where it ratchets down a bit and allows more intimate conversations amongst small groups. Until that happens, I need ways to entertain myself. It's for that reason I like to play old movies or mix videos on the TV during parties, usually with the sound muted. Nosferatu and Fearless Vampire Killers are favorites. But I also have a good set of videos from Spot Draves: http://scottdraves.com/ This is especially useful because I like death, speed, and heavy metal music. And I usually like to turn that up loud enough to prevent conversation. So, the TV is an integral part of any parties I throw ... not for broadcast stations. That means that we have an ambiguity or equivocation in the term TV. I used to use a LCD projector for some of this stuff. But with the cheap LED-LCD TVs, the picture is so much better and the access to various TV apps on network enabled TVs makes me think no digital swamp is complete without a big screen TV. On 05/08/2013 09:36 AM, Steve Smith wrote: Thanks for the perspective. You may remember I insisted on referring to my own version of Owen's Digital Ecology as a Digital Swamp. My point to that, which I hope parallels your perspective, is that no matter how much we want it all to be a nice, orderly, well understood environment, it is a complex, seething mass with unexpected/unintended consequences. I'm afraid I'm a compulsive dead-horse beater. I also understand your reaction to those of us who might sanctimoniously try to hold ourselves above. I don't necessarily have any judgement against those who are able to frolic in the cesspool (your word) of pop culture and thrive in it's fecundity. I use the term pop dismissively and have to acknowledge that in some sense all culture is pop. I'm not speaking from an elitist position that suggests Wagnerian Opera is better than Sing Along with Homer Simpson, as Television Characters go I kinda like Homer and don't care so much for Opera. One may be more rarified or expensive than the other but in some sense it is all part of a collective experience that both reflects who we are and perhaps establishes who we become. You may not believe the paradigm of bread and circuses, I tend to. What I think I'm reporting is that having grown up (childhood and adulthood) somewhat *naturally* separated from the more obvious sources of popular culture (television, urban centers and suburban consumer culture) I am not inclined to seek it out in large doses (excepting those all night motel binges with the remote now and then). I'm also reporting that I think the push nature of TV in particular is insidious. Yes, the TV has an off button, but it is easy to forget to use it. If I'm reading a newspaper (online or in print) and I get a little disturbed by what I'm reading my failsafe position is to put it down and read/do something else. I guess I feel that TV is an attractive nuisance. Having watched most of my television as an adult (in passing) in the mute state, I feel that I have a unique perspective on it. I think TV reads differently without sound, especially if it is a rarity rather than a constant companion. And TV sound reads differently than Radio sound. Having been a DJ in a border town in the 70's I listened to my share of Mexican Radio. Though I understood Spanish well enough and was not unfamiliar with Mexican culture, I was always taken aback by all the *selling by yelling*. TV sounds a lot like that to me, whether it is news or advertisements. And I share your concern (for myself in this case) about isolating myself any more than I already am. But somehow I don't think my lack of TV is what isolates me. Though there may be a correlation. -- glen == Hail Eris! FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Target Practice with your Television
On 05/08/2013 10:31 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: What is a counter example of non-homogenization of culture? I think homogenization of (or homogenized state of) culture can take different forms. Were it normal, it could be fatter or skinnier. If it's skewed/biased (which is most likely) it can be skewed more or less. These parameters for whatever distribution exist would (were we to measure samples) provide counter examples. Higher sigma and fatter tails would indicate less homogenous. It seems to suggest that culture is a thing that leads individuals, rather than individuals leading it. If we consider the whole, high dimensional space, I posit that the reality contains multiple feedback loops. I.e. culture leads individuals and vice versa. Whether the causal flows happen more in one or the other direction probably depends on which variable is being examined. For example, it seems to me that I see 2 opposing causal flows in music. One is that in pop music, culture leads individuals. But in folk or jazz or any live-music oriented domain, it strikes me that individuals (or individual bands) lead culture. If anything, the problem in the U.S. is that people think their problems are unique and that their clan is special. So, we fail to factor out the common bits of everyday life into shared systems like mass transport, affordable housing, health care, etc. There's something to be said for put up or shut up. Prove you're special. Oh, so you're not, here's a nice television for you to watch. This pressure is good, despite the risks of narcissism or sanctimony to any particular individual. It's difficult for me to imagine an individual performing at their maximum if they spend all their time in the middle of the biggest cluster of individuals. But I still reject the idea that any particular individual is somehow _not_ special. I remember a distinction made at one of the computing and philosophy conferences i attended referring to the difference between the special sciences and the general sciences. That is one of the reasons I think biology is interesting. I think it sits right on the line. It's a special science, but seems to be poised to reveal some more generic laws any decade now. -- glen == Hail Eris! FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Target Practice with your Television
On 5/8/13 12:20 PM, glen ropella wrote: For example, it seems to me that I see 2 opposing causal flows in music. One is that in pop music, culture leads individuals. But in folk or jazz or any live-music oriented domain, it strikes me that individuals (or individual bands) lead culture. It depends what you mean by `lead'. I'd distinguish between influence and innovate. I'd claim that culture does not innovate, it can only put down a road and encourage people to take it, and thereby set the stage for innovators. That can be useful, if the taking the path, e.g. watching the T.V. show or buying the iPhone, results in resources being reallocated to those that do innovate, e.g. writers or communication satellite engineers. A danger is that in providing a path, it decreases entropy instead of increasing it. The television screenwriter realizes there is no market for anything but CSI-type dramas, and stops working on her craft. But I think at the end of the day it matters more that she can be a professional writer at all, than that she has a market that demands novelty and sophistication. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Target Practice with your Television
On 05/08/2013 11:44 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: It depends what you mean by `lead'. I'd distinguish between influence and innovate. I'd claim that culture does not innovate, it can only put down a road and encourage people to take it, and thereby set the stage for innovators. That's a good point. If we run with the analogy, we could also say that both the culture and the innovator lay down roads, the innovator blazing new trails and the culture coming behind and paving the most oft used of those trails. The result becomes a large network of roads and trails that provide the opportunity for any newcomer to walk in novel ways ... a little bit on a seldom used trail, a little way on a super highway, a little way on some well used, but still unpaved paths, etc. In this sense, culture may not, itself, innovate. But it comes very close. Any drill down into the meaning of innovate will turn into a nit-picky rat hole. So it's safe to say that culture does (or practically does) innovate by optimizing the landscape for innovation... so easy a caveman could do it. ;-) -- glen == Hail Eris! FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Target Practice with your Television
If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed. -- Mark Twain http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1244.Mark_Twain FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
