Cotidiano de uma brasileira em Paris, comentarios sobre cultura, politica e besteiras em geral. Entre le faible et le fort c'est la liberté qui opprime et la loi qui libère." Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Showing posts with label rhetoric. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rhetoric. Show all posts

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Marvel vs DC

I will watch Jerry Seinfeld's Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee with President Obama eventually.  
I dread it, I have to be in a v good cheerful and forgiving mood to see it and come to it with a more neutral disposition, somehow temporarily deactivating my prejudice about politicians making lobster salad of the office ppl gave them the legitimacy to occupy, especially if they're going to behave like they're celebrities instead of civil servants. 

Y'knowhat I expect at the moment when I think of it?  For Jerry to be too pally with Obama and for Obama to erroneously interpret that as a good thing. It's not a good thing.  A president is not supposed to be 'pals' with anyone in public.  But I realize this makes my butt look like an archeological finding.

And pluswhich that train has long sailed since President Obama in his 2nd mandate played friendly basketball with Batman and Spiderman -- or should I say Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker? -- in a fundraiser for the Democratic Party.  
It's better than taking money from corporations, but by comparison with how Bernie Sanders' campaign is being funded ? It's a joke -- or should I say Joker? --  since Sanders has so far collected more money from individual donors only, averaging $30 each (as of 23, 24 or 26, I can't quite remember which, December, 2015 according to MSNBBCNN), than Obama did in his last campaign, even accepting corporate 'packages' (previously known on 24 as bribes). 

There is one thing that still gives me reason to suspend judgment:  Obama is, after all, a professional politician, so even if Jerry Seinfeld behaves like they're formal equals, the truth is Obama will most likely be 411 steps ahead.   Not that I think Jerry would be out to 'catch' Obama in anything since it is an entertainment show.  
Yet this is precisely the problem.  The informal quality of such 'interviews' tends to give bad ideas to the less astute politician.  Relax?  And all Hell hits Pandora's fan mailbox. 

Be that as it may, sooner or later I'll bite the 30 pieces of SilverBulletSpoons I wasn't born with, slay this vampiric dragon hanging over all our mixed metaphoric heads once and for all time, and kiss this episode of CCgC & of historic shame on the cheek before the cock crows thrice.  
Then I'll sit down and write a truly bombastic paragraph about it.

Given the superhero smorgasbord above, it could reasonably start:

"Once upon a time, a Marvel comic walked into a White House and saw a professional DC comic..."


Saturday, April 14, 2012

On Parole




 Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:

parole/pəˈrəʊl/ 

▶noun

  • 1 the temporary or permanent release of a prisoner before the expiry of a sentence, on the promise of good behaviour.
  • 2 historical a prisoner of war's word of honour to return to custody or act as a non-belligerent if released.
  • 3 Linguistics the actual language used by people. Contrasted with langue.

The private and the public spheres intersect all the time, everyday, and often it's a seamless movement; often, nothing much is stirred, uncovered.


The understanding which seems to accompany the system that is language has built into it the clues which signal to all that a statement needs modifying before it can be made public, or that it needs modifying before it can be absorbed in informal exchanges.


But the once fluid division between the public and the private is becoming more rigid, less flexible, clearer even as it confuses (me anyway!).
Because why else would any of us integrate into our daily exchanges disclaimers of all types?


Language is one system.  When it is used by individuals it temporarily becomes a function of that individual's thoughts, opinions and feelings, while at the same time remaining an abstract monster which exists in spite of any one speaker's will or influence.  It is very much like Frankenstein's monster.  Created but, once unleashed, no longer dependent on its creator.


At the same time, individuals modify, add, subtract, mix, superimpose meanings, images, sounds, and paralanguage to improve or impoverish language, every time they use it.


What interests me is the tragic development I see all around, whether in written or spoken language. I see people - individuals and groups - forgetting that when they speak, they have the power to influence listeners AND language; that when they speak, they do not have to integrate any of the vices, habits, clichés, opinions, metaphors and similes already dancing around the collective atmosphere.  Every engagement with language is a chance we all have to express our own thoughts and feelings according to how we see the world, instead of adopting someone else's views wholesale.


Our current obsession with choice is an amusing thing.  While adamant we do not want only one or two possible alternatives when it comes to food, politics, and a number of other things, we seem to be unaware that is exactly what we are getting.  The existence of different brands of the same exact product does not mean we can choose between or among different objects.  
The best example I can think of right now is news channels.  MSNBBCNN.  This Friday I watched the news on TV for a while, after a moratorium I imposed on myself since March 2010.  CNN, BBC News, Sky, Al Jazeera, France 24...  At the same time in the evening, this Friday, ALL these channels were telling me the exact same thing.  All of them.  They all start their "financial news" at the same time.  It is almost as if the directors of each channel phoned one another and said "ok... ready?  NOW!" and had their people press PLAY on the same stories.  And how varied, creative, at least authentic! do you think each channel's report was with regards to the words they used in the story?  They're in more perfect unison than the choir in my local church.


Is this choice?




This happens with language and when it does, it is even worse, because more insidious. The irony is this silent threat is loud.
Speak with 12 people and ask them all the same question. See how many give the same answer.
Speak with 12 people and see how many use the same expressions, turns of phrases, metaphors, similes, etc, to express their opinion.  See how many differ in terms of their opinions on the same issue.
Speak with these 12 people and, at the end, see how many of the expressions they used to convey their wildly differing opinions can be traced to MSNBBCNN.


Recently, talking to someone close to me, I broached this topic, and she said it is because there are a lot of not v bright people in the world.  Maybe.  I'm even willing to agree with that.  But, I asked here, wouldn't that translate into, say, 12 or at least 10 DIFFERENT stupid opinions?  How come the stupidity is so uniform?  Why is the putative stupidity being expressed in the same ways?  Surely there isn't a Stupid Club, like the Trekkies have, whereby ppl get together to exchange views on whatever, and come up with a small collection of things to say?  The "government line" of stupidity?  


But not even governments can keep their cabinet members from stepping into piles of sophistry designed by journalists who work for papers which exist thanks to advertisement from companies whose interests go against the people, sovereignty, and democracy.  


Manufacturing Consent (MC) shows this.  I know I am not discovering anything new.  What I find is that the processes outlined and examined in MC are spreading to private exchanges, to informal conversations.  The property language has of becoming a flexible tool to anyone who uses it is eroding, and no one has to make an effort to make it so.  It is just happening because too many people's mental inertia is allowing it.


The public use of language is invading our private exchanges and not being renewed by individuals' linguistic creativity, or at least not at the same rate.  Like eroded soil, linguistic rain is no longer penetrating the atmosphere, and condensation is more and more a concentrated version of a compact formula of pollutant elements designed to incite apathy and ostensible transparency.  No! Not even. Transparency is NOT a positive thing.  Seeing THROUGH something is not seeing the something itself.  I sit corrected and, after having thought it through, hereby declare those clouds to be of ostensible opacity.


Fratelli, let's think, please.  


Yknow how in churches the pastor, priest, preacher, will say, "brothers and sisters, let us pray" ?


Please, let us think.


You know it is the same thing, but saying THINK instead of PRAY changes something, does it not?


Why does it change something?


According to me, it is because we think for ourselves, but pray outwardly.  Thought is introspection, as good prayer ought to be, and often isn't.


Let us use language to fit our real thoughts.
Like the economy and economic theory, language exists and was created by us, to suit our needs, both to communicate and create.  Like the economy, it needs to fit our lives and benefit us, not the other way around.  We should not modify our thoughts merely to fit around the economy and the language being imposed on us.
Language, like the economy, does not belong to pressure groups, political parties, or academics. Like Castro Alves said "the public square is the people's, as the sky is the condor's". Language is the biggest public square. Let's not let malls own it like they do so much of the literal public square now, too much.


Let us let language fit our need to create.
We do not have to use the expressions ppl on telly use.  NO ONE has the monopoly on language. It belongs to all of us, and we can ALL of us use it how we want to use it.  


I want to put Langue, according to Def #3 at the beginning of this entry, ON PAROLE, and free Parole from the outdoors prison in which it currently floats.  Seriously.  And I'm not talking about JamesJoyce Syndrome.


This is so important because language shapes thought.  Try to think without words. Can you?
I haven't read it but like the cover

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

My generation is so sad.  My generation has no link, no connection to what went on before it; we're loose bits of rocket released in the vacuum of space, without even knowing we were once part of the rocket.  We've no intellectual home, no emotional link to our predecessors; no idea or ethos binds us together as a group or in opposition to another group.  The generations which come later are even worse.  No will to LIVE, no incentive; no goal has been identified, no philosophy has come out of it, and these are the yrs when vigorous rebellion is easiest, when hormones and unapologetic arrogance not yet earned are at its peak.

Technology has never been more advanced -- (btw, what kind of stupid phrase is this anyway? Of COURSE technology can only become more and more advanced as a linear conception of time follows its course! but I digress) -- and ppl have seldom been this illiterate.  
Not even in a traditional way. 

Ppl know other forms of knowledge and literacy to the ones I knew at, say, age 20. But the problem is the lack of connection with everything else.

How is one to measure progress if the body of work produced by Man so far is no longer acknowledged -- not even known!
Are we about to witness 3, 4 generations studying like mad only to reinvent the wheel? Out of sheer ignorance?
What ARE they studying?  Theyre not reading the classics, theyre not studying political or economic theory; theyre not studying philosophy or fine arts.  They've no clue how language and History connect, no idea about the extent to which language itself influences ALL disciplines and how theyre formulated, posited, and directed.  And if *I* am saying this the problem is grave, friends, because I'm hardly a polymath.

Were I Dictator of the Polyverse, my first decree would be that an introduction to metalinguistics be made compulsory in formal education at age FIFTEEN.  "These are the tools used in order to steer ppl's thoughts THAT way instead of any other way it could have gone."  In all disciplines!  From scientific discourse all the way down to softer disciplines which teach ppl v little (i.e. pedagogy).

Reductionist views of the human person and what s/he can accomplish, why, and how, effectively removes the infinite potential we all have in us to create or rearrange what already exists.  This does come from a sloppy and misguided conception of language and how it shapes thought.  
The idea that something is only real and true once it has been proven by science, using the scientific method as it is today, is so destructive even of science that I am perplexed flabbergasted incandescent, plus which baffled as well as fascinated by the fact ppl don't see it, don't discuss it, and scientists themselves do not address it.

Because if the v nature and foundation of the scientific method is by definition an endless process whereby epistemology is a work in eternal progress (with perhaps the exception of some elements of biology and physics), then why should A Scientific Discovery be considered as a more final, solid, reliable truth than any other got via another epistemological field?  

If science is never done, if the scientific inquiry itself is always being perfected and its accepted truths challenged (necessarily), then surely it is AS reliable as any other type of knowledge.

But everything is not about science and how some of its tenets have been misapplied and misinterpreted.

The problem is a lot more serious.  I see these 20somethings walking around as if they've already died, not unlike the zombies they spend so much time attempting to kill in videogames.  There is no joy on their faces, no understanding of the beauty lying there, created by countless generations before them.  They know technology intimately, and think that because their grandparents couldn't operate a computer or a videogame, they were less intelligent, less capable, more naive.  In reality it is the v opposite.  

When one opens a BOOK, a dictionary, one doesn't only learn what one was looking for. When one looks for one word in the dictionary, one ends up seeing many others, and learning what those other words mean, too.  

Analog absorption of knowledge is more complete, more thorough, more vast, if yes slower.
But learning by analogy, identifying analogous elements in the world is far more important than knowing WHERE to click on a computer screen.

In my own circle, I have noticed how more and more ppl have difficulty identifying rather unimpressive, common, symbols, which anyone who grew up in a certain culture ought to be able to discern; ppl can't speak metaphorically anymore.  

The paradoxical element of metaphorical language is that because of its seeming vagueness and potential for misunderstanding, ppl apply their intellectual ability a lot more!  When an idea is conveyed in non-metaphorical language, the words used to convey it had better be pretty well-chosen, pretty accurate, for the interlocutor will not think twice. And this is tragic when linguistic knowledge has either not been ingested or has been poorly digested.
Metaphors HELP us think.  They help us think more, and better, and in different ways.
Symbols do, too.

But these elements are scarcer & scarcer in daily speech and, worse, in literature & in art!! The v womb of metaphors&symbols. This womb is now an inhospitable one, to match the general sterility of the average 20-something, plucked and clean, straight and falsely serious.  No! They're not even serious! I'm wrong!  They're DULL.

Instead of metaphors and symbols we get avatars and txt msg lingo.  At the HEIGHT of freedom, we choose to put ourselves in a prison of ignorance.  At a time when we could have the most knowledge about any and everything that's already been created, we choose instead to make our "knowledge" narrower and narrower, about things which are finite, and whose application is limited, and in the service and for the benefit of those whose interest is to keep us ignorant and disconnected, atomized, lost, depressed, drugged, surrounded by machines and meaningless objects, buying, buying, more&more, to dull the senses, distract the mind, lose focus; anything but see that we're running around in squares.  Yes squares!  My God 20somethings these days are square in the worst possible way!  Get married quickquick, have kids, get mortgage oweowe bucketsful of money to banks, to schools, quickquick, indebted youth has no time to think, they have to workwork get job makepayment every month!

This entry's organization is a reflection of the topic treated here.

I trust Mankind's potential.  I believe curiosity will prevail, even if at times it looks unlikely.

Today's young... the younger they look the older and more hopeless they are inside.  I wish that they,  like me, may become younger, the older they look.

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Is it a place? Is it a dance? Is it a rhetorical device?


Zumba is the largest dance fitness program in the world, based on a Latin-inspired dance fitness program created by dancer and choreographer Alberto "Beto" Perez in Colombia during the 1990s. [1]
Zumba, Ecuador
Zumba involves dance and aerobic elements. Zumba's choreography incorporates hip-hop, samba, salsa,merengue, mambo, martial arts, and some Bollywood and belly dance moves. Squats and lunges are also included.[2] Zumba does not charge licensing fees to gyms or fitness centers.[3]


Zeugma, Gaziantep, Turkey

In linguistics, a homonym is, in the strict sense, one of a group of words that share the same spelling and the same pronunciation but have different meanings.[1] Thus homonyms are simultaneously homographs (words that share the same spelling, irrespective of their pronunciation) and homophones (words that share the same pronunciation, irrespective of their spelling). The state of being a homonym is called homonymy. 


Sunday, October 2, 2011

Michel Foucault

"Parrhesia" is ordinarily translated into English by "free speech" (in French by "franc-parler", and in German by "Freimüthigkeit"). "Parrhesiazomai" is to use parrhesia, and the parrhesiastes is the one who uses parrhesia, i.e., is the one who speaks the truth.
(...)
Parrhesia and Frankness



To begin with, what is the general meaning of the word "parrhesia"? 


Etymologically, "parrhesiazesthai" means "to say everything – from "pan" (everything) and "rhema" (that which is said). The one who uses parrhesia, the parrhesiastes, is someone who says everything he has in mind: he does not hide anything, but opens his heart and mind completely to other people through his discourse. In parrhesia, the speaker is supposed to give a complete and exact account of what he has in mind so that the audience is able to comprehend exactly what the speaker thinks. The word "parrhesia" then, refers to a type of relationship between the speaker and what he says. For in parrhesia, the speaker makes it manifestly clear and obvious that what he says is his own opinion. And he does this by avoiding any kind of rhetorical form which would veil what he thinks. Instead, the parrhesiastes uses the most direct words and forms of expression he can find. Whereas rhetoric provides the speaker with technical devices to help him prevail upon the minds of his audience (regardless of the rhetorician's own opinion concerning what he says), in parrhesia, the parrhesiastes acts on other people's mind by showing them as directly as possible what he actually believes.

(...)

Parrhesia and Truth

(...)

It would be interesting to compare Greek parrhesia with the modern (Cartesian) conception of evidence. For since Descartes, the coincidence between belief and truth is obtained in a certain (mental) evidential experience. For the Greeks, however, the coincidence between belief and truth does not take place in a (mental) experience, but in a verbal activity, namely, parrhesia. It appears that parrhesia, in his Greek sense, can no longer occur in our modern epistemological framework.

(...)

If there is a kind of "proof" of the sincerity of the parrhesiastes, it is his courage. The fact that a speaker says something dangerous – different from what the majority believes– is a strong indication that he is a parrhesiastes. If we raise the question of how we can know whether someone is a truth-teller, we raise two questions. First, how is it that we can know whether some particular individual is a truth-teller; and secondly, how is it that the alleged parrhesiastes can be certain that what he believes is, in fact, truth. The first question – recognizing someone as a parrhesiastes – was a very important one in Greco-Roman society, and, as we shall see, was explicitly raised and discussed by Plutarch, Galen, and others. The second skeptical question, however, is a particularly modern one which, I believe, is foreign to the Greeks. (...)

Lectures, 1983, Berkeley Uni


Sunday, July 24, 2011

Invidia
Gericault, Portrait of a Woman Suffering from Obsessive Envy c. 1822

"What Nietzsche and Freud share is the idea that justice as equality is founded on envy--on the envy of the Other who has what we do not have, and who enjoys it. The demand for justice is thus ultimately the demand that the excessive enjoyment of the Other should be curtailed so that everyone's access to enjoyment is equal." 


Žižek, Violence (Picador, 2008), p. 89


Yes I'm happy with this definition of envy, and think it isn't talked about enough. However, it needs to be contrasted with jealousy, so all the by-products of one and of the other can be exposed. Invidia bifurcates.  We look at the root of the word in Latin and it quickly becomes apparent that it stems from another word.  Going backwards:  invidia from invedere (regard maliciously), from in- (=into) + videre (= to see).  


I read further.

"An evil person is thus not an egotist, 'thinking only about his own interests.' A true egotist is too busy taking care of his own good to have time to cause misfortune to others. The primary vice of a bad person is precisely that he is more preoccupied with others than with himself."

Žižek, Violence (Picador, 2008), p. 92


True.  This point is v important and ppl often neglect the implications of true egotism, or selfishness. Then:


"Here is why egalitarianism itself should never be accepted at its face value: the notion (and practice) of egalitarian justice, insofar as it is sustained by envy, relies on the inversion of the standard renunciation accomplished to benefit others: 'I am ready to renounce it, so that others will (also) NOT be able to have it!' Far from being opposed to the spirit of sacrifice, evil here emerges as the very spirit of sacrifice, ready to ignore one's own well being--if, through my sacrifice, I can deprive the Other of his enjoyment..."

Žižek, Violence (Picador, 2008), p. 92


But Slavoj, aren't you dodging v important factors?  Two, off the top of my head.  Namely:


1) The possibility egalitarianism and enjoyment can be levelled up. I don't deny the very real fact that if there are two ppl and one of them is cheerful and the other isn't, it gets complicated to see how both can be equally joyful, given the positive energy will come from one individual and the other will absorb it, therefore each person ends up with less energy than existed before it was divided in two; however, it is also possible that multiplication will arise from the division.  Now, with more positive energy than he had at the beginning of the equation, SadIndividual may turn into CheerfulIndividual and start to produce his own positive energy, enough to give some back to the person who was already joyful, increasing the product.  It's a possible interpretation of the Parable of the Talents, no?  Multiply the initial natural resource, and;


2) It is problematic to isolate envy without contrasting it to jealousy, because one crucial element gets lost in the analysis of only one concept.
I agree envy is characterized primarily by not only the desire to have a quality or a thing the Other possesses but also, and, more importantly, by wanting to take it away from the Other so that no one has it in the end.  "If I can't have it, I don't want you to have it either."  It's a framework where everyone loses.
However, the missing element must be inserted into the equation precisely because I believe that once it is brought to light, the likelihood envy will turn into jealousy is encouraging.


If one starts from the premise that jealousy is characterized by the desire to possess something one doesn't yet have, without the added factor of wanting the Other to lose it, one reaches the conclusion that the dispossessed may end up achieving the object of his covetous thoughts.  Coveting isn't necessarily bad-- it may become negative if one crosses the line into envy.


Envious ppl could experience a positive transition into jealousy if they considered the following:


a) If the object of my envy loses what it possesses, the world becomes poorer and poorer, until, in the end, if my wishes are granted, I won't even have anything to be envious of, since no one will have anything worthy of my envy;


b) I, too, can have what I envy, within reason, if I apply myself and take the paths which lead to it;


c) Envy is stupid: what the envious person fails to perceive is that he who observes a quality has the perspicacity, the sensibility, the intelligence, the emotional resources to look at it and make an assessment of it, to see it, to value it for what it is.  The reader, the spectator, the listener is as responsible for the elevation or recognition of something as the person who created it or has it.  If I look at Magritte and see nothing, I have no reason at all to be jealous/envious.  If I see how stupendous it is, some of the credit goes to me, too!  Magritte wouldn't exist if no one could see his talent, and appreciate his art.  So envious ppl only need think this through.  They're underestimating their own capacity to identify quality, beauty, value.


Slavoj, I'd like to know what you'd say to this, but I don't think you read my blog.  I know you wouldn't be envious, though.