I think you're probably looking to communicate with a beginner-thinker. Most beginner-thinkers are skeptical, and pretty wise to the amount of bullshit around. They will automatically be critically registering facts about the author of anything they read, even if it's a newspaper article. One cannot submit a video without there being some wonderment about the creator of it.Dan Rowden wrote:If that happens it's because a person has a deep issue which will make them blind to the message anyway.Kelly Jones wrote:Speaking in person focussing on you, but so do images focus on you, your personality, your intentions, aesthetic preferences.
We're not talking about an enlightened viewer, I think.
But it is. What one understands is revealed in the person. It could be done.Because it's not about a person. (I made that clear in the intro to the channel).I am wondering why someone chooses to remain invisible while sharing such profound and challenging remarks.
My name is Dan Rowden. I am presenting a series of videos called "Men of the Infinite." They are about x,y,z. What I wish to focus your attention on, are the ideas and truths presented to you. So, I'm going to turn the camera away from myself in a moment's time. I'm talking about ideas, which are hard to convey in images. Nevertheless, I've chosen to make a video, and I'll have some symbolic images to help convey what I'm talking about. But I exhort you to focus on the ideas, rather than me or my voice. This is all about the use of the rational faculties. So, you might like to imagine my words are communicating directly with your own thoughts.
Etc.
It's not, Dan. People offer ideas, and the ideas might not be true. Being deceived creates mental pain. So it does require no small amount of trust to listen to a philosophical speech, more so for a beginner-thinker, when on the face of it, it's likely a person will be offering a range of lies.Why does trust adhere because there's a face? What you're suggesting is a form of ad hominem. Think about it.So I am more focussed on the speaker who is invisible, because he is asking me to trust him more. Why should I trust him?
For a video with images and music, or a radio item, I don't think much about the creator, unless it's a remarkable item, like Koyaanisqatsi or Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. But a video of a serious speech is rather different, because there are images, and a speaker's voice. To put the video in context, the intelligent observer will probably wonder: what is the theme? what is the speaker intending to convey? what sort of person is the speaker? Are they prone to holding beliefs typical for their class, education, religion, or are they conveying something more challenging? Is this the production of a cult-member?
I think those questions are not unusual.
The key is really that the images are not of the speaker, so there have to be reasons why not. Is the invisible voice leading up to the main thing? Is it an amateur production, where the speaker is nervous and doesn't wish to be publicly recognised? Is this the voice of the person who created the thing, or a voice actor? In some part of the mind, probably vaguely, a skeptic will run through such ideas.
Do you never wonder about psychology in this way?
I will chip in for a video camera. But I would like to have a say in choosing it.Buy and mail me a camera.You could try a voice-over of your thoughts, with images of you wandering about in your everyday life, interspersed with 'voice-captioned' images.
Yes, I watched the video. He does seem to be over-fed and spoilt. But he does get some basic principles right. I've currently been reading his books on Mother Teresa, Henry Kissinger, Letters to a Contrarian, and God is Not Great, and while there is ranting, the basic ideas aren't bad.I like Hitchens a lot, actually, but he is still an arrogant shit. His politics disgust me. You might be interested in the fact that he recently subjected himself to water boarding and changed his mind about torture thereafter. It's important to realise how much hot air emanates from his lungs.Hitchens isn't a wise man. I suggested the two videos for the examples of speaking in person, using some interesting editing techniques.
What I like most about Hitchens:
- he is humble enough to admit he isn't a specialist in physics or philosophy when he makes his anti-deist arguments, so he resists the pull into arrogance that many others fall into.
- he speaks directly and simply about things most others smooth over, which is an important skill, like hating one's enemy instead of lying that one loves them.
- he speaks without noticeable anxiety or stress. So he helps focus attention on the ideas.
- he is not afraid to chastise his audience, which few speakers would dare to do.
- he emphasises the importance of rationality.
On the downside is his obvious exploitation of his public school education, sex appeal, British accent, extraordinary memory, and 'bad boy' image, to try to sway his audience and feed of animal instincts for power.
