GENIUS FORUMS

prince wrote:

cousinbasil wrote:for I gain things all the time, with others and without them.

Actually you don't, it just seems that way (now, but perhaps not for much longer)

cousinbasil wrote:Kelly, this has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It is just a simple fact that there are many people who can communicate to large groups effectively. I have seen it done many times, and often with difficult subject matter. To be sure, there are many more people who cannot. I myself am on the cusp - it depends on the material and the size of the crowd, but I would readily concede it not to be my forte.

David Quinn wrote:

cousinbasil wrote:Kelly, this has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It is just a simple fact that there are many people who can communicate to large groups effectively. I have seen it done many times, and often with difficult subject matter. To be sure, there are many more people who cannot. I myself am on the cusp - it depends on the material and the size of the crowd, but I would readily concede it not to be my forte.

What sort of public speaking do you do?

-

Kelly Jones wrote:cousinbasil,

When you form your ideas for a public address, do you imagine the person who is your listener, and find an expression of the idea to suit them?

Knowing you will have a range of different psychologies, experiences, attitudes, values, and personalities in your audience, do you not aim for a kind of average of all these people, and then talk to this "imaginary listener", hoping that at some point, or to some degree, it will be appropriate to most?

So, put yourself in the position of the one listening - yourself, obviously. Consider what is it like to be addressed as a cipher, as a member of a crowd? That person is not you, is it? It's a third party, and it's a third party that resembles no one in the room.


.

Kelly wrote:I think you aren't getting the crucial point of what I'm trying to communicate to you, or why I'm focussing on this.

It takes inwardness, and a strong, centralised sense of "I", to perceive a difference between the abstract person that someone believes is you, when they address you, whether in a face-to-face conversation, when reading a book, or hearing a speech

I'm not talking about how everyone is unique, and that there is no real communication between people (although that is true, too). I'm talking about the strong sense of "I" that revolts from being collapsed and glued into something that lives only in the minds of others - i.e. individuality. Consciousness.

cousinbasil wrote:A difference between what and what? You do not indicate two things here.

Kelly wrote:I'm not talking about how everyone is unique, and that there is no real communication between people (although that is true, too). I'm talking about the strong sense of "I" that revolts from being collapsed and glued into something that lives only in the minds of others - i.e. individuality. Consciousness.

You are saying that there is no real communication between people. This is clearly not true.

Forgive me, but this "I" that revolts from being collapsed and glued, etc... I have not experienced this. Could this be a male/female thing?

Whatever you think I'm saying is what you think I'm saying. No one can know exactly what anyone else means, but only their own interpretation - based on their own experiences, psychology, personal vocabulary, etc.

If you continued to read the rest of the paragraph, you would get the gist of it.

Have you ever attended a sports game, or rock concert, where everyone was lively, vocal, and really into the spectacle? Did you feel yourself become a different person, excited to be with them and to be one with them, sharing the "atmosphere", being one with the emotional "vibration" of the crowd?

Or did you draw back, remaining still and unaffected by the buzz, the "social feeling"?

cousinbasil wrote:Kelly, can you see why I think this is too funny?

I wrote:Whatever you think I'm saying is what you think I'm saying. No one can know exactly what anyone else means, but only their own interpretation - based on their own experiences, psychology, personal vocabulary, etc.

AND

I wrote:If you continued to read the rest of the paragraph, you would get the gist of it.

If what you are saying is true, aren't we wasting each other's time right now?

KJ: I'm not talking about how everyone is unique, and that there is no real communication between people (although that is true, too). I'm talking about the strong sense of "I" that revolts from being collapsed and glued into something that lives only in the minds of others - i.e. individuality. Consciousness.

cb: Forgive me, but this "I" that revolts from being collapsed and glued, etc... I have not experienced this. Could this be a male/female thing?

KJ: Have you ever attended a sports game, or rock concert, where everyone was lively, vocal, and really into the spectacle? Did you feel yourself become a different person, excited to be with them and to be one with them, sharing the "atmosphere", being one with the emotional "vibration" of the crowd? Or did you draw back, remaining still and unaffected by the buzz, the "social feeling"?

cb: Both, actually - and I am the arbiter of which thing happens. If it is harmless, such as a baseball game or a free jazz concert on a summer evening, I permit myself to feel part of the crowd. I might react differently to a hanging in the public square. Just kidding, but I do remember times when the feel of a crowd was not quite right, causing me to leave the event.

I think you are tapping into something rather primal here, but I'm sure you know that. Put in simple, rough terms, if one is in a crowd that turns violent, does one turn violent as well? The basic instinct is to be demonstrably with the majority, lest that majority's newfound blood-lust identifies one as a target/victim.