PDA

View Full Version : Way of the Warrior Question



luar
12th August 2005, 22:41
I just got my DVD copy from an EBay seller over in the UK. In the zanshin portion of the video, would that be Michael Eastwoord Sensei on the right? I thought that kiei sounded familiar.

Anders Pettersson
13th August 2005, 02:36
I just got my DVD copy from an EBay seller over in the UK. In the zanshin portion of the video, would that be Michael Eastwoord Sensei on the right? I thought that kiei sounded familiar.
Gassho.

Hi Raul.

I haven't looked at the Way of the Warrior in a long time, but it is not Michael that you see.

The Way of the Warrior was filmed in 1981 and Michael Eastwood hadn't started Shorinjikempo at that time.

One of the non-Japanese persons in that program is Peter Monk from New Zealand. I also think that one is John Rogers who used to do the translations for the old newsletter called 'Gassho' in the 80s.
A lot of the Busen students can also be recognised as Hombu staff today.


BTW is your DVD of good quality or is it just VHS quality transfered to a DVD?


/Anders

luar
13th August 2005, 13:52
Gassho Pettersson Sensei

The version I have can only be viewed from laptop as since it comes the UK, it is in different region format. It looks like the source is from VHS but on my laptop it does look like its of very high quality. The seller even went to the trouble of taking the cover of the book and using that to make the DVD lablel as well as the cover of the DVD holder. Overall I am happy and am already working on converting it to US region format.

Now that I have seen it fully, I must say that I very taken aback about the content of the reporting which is very different from the book. The narrator seems to focus more on the inernal political structure of hombu. Obviously it was filmed after Kaiso's death and I am aware of the problems there was with his family seeking a successor but I am not sure if this portion was neccessary. The same thing about the political dealings with right-wing politicians.

Tripitaka of AA
13th August 2005, 18:59
This program was first broadcast the week after I started at Jee Sensei's class, IIRC. I'd watched a class, then I think I had done my first class as a participant (in sloppy T-shirt and track-suit bottoms).

Most of the stuff was fascinating, some of it over my head. The demonstration from Bando Sensei was highly memorable. Almost unbelievable (three years later I saw him do the same stuff at Hombu, my jaw still dropped). There were mutterings in the next class about the commentary and it was explained that a representative the BSKF had liaised with the production crew, but there had been a falling out, this individual had been expelled from the BSKF and had left the production team with some of his thoughts. Further details available from BSKF old-timers (older than me).

The other programs in the series were good too. The Shorinji Kempo Hombu stands out as being far and away the best-eqipped and largest headquarters anywhere. The top place for Goju-ryu by comparison, is a small gym behind the Sensei's house.

David Dunn
15th August 2005, 10:41
I don't know the full details, but Mizuno Sensei was moved to complain about the representation (I think an article appeared in a martial arts magazine). He was particularly exercised that 'ordinary' dojos had not been represented, and there was a high emphasis on religion and politics at hombu.

Raul, are there any more copies of this DVD available? My old vhs is worn out, and missing the opening credits.

The narrator was Dennis Waterman, incidentally. Little dodgy maybe, but underneath, he's awwwright.

luar
15th August 2005, 14:58
Raul, are there any more copies of this DVD available? My old vhs is worn out, and missing the opening credits.

This was the EBay Auction (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6418677497&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&rd=1) where I got the DVD and it looks like he does have several copies. I have only seen the Shorinji Kempo portion and again only on my laptop but it does appear to be of fine quality.



The narrator was Dennis Waterman, incidentally. Little dodgy maybe, but underneath, he's awwwright.

Good thing it wasn't Martin Bashir

tony leith
15th August 2005, 16:59
from Luar


Good thing it wasn't Martin Bashir

Actually, could he have been much worse? The technical presentation of Shorinjikempo in the programme was fantastic - a very high level of technique represented, as well as embu. Saw the whole series again on a pirate copy in the recent past, and of the arts covered I thought we came out equal best looking with the traditional Indian styles (how to learn defence against a big stick - your master repeatedly clobbers you with one until you show some signs of getting out of the way) and escrima, a Phillipine combination of stick and knife fighting demonstrated by a truly awesome master who was effortlessly shutting down attacks with one hand while whacking his hapless victim with the other.

What the programme didn't convey at all was the actual flavour of the training. I suspect as a deliberate editorial decision, Hombu was made to look like the headquarters of a Bond villian (admittedly the fact that when the students weren't in dogi they were running around in natty black one piece jumpsuits with an unexplained manji on their chests probably didn't help..)

I have heard a rumour that the aformentioned Mr Waterman actually practiced Shorinjikempo for a while back in the 70s, and left in 'you can't sack me, I resign' sort of circumstances. This may have no basis in fact whatever, but if the Internet can't be used for peddling unsubstantiated rumour, what is it good for?

Tony leith

Tripitaka of AA
15th August 2005, 17:20
Tony, are you sure that is not the rumour about the "advisor" that I mentioned previously? I don't recall hearing anything about Dennis "Minder" Waterman being any kind of Budoka.... although I certainly enjoy a good rumour, did you hear that Rolf Harris was once auditioned to replace Brian Jones in the Rolling Stones? Or how about the time Wilfred Bramble (Steptoe) got arrested for an act of gross indecency in a public toilet? Britney Spears is related to Stan Lee (the creator of Marvel Comics)? Or the time Kaiso stole the Chinese plans for the Heavy Water production, singlehandedly changing the course of the Cold War? Or



Okay, this is silly... but at least one of those stories is true!

tony leith
15th August 2005, 20:33
Tony, are you sure that is not the rumour about the "advisor" that I mentioned previously? I don't recall hearing anything about Dennis "Minder" Waterman being any kind of Budoka....

Damn. Another perfectly good myth bites the dust.

Where's the quote about 'printing the legend' from again? (That's how religions get started of course, so I'm not seriously suggesting it's a good idea - the fact that some martial artists claim to be able to dodge bullets, shatter spears etc etc has always worried me greatly)

Tony Leith

Gary Dolce
15th August 2005, 22:26
Gassho.

One of the non-Japanese persons in that program is Peter Monk from New Zealand. I also think that one is John Rogers who used to do the translations for the old newsletter called 'Gassho' in the 80s.
A lot of the Busen students can also be recognised as Hombu staff today.

/Anders

There were also two Cornell University Branch Kenshi at Hombu at the time that segment was filmed who can be identified in the background of some scenes. Unfortunately, neither of them is still practicing.

JL.
16th August 2005, 01:15
Gassho!


... but if the Internet can't be used for peddling unsubstantiated rumour, what is it good for?
Can't think of anything.



... but at least one of those stories is true!
Which one?

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

luar
18th August 2005, 19:20
All I can say was that the person I bought this DVD copy from on EBay his username was Mr Miyagi. How cool is that.

David Dunn
26th August 2005, 13:08
I just got one of these too, from the same source. Some ebayer called tonyleith was bidding on another one. I've only looked on my pc but the quality seems fine, and certainly better than my old VHS copy.

tony leith
26th August 2005, 15:11
And I now seem to be the proud owner of a (slightly less than fully authorised, much I care) DVD of 'Way of the warrior'.

Looking forward to seeing it again in a slightly less ropey format than twenty year old VHS. Incidentally, another copy seems to have cropped up on ebay if anybody's interested (could somebody have a production line going?). Well worth a watch - as i said, the episodes on kalari and escrimo are also very good.

Tony Leith

luar
26th August 2005, 18:05
Hmmm... What is to stop someone from rendering the SK portion into lets say a compressable format such as WMV and post it on some web site for download? Hmmmm.

Tripitaka of AA
26th August 2005, 20:03
.... ummm, copyright law?

jailess
26th August 2005, 21:48
Do we practice copyright law or do we practice ShorinjiKempo?

This material is not even giving any money to Hombu, it's just going into the pockets of eBay dealers - 2nd Hand dealers is the only source of old material lie this. Hombu aren't reprinting Doshin So's english language books (even though there's a market for them). I doubt they even got much money from the BBC for the 'Way of the Warrior' series. By converting the SK episode into WMV/MPEG/AVI format and spreading it around the web (by sending it directly to 0009140m@student.gla.ac.uk, for example) all we're doing is spreading really good footage of high-level ShorinjiKempo. Besides, would we be really doing anything worse than what that eBay seller's doing at the moment?

David Dunn
26th August 2005, 23:59
At least one ebudo kenshi lurker works at the BBC. I suspect there are channels for gettting high quality copies of old series legitimately. Ask for X :)

Finny
27th August 2005, 08:30
FWIW, the BBC has not realeased the Way of the Warrior series - so anyone with a copy, VHS or DVD, is violating copyright law.

I've heard numerous times over the years that the BBC are 'planning' on releasing the series sometime in the future... but it hasn't happened yet.

Tripitaka of AA
27th August 2005, 10:38
The producers of the series (in this case the BBC) ould be the ones out of pocket. They would therefore be keen to prevent any marketing of unauthorised copies of their products. Just like Disney or any of the major studios, the BBC has invested a lot of money in making quality programs, which it sells (leases?) to broadcasters around the world. When it does this, it is obliged to pay fees to people who helped create the program in the first place (actors, presenters, producer too, I think). There is a complicated system of royalties, residuals, cheques and income tax returns that all swings into action any time an old program is sold for broadcast, turned into a video/dvd/etc.

The Pirate who just copies his old tape a few times is just a drop in the ocean, but you can bet that the producers take a dim view of ANY unathorised copying. They tend to believe in the deterrent power of prosecution for copyright theft. They need to scare off the small-scale operators and hope that a few prosecutions every now and then will serve to prevent the large-scale violation of the rules ....

Steve Williams
27th August 2005, 20:27
At least one ebudo kenshi lurker works at the BBC. I suspect there are channels for gettting high quality copies of old series legitimately. Ask for X :)

Not so sure about that, as far as I have been informed a lot of old series/programmes are not kept in "perfect" condition, at least not any "often repeated" stuff....... so if you can get a reasonable copy then keep hold of it, it may be the best you will get.

sean dixie
28th August 2005, 21:57
I got my copy from a friend who works at the beeb (not X I might hasten to add) he said that there were all sorts of warnings on the case that seemed to indicate that the series would not be aired anytime again soon.

Just an idea- as a fully paid up program investor in the BBC (licence payer) I pay my money for them to make TV to entertain me. Should I then not be allowed to keep any of this TV that's made? I still find it a cheek that they sell the DVDs back to us that we have already paid them to make for us! :rolleyes:

Ewok
28th August 2005, 22:48
Isn't it technically illegal to record shows off the TV to VHS anyway? :rolleyes:

Tripitaka of AA
28th August 2005, 23:32
"Personal consumption".

John Ryan
28th August 2005, 23:47
I think it's all right to record broadcast media for your own use; the problem arises when you use it for your own gain (and thereby breach copyright laws). E.g. recording a TV program, or a song on the radio. I'm not sure about distribution, namely whether it's OK to lend said recording to someone else for no fee. Regardless, it's so difficult to prove that I doubt anyone would waste their time prosecuting it...

David Dunn
29th August 2005, 02:14
Sean, any idea why it wasn't to be shown? Sounds a bit ominous.

The BBC charter does include 'entertainment', but it is supposed to be third behind information and education. I think the licence fee is actually a licence to own a telly/radio, not really a stake in the BBC - at least that's how it would be argued if you put your case. The TV licence is really a tax by another name. Like National Insurance.

So, I'm allowed to record a programme for my own personal use. Does that mean if I buy a hookie copy it's alright, and only the person that sold it is breaking the law?

Tripitaka of AA
29th August 2005, 04:11
Perhaps it says it on that bit of text that we all fast-forward through at the beginning of every tape, dvd, etc.

As an example, the small print from the packaging of my DVD of "Princess Mononoke";


The copyright proprietor has licensed this DVD (including its soundtrack) for private home use only. All other rights are reserved. Any unauthorised copying, editing, exhibition, renting, public performance, diffusion and/or broadcast of tis DVD, or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. This DVD is not to be exported, resupplied or distributed by way of trade outside the EU without a proper licence from Buena Vista Entertainment.

Pleading ignorance won't help, when it is printed on the case of every bought DVD in the land, and shown on the screen (in multiple languages!).

tony leith
29th August 2005, 09:59
Pleading ignorance won't help, when it is printed on the case of every bought DVD in the land, and shown on the screen (in multiple languages!).

Unfortunately, very true - witness the poor sods who have been taken to court for music file sharing. The music industry knows full well that they are only a miniscule minority of those indulging in this pastime, but has still sought punitive damages in the hope that it might deter others (of course in several instances the people have been paid up have been unsuspecting parents who may well have known nothing about it until the summons arrived for their offspring..)

Still, I think there is a counterargument to made re. documentary material like 'Way of the Warrior'. Given that the extent of the broadcaster's contribution is packaging the material, the real 'intellectual content' of the programme is the actual martial arts practice depicted, and in no sense could the broadcasters assert copyright over that.

I do think broadcasters have a tendency to assert copyright over anything they point their cameras at. An example - we once had a joint celeidh with another martial arts club at Glasgow Uni. A camera crew from Sky showed up making a tasteful 'documentary' about students 'on the pull', and proceeded to immortalise the most inebriated people they could find on videotape (you can imagine - "Women - let me tell y' about wimmin (hic)..).

They basically exploited a social event which they had nothing to do with staging (and the people attending it). The university union may well have received payment, but we incurred the costs of putting on the celeidh, and they certainly didn't make any contribution. No doubt the subsequent programme was copyright Sky Television/evil empire of R. Murdoch esq., all rights reserved.

I was one of several people who contemplated throwing these people out on their arses, preferably with extreme prejudice, but in the end we decided it could compromise our relations with the student union. But my god, we were tempted...

Tony Leith

Tripitaka of AA
29th August 2005, 09:59
So, I'm allowed to record a programme for my own personal use. Does that mean if I buy a hookie copy it's alright, and only the person that sold it is breaking the law?

Judging from Industry efforts (http://www.piracyisacrime.com/) to raise awareness of the criminality, it would seem that there is no law against buying, only selling. However, the responsible buyer shoould not turn a blind eye to the crime, should he.

What laws are OK to break? What do you tell your kids?

jailess
29th August 2005, 12:45
Laws are derived from moral principles, which are in turn a society-derived definition of 'good' and 'evil', two fairly opposite concepts which in reality are opposite ends of a Yin/Yang sliding scale. Some things are very very bad, some things are very very good, and a lot of things are between these extremes.

The laws which aren't okay to break are those that cause huge amounts of suffering, e.g. the Geneva convention and in the long term the Kyoto accord. Laws which are okay to break are ones which cause very little suffering, or if the action of breaking the law rights a moral wrong.

Now I know I should feel as much empathy for Roche or Novartis as I do for an HIV/AIDS victim dying of systemic candidiasis, easily curable by Diflucan (Fluconazole, a widely-used antifungal which is sold for pennies in the UK but costs a mint in subsaharan africa), but dammit I just can't bring myself to say, "What about the suffering of that faceless multinational that just announced their highest quarterly profits since Prozac came on the market? they must be suffering too, you know..."

Law which, when broken, hurt businesses, I couldn't care less about. Large companies, like the record industry, Big Pharma etc. would have to make huge losses to piracy before it started to hurt the people in the company. Businesses are not real organisms, they're a set of paperwork that keeps a group of people working towards a common goal. Committing a crime against a big business is like a fly sucking blood from an elephant. It doesn't do !!!!, and you'd need about a billion flies before the elephant gave a damn.

The other instance when it's okay to break the law is to right a wrong. Laws and Morals are usually congruent, but sometimes they're not. At that point you should disregard the law and do what's right. Perhaps you've heard of these men:


Robin Hood
Pope John Paul III
Gandhi
Martin Luther King
Doshin So

They all broke the law, but they were all morally right to do what they did.

I know morals are changeable things that vary from person to person, but roughly we all follow the same moral principles, usually derived from some religious doctrine (Judaeo-christian in the West, Buddhist in the east, etc.). Upholding them is more important than obeying the law. This is why it's okay for me to steal.

Now I know there are about a million holes in what I just said, and copyright/patent law is there for a reason, and technically I should never ever ever break any laws, but let's face it: no one here thinks stealing from Novartis to supply cheap antiretrovirals to subsaharan africa (as some Indian pharmaceutical companies were doing) is morally wrong, even though it violated internatinoal trade agreements. I know I sound like a total hippy liberal socialist tofu-eating marxist G8-protesting 'screw-the-system'-monkey, but in my book people come first, always. The law's there to protect people, and when it doesn't do that, we should throw the lawbook away. Just make sure you don't hit anyone with it, though, cos it's heavy.

sean dixie
29th August 2005, 22:12
Good point that man above. Err, ok it's all breaking the law but knowing plenty of people at the beeb and what's going on there at the moment I think they have bigger fish to fry than a few kenshi buying a hooky copy of a twenty year old documentry they made and are refusing to show again despite the current cr#p they are still repeating.

I've actually a client who is a full time lawyer for the beeb (they do spend a lot of time in the courts) I'll ask if I see her soon what action would likely be taken.

tony leith
29th August 2005, 22:54
Stick it to the man, Jame...


The law's there to protect people, and when it doesn't do that, we should throw the lawbook away.

As a matter of historical reality, no it ain't, except to the extent that social classes as organised forces have compelled it to (copyright Karl Marx). Not only the law but most social conventions in very large measure exist to protect the interests of the dominant elements in society. In most of today's world that would be the capitalists, though of course in feudal themepark Britain we have contrived to preserve a fully functioning aristocracy, and even, gawd help us, a monarchy.

Where the protection of the law has come to be extended more widely, generally people have had to fight for it, using whatever leverage is available.

The law does function as a protection to some extent, and I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society without a police force. Nevertheless, incidents like an innocent bystander getting shot at a christening party in Peckham because some ****wits apparently wanted to steal some bottles of wine seems to indicate that the protection of the law does NOT apply equally to all citizens. This sort of thing does not happen too regularly in Chiswick or Bearsden (and brings out a pretty illiberal side of me - if the justice system functioned perfectly, I'd have no reservations about the application of summary capital punishment to the people responsible).

Tony Leith

David Dunn
30th August 2005, 00:44
As a matter of historical reality, no it ain't, except to the extent that social classes as organised forces have compelled it to (copyright Karl Marx).

What he said. The law is based on the morals of the ruling class in any period of history, and in this period the dominant morals are the protection of private property, copyright being a case in point.


The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”

Karl Marx The German Ideology


The apparent separation of the idea from the human leads to the belief that the idea governs history, rather than the materialist recognition that humans make the idea, as a part of their making of society and the conditions of material life. (That's Marx's objection to the young Hegelians). I don't think there's much dispute in the above, when one considers who has the means at their disposal for trying to win arguments.

What do you mean? I thought all eighteen year olds read Kant, Hume and Marx?

Incidentally, all despisers of relativism, post-modernism and all forms of quackery will enjoy Francis Wheen's "How mumbo jumbo conquered the world."

satsukikorin
30th August 2005, 05:32
It seems to me that Marx got that right. But do you agree that the march of technology seems to be weakening the ruling classes' the chokehold on the spread of ideas and information? For example, the U.S. civil rights movement was undeniably aided by television: evidence of the activists' convictions--including their commitment to peace rather than violent revolution--was visible to anyone with a TV set.

Now, with the internet, things have progressed a step further: with a small investment, anyone can become a worldwide broadcaster. It used to be that you had to have the money, know-how, connections, etc. to actually buy a TV or radio station (or at least airtime) or mass-produce something printed in order to get your message out. The internet has dramatically lowered the bar for broadcast eligibility. Obviously internet broadcasting is still out of reach of, say, half the population of the world (at a guess), but that's a hell of an improvement over just 15 years ago.

Reacting more directly to the thread topic, I have often wondered what the attitude is—formally and informally—to the idea of copying for personal use material that is otherwise unavailable. I mean, is it generally considered OK to bootleg something you'd be quite willing to pay for if only it were being sold?

sean dixie
30th August 2005, 09:14
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”

Karl Marx The German Ideology


"Incidentally, all despisers of relativism, post-modernism and all forms of quackery will enjoy Francis Wheen's "How mumbo jumbo conquered the world"

Feeling very insecure,- please, if there is anyone else on this forum who like me hasn't a bl@@dy clue what all the above means please let yourself be known!

tb055
30th August 2005, 09:34
Incidentally, all despisers of relativism, post-modernism and all forms of quackery will enjoy Francis Wheen's "How mumbo jumbo conquered the world."I second that, it's a great book. At the same time very funny and very depressing.

tony leith
30th August 2005, 11:14
It seems to me that Marx got that right. But do you agree that the march of technology seems to be weakening the ruling classes' the chokehold on the spread of ideas and information? For example, the U.S. civil rights movement was undeniably aided by television: evidence of the activists' convictions--including their commitment to peace rather than violent revolution--was visible to anyone with a TV set.

True up to a point. I do think 'dialectical historical materialism' has a tendency to be over deterministic, especially as articulated not by Marx himself but by the people who subsequently appointed themselves his high priests (Marx himself disgustedly remarked that "whatever else I am, I am no Marxist"). In works like the '18th Brumiere' Marx does actually spend more time discussing what historical actors do in their given moment, and seems to be acknowledging that they can exercise some real freedom of choice within the concrete historical circumstances they find themselves in.

Marx after all did insist on the importance of the proletariat as the agents of what he saw as the inevitable transformation of capitalist society into socialism (still waiting, Karl). The fact that all attempts at socialist revolution since Marx have actually been organised by members of the petit bourgeoisie, usually anointing themselves as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', is just a delicious historical irony.. I'm reminded of many run ins with Student Socialist Workers' Socieities, which is a contradiction in terms on so many levels it's difficult to know where to begin.


Now, with the internet, things have progressed a step further: with a small investment, anyone can become a worldwide broadcaster. It used to be that you had to have the money, know-how, connections, etc. to actually buy a TV or radio station (or at least airtime) or mass-produce something printed in order to get your message out. The internet has dramatically lowered the bar for broadcast eligibility. Obviously internet broadcasting is still out of reach of, say, half the population of the world (at a guess), but that's a hell of an improvement over just 15 years ago.

Again, true up to a point, though the Internet does seem to be becoming progessively less and less an anarchic (in the true sense) domain where the interchange of ideas is free in monetary terms. Also, mere access to a medium of communication isn't quite the same thing as being able to challenge the apparatus of domination and control (viz. how many millions of people does Fox News reach, versus a guerilla webcast?)

PS Sean, don't worry about it, Marx did have a tendency to produce great slabs of Teutonic prose which are not exactly light reading. 'The Communist manifesto' is about as close as he got to a pacy bestseller.

Tony Leith

Tripitaka of AA
30th August 2005, 15:30
... talk about bringing out the big guns!

Methinks they doth protest too much :)

tony leith
30th August 2005, 15:49
Methinks they doth protest too much

About what, exactly?

I think I detect a faint whiff of anti-intellectualism. For what it's worth, I don't think it makes you a worse person/inferior human being not to have a nodding acquaintance with the works of Marx (or Hume, or Sartre), but it does mean you're depriving yourself of a certain platform for your understanding. This platform doesn't have to have been acquired in formal education - anybody can buy and read books (believe me, there will be lots of second hand 'collected works' in bookshops near any university, dscarded as soon as the students have got through the exam).

Not all of this stuff is easy to read. Marx is not for example generally a pithy aphorist (though he does do them from time to time), and there are passages I find pretty hard to get through. Plato I just gave up on (I lasted all of one day in Moral Philosophy 101), and I can only hope Pierre Bourdieu makes more sense in French than he does in English (if you think German Hegelians are bad, try French sociologists of any sort)

There are also certainly lots of examples of where a convoluted prose style masks not very much of substance, but sometimes complex ideas can only be expressed in a complex way.

One of the problems we have culturally I think is that while the video age has made people much better at processing visual input, I think it has had a pretty catastrophic impact on the ability to concentrate for any length of time and to analyse (I speak as somebody who's had to mark undergraduate essays and exam scripts). I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but it's pretty obvious contemporary culture is going to be better at producing consumers than informed/concerned citizens...

Tony Leith

Indar
30th August 2005, 15:51
Feeling very insecure,- please, if there is anyone else on this forum who like me hasn't a bl@@dy clue what all the above means please let yourself be known!

I think that what he's saying (more or less) is that "it's the ruling class that makes the rules" ???????

anyway, the best (and most understandable) quote from Karl Marx:

"philosophers have interpreted the world; our job is to change it"

(and one that works for Kongo Zen as well)

tony leith
30th August 2005, 16:07
I think that what he's saying (more or less) is that "it's the ruling class that makes the rules" ???????

Not quite as simple as that. For example at the end of the quote Dave used:-


For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”

What Marx is saying that the separation of powers as embodied in the US Constitution and more widely in the west is usually represented as being a reflection of the 'inalienable rights of the individual' (meaning at the time the US Constitution was drafted, white male property owners). What Marx is saying is that it simply reflects an unresolved conflict between the dominant interests in society, and that this is ultimately determined by who controls the productive resources of said society. There may well not be a simple ruling class as such - social, economic, and political power will be contested.


"philosophers have interpreted the world; our job is to change it"

Fair point, but bear in mid that Marx thought his scientific socialism went beyond mere philosophy to provide an objective account of why socieities function the way they do, and thereby provided the leverage necessary to change it.

Tony Leith

sean dixie
30th August 2005, 16:13
Cheers Indar! Hmmm, I would get out and buy a book, but I'm just now studying for my divemaster exams and the basic physics there is enough to give me a headache!......Sarah! Help! :p

Sami Elkhalifa
30th August 2005, 16:38
It's not the physics that gives me a headache, Sean. It's trying to read the Dive Manual while holding my breath underwater. :)

paul browne
30th August 2005, 16:45
Gassho,
Tony, Dave et al,
As someone with more than a passing acqaintence with this country's legal system, if the legal eagles of Auntie ever come looking for you, take my advice and don't run any of the above as your defence....you'll hang :D

Kesshu
Paul

tony leith
30th August 2005, 17:22
As someone with more than a passing acqaintence with this country's legal system, if the legal eagles of Auntie ever come looking for you, take my advice and don't run any of the above as your defence....you'll hang

Our point exactly.

Power to the people!

Tony Leith

PS Though obviously not the people that read the Sun. Or the Daily Mail. Or go on holiday to Spain and spend all their time in bars watching Sky sports on TV. Or watch soap operas (and I include 'Footballers' Wives' - postmodern irony is not a valid defence). I've got a little list....

jailess
30th August 2005, 17:55
Though obviously not the people that read the Sun. Or the Daily Mail. Or go on holiday to Spain and spend all their time in bars watching Sky sports on TV. Or watch soap operas (and I include 'Footballers' Wives' - postmodern irony is not a valid defence). I've got a little list....

I note that the most popular and influential newspapers in the country are the Tabloids mentioned above (comparison: Sun's daily readership 4 million, to the leading UK broadsheet the Telegraph's 0.7 million). How do these newspapers fit into the above social structures? do people think they are run by the ruling classes to keep the lower socioeconomic groups' concentration focused on inanities (over 70% of the Sun's readership is classified as simiskilled or lower)? Or do you see it as a newspaper run by the people for the people?

Apologies to Kenshi who are outside of the UK and have no idea what I'm going on about.

paul browne
30th August 2005, 18:25
Gassho
Tony
Power to the people!

Does that make you one of them 'Rebellious Scots' we're supposed to sing about when chanting to Lizzie :D

Paul (I'm using my work computer and in no way condone sedition of any sort your majesty..fawn fawn) Browne

David Dunn
31st August 2005, 01:37
Indar,
your quote from Marx is the eleventh thesis on Feuerbach, also in the German Ideology. The second thesis is that the question of establishing truth is not a question of contemplation, but a question of practice. Essentially he's drawing the final conclusion of dialectical materialism, which is the uniquely dual nature of humans as subject and object. Hence God, the Geist or whatever, hasn't moved society to the stage it's at, it's been through the activity of human beings, either consciously or not, tempered by the material conditions of their time. As for "the point is to change it" I think what he had in mind specifically was the violent abolition of private property and class society by the industrial proletariat, to be replaced by a classless universal alternative. A not so pithy aphorism is "philosophy can only be realised by the abolition of the proletariat, and the proletariat can only be abolished by the realisation of philosophy." Anti-anti-intellectualism: you can only change society if you understand it, and you can only understand it through the process of trying to change it. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/ )

(By the way, much of Marx's early writing, such as the above was not published until the 1920s and 30s by the Stalinists. Trots spend a great deal of time arguing over it, in particular since much of it contradicted their own economic/technological determinist conception of history. The Stalinists had no such trouble - they published what was clearly an apple and told their subjects that it was a particularly ripe and juicy orange, fresh from Seville. That might cause a laugh, but imagine living in a society where all of the usual categories for discussing social theory are used by the ruling elite to promulgate blatent untruths. How could you form a critique? Without a critique how could you conceive of changing it?)

Jame, do you think semi-skilled means incapable of understanding complex issues? I agree with Noam Chomsky, that politics is about as complicated as sport, and millions of "semi-skilled" people understand sport. The reason that we've become distracted by inanities such as the private lives of vacuous celebrities has nothing to do with some kind of innate lack of moral fibre or intellectual capabilites. Only two generations ago, the grandfathers of today's tabloid readers were full scale engaged in political life. My grandfather was "semi-skilled", a builder's skivvy. He could quote you chapter and verse the history of Ireland (as well as the entire history of scottish football - it used to be good, allegedley). His peers in the big industries formed reading groups and read Das Kapital, alongside literary classics, not to mention signed up and paid monthly dues for political affiliations as a rule rather than an exception. Oh yes, and they went willingly to war.

It's more important to ask what has changed over two generations. Why don't people engage in politics anymore? I don't think you can answer that question without looking at the Russian Revolution, the event that shaped the entire 20th Century: Nazism, the Second World War, National Liberation movements, the Cold War, the Sixties, trade unionism in the 70s postmodernism, relativism, the collapse of left and right ideologies after the cold war. Thatcher was fond of saying that "there is no alternative" (TINA), to the newly globalised neoliberal capitalism. Most people (in the UK, at least) now believe that. Those that feel uneasy about it change their shopping habits. Those that don't give a monkey's get pissed and buy the latest bling. The net result of both activities is self-satisfaction and not much in the way of real change. IMO society won't change very much until there is a widely held feeling that change is possible and desirable (I mean at the level of social relations, not your shopping list).

Paul - I haven't advocated breaking any laws, just arguing against Jame's "young hegelian" outlook that they reflect some meta-morals ;)

(btw Tony, I think one of the best authors on the soviet union is in your parish - Hillel Ticktin).

David Dunn
31st August 2005, 01:55
Reacting more directly to the thread topic, I have often wondered what the attitude is—formally and informally—to the idea of copying for personal use material that is otherwise unavailable. I mean, is it generally considered OK to bootleg something you'd be quite willing to pay for if only it were being sold?

Meant to answer this earlier. In the UK, the law allows you to make copies of books, music etc for personal or academic use, with certain caveats. For example, you can't photocopy an entire book, only parts of it. You can make copies of CDs or DVDs that you've already purchased if they're for back up. You can record stuff on telly to watch later. I think the idea that something is 'unavailable' is redundant - if it has an ISBN, or ISSN or a catalogue number, you should be able to access it (e.g. through the British Library). Formally, I think the onus is on the copyright owner to assert their rights, so it would only really happen if you were causing a loss to that owner.

Tripitaka of AA
31st August 2005, 03:35
methinks they doth protest too much.
About what, exactly?
I think I detect a faint whiff of anti-intellectualism.

"Anti-intellectualism", possibly, it is something I have been accused of before... However, my (mis)quotation from Shakespeare was (if it needs explaining) intended to comment on the use of scholarly references and product of the great 20th century thinkers to explain away a desire to get hold of some hooky gear without needing to feel guilty. I used Iago's comment to Othello, wherein he tries to imply that Desdemona's protestations of innocence are an admission of guilt, as they seem, somehow, too impassioned. Which, of course, you might miss if you don't know Othello too well.

Actually, I've thoroughly enjoyed the last few posts and I am grateful for the reading recommendations. My own education finished all too abruptly many years ago and I have come to regret my laziness on more than one occasion. I can't say I'm about to jump on the bus to my local library to dig out the dusty tomes (perhaps I could use the Monty Python Philosopher's song, or the sketch from "Meaning of Life", as my reading list). But I am always grateful for the chance to listen to people who know something.

With regard to David D's last posts, I too have found evidence of the greater interest in politics suggested by the breakfast table reading matter produced in the 1950s. I found an old newspaper in the family archive chest, which had an article about my dear old dad. I'd read the article before, but I'd never bothered to look at the rest of the paper. It is one that no longer exists, but I believe it is incorporated into the Mirror group (or was it the Express). The Lead stories were about changes to Labour laws, there was much discussion about Home Affairs and Parliament, there was a considerably "politicised" editorial and all in all it felt like in those days the "Left Wing" papers really did sound like the Union Leaders that would be on TV. Not a mention of a Pop Band (no, not even Elvis), no SKY movies, no balloon-breasted face-painted Barbie dolls on page 3, in fact the paper actually seemed to have a fair bit of News in it. The pages that weren't News, were articles written by journalists (not Press Release copyists), Letters from articulate readers and some pretty basic advertising ("New Omo really gets your wash clean!").


Now, as much as I have enjoyed what Marx had to offer, I'm more interested in the feelings, thoughts and words of the people on the board. I'm not against intellectualism, but I find that Big Name smokescreens can be employed to disguise the battlefield and confuse the participants. How about some plain old Tony Benn rhetoric that the man on the Clapham omnibus can get his head around.

So is it OK to give money to a crook, in order to buy something harmless?
Does your responsibility end at the point of handover? If the service or goods that you recieve are not in themselves illegal, does that make it OK? Paying a prostitute. Buying works copied without the consent of the owner. Being a passenger in a car driven faster than the applicable speed limit. Using stationery that came from somebody's workplace. Not illegal, but OK? The law seems to be built around prosecution of the "supplier" (or driver), as though the customer is an innocent. If this isn't the case, then does the absence of the legal statute make it okay to partake, guilt-free.




NB. I'm not using enough smileys, perhaps, to make it clear that I'm enjoying the debate. I have some tapes in my collection that did not come with Retail covers, and some that were not recorded on my VCR. I am not claiming purity or a virgin birth ;). Discuss further if you wish... or not, as you prefer...


(I wonder if that bloke has any more copies burned yet.....)

Tripitaka of AA
31st August 2005, 07:00
From BBC News report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4196550.stm)


Pirates stalk Home Entertainment

DVD pirates take a cutlass to industry profits
Shares in Choices Video chain owner Home Entertainment have fallen by 3% after operating profits were hit by widespread piracy of DVDs.
Although the firm said annual pre-tax profits rose 1.8% to £4.4m ($7.9m), rentals slumped by 10.6% as DVD pirates robbed the company of rental revenues.

Home Entertainment said that it was alarmed at the flood of counterfeit DVDs into the UK.

"Piracy has become a very major problem," said chairman Iain Muspratt.

Global worry

The company said it was concerned about the activities of criminal gangs who used illegal immigrants to hawk pirate discs around pubs and restaurants.

However, Home Entertainment said that a lack of new blockbusters over the year from Hollywood was also to blame.

Earlier this month, US rentals giant Blockbuster warned that the spread of counterfeit DVDs had helped to push it into the red during the second quarter.

Moving forward, the slowdown in consumer spending and the heatwave in June has made for sluggish trade in the new financial year, it said.

Home Entertainment operates 228 Choices Video stores in the UK. It also distributes videos and DVDs to individual retailers through its Video Box Office arm and owns Choices Direct, which supplies mail order firms with entertainment products.

Shares in the group closed down 4 pence, or 3.3%, at 118.5 pence on Tuesday.


Oh, and on a link from there is Federation Against Copyright Theft (http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/);

The UK industry lost in excess of £9 billion to intellectual property theft in 2002, not including online copyright trademark infringements.
The loss to the UK film industry runs into millions of pounds. It is a very substantial loss in real terms. This is straightforward theft, and deprives the copyright owners of the means to invest in creative work.

Approximately 3 in every 10 videos purchased in the UK is an unauthorised copy.
Piracy harms UK jobs, evades the Inland Revenue, harms UK investment and limits the development of the UK film Industry


Not exactly Sophocles, or the kind of Marxism that sounds like it's being spoken by pre-treatment Demosthenes... in fact it is actually quite straightforward.

Indar
31st August 2005, 09:40
Indar,
The second thesis is that the question of establishing truth is not a question of contemplation, but a question of practice. Anti-anti-intellectualism: you can only change society if you understand it, and you can only understand it through the process of trying to change it.

Very true; and hence my earlier comments about "training". Anyone serious about ShorinjiKempo needs to reach a point sooner or later when they start to put their training into practice (in my view). Interesting to see the parallels between Marxism and Kongo Zen; not that I am suggesting that we should all become Marxists, but that any SK branch master (and, by implication, SK leader) who wants to avoid politics (in any situation) is copping out.

With regard to the questions about intellectual property theft: it's a complex situation, and also one that Hombu is obviously concerned about, hence the debate about official dogi. One way to think about it is to go back to the Seiku "by comitting evil you defile yourself, by avoiding evil you attain purity".
In other words; what are the consequences of your actions? If you buy a pirate CD then who will be affected? and if everyone copies your actions, and no-one ever pays for intellectual property, will it still be created?

tony leith
31st August 2005, 10:10
How do these newspapers fit into the above social structures? do people think they are run by the ruling classes to keep the lower socioeconomic groups' concentration focused on inanities (over 70% of the Sun's readership is classified as simiskilled or lower)? Or do you see it as a newspaper run by the people for the people?

Yew're havi' a larf, intcha? (apologies to London readers for the phonetic rendering of Mockney, consider it revenge for every English comic who has ever thought it amusing to put on a kilt and red wig).

Pretty much the former, though the frightening aspect of the ownership structure is that the 'ruling class' of News International Inc. is just one man. Bear in mind that Mr Blair apparently gave Mr Murdoch private briefings on discussions with other EU heads of government not long after becoming PM, claiming that it's no more than he would do 'for any other British businessman'.Mr Murdoch is an Australian by birth, now domiciled in (and a citizen of) the United States.

News International has apparently managed to avoid paying taxes on its corporate profits in the UK since the late 1980s. Despite this, if I as a taxpaying citizen of the UK wanted to put my views about, say, the Euro to Mr Blair, if I phoned the Downing Street switchboard, how far do you think I'd get? Do you think Mr Murdoch might have more luck? You don't want to take this democracy crap too seriously. Gross inequalities of wealth and power make a nonsense of the principle of equal citizenship.

From Paul

Does that make you one of them 'Rebellious Scots' we're supposed to sing about when chanting to Lizzie

I certainly bloody hope so.

From Dave

In other words; what are the consequences of your actions? If you buy a pirate CD then who will be affected? and if everyone copies your actions, and no-one ever pays for intellectual property, will it still be created?

My own decisions in this regard tend to be pragmatic - I don't buy hookie DVDs, games etc where an alternative is available, though I have to admit this is more on grounds of quality than concern about intellectual property rights. Many of my purchases are in the legitimate second hand market, from which the owners of the original intellectual copyright don't benefit anyway.

I have bought pirate software in the past, though where a company is charging several hundred quid for a package I can get from the Barras for ten-fifteen quid I personally feel absolutely no compunction about doing so. Besides, Mr Gate's business empire is pretty much based on intellectual property theft allied to keen entrepreneurial instincts, but of course he can afford the lawyers to sue you into the ground regardless.

In Leith's Utopia, the genuine creators of intellectual property (and I don't mean corporations) would have the right to derive benefits from its production . How does the current copyright law put it ? - 'author x asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work'. Should a company which identifies interesting quirks in the genome of a plant, or a human, be able to assert intellectual ownership of it by virtue of having looked at it first, even if they did so without any understanding of the implications ?

Tony Leith

David Dunn
31st August 2005, 12:52
Tony, that last one was from Indar wasn't it? Personally I won't lose much sleep over it. Where possible I use software licenced under the Gnu Public Licence (Free Software Foundation). I don't have an ethical objection to people selling the fruits of their intellectual labour. If I had half a brain I'd do it myself instead of signing all my papers over to the academic press who make a mint out of it.


Interesting to see the parallels between Marxism and Kongo Zen; not that I am suggesting that we should all become Marxists, but that any SK branch master (and, by implication, SK leader) who wants to avoid politics (in any situation) is copping out.

Indar, I agree with your conclusions. The parallels are I guess the wish to change the world. Doshin So's belief was that good individual characters sum up to make a good society. Marx reckoned that social change is made by movements of masses of people. I'm not sure any Shorinji bigwigs would advocate seizure of state power :)

tony leith
31st August 2005, 15:33
Indar, I agree with your conclusions. The parallels are I guess the wish to change the world. Doshin So's belief was that good individual characters sum up to make a good society. Marx reckoned that social change is made by movements of masses of people. I'm not sure any Shorinji bigwigs would advocate seizure of state power

I'm sure they wouldn't, and given the tendency for revolutions to end up devouring their own children I'm not sure I would either. On the other hand, the idea that ruling classes, or even elites, are ever likely to consent to their own abolition is fairly comical (and, no, this isn't what happened in Eastern Europe - the ruling elite lacked the will and the means to maintain its rule by force, which is not the same thing). The best you're likely to get is co-option of potentially threatening groups and individuals.

Before we get too smug about the fact that the Russians now have somebody who was pretty high up in the ancien regime as their president, I suppose we should acknowledge that the current President of the USA - despite his successful down home posturings as a 'good ol' boy' on the ranch - is a millionaire who went to an Ivy league college . Oh yes, and his dad was President as well as being an ex-head of the CIA. If their ancestors didn't come off the Mayflower I'm willing to bet they weren't too far behind. You may not have to be a white male millionaire (and preferably an Anglo Protestant) to be elected President, but it sure as hell seems to help.

This unfortunately would seem to be the riposte to the point that Colin raised in an earlier post about the increasing accessibility of news media. In the US at least, if you can't raise hundreds of millions of dollars to finance your campaign, you aren't going to get nominated far less elected as President (well, you might by the 'Party of you and me (and i'm not sure about you)', but you're not going to win). And where as a rule does this money come from? People who damn well expect some return on their investment.

Of course, you can argue that in a capitalist society all this is fair enough - perhaps people who hold high elected office should be able to demonstrate that they are already successful participants in the socioeconomic system, but the fact that everybody pays lip service to notional 'equality before the law'' tends to indicate a certain amount of embarassment about the blatant fact that whatever else elections may be, they certainly aren't free in a monetary sense.

Tony Leith

Tripitaka of AA
1st September 2005, 13:19
I've asked a question on the BBC Message boards (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566?thread=932425) (odd site, they seem to be actively moderated, the first time I posted my message it disappeared for a couple of hours... oh, and they only accept entries during Office Hours). Some interesting details on the reasons why programs are/are not re-broadcast. I'm wondering if BSKF objections made at the time of broadcast are among the reasons why this program is not re-broadcast - now that would be an ironic twist!

tony leith
1st September 2005, 14:17
I've asked a question on the BBC Message boards (odd site, they seem to be actively moderated, the first time I posted my message it disappeared for a couple of hours... oh, and they only accept entries during Office Hours). Some interesting details on the reasons why programs are/are not re-broadcast. I'm wondering if BSKF objections made at the time of broadcast are among the reasons why this program is not re-broadcast - now that would be an ironic twist!

If they end up suing me, I'll bill you.

Tony Leith

Tripitaka of AA
1st September 2005, 15:33
See my lawyers, messrs Sue, Grabbit & Runne.

luar
1st September 2005, 16:39
See my lawyers, messrs Sue, Grabbit & Runne.

It is quite obvious to me that there are secret cult messages in that episode and that's why they are not releasing the damn video.

Tripitaka of AA
1st September 2005, 21:42
You've seen "The Ring" haven't you! :eek:

Richard Codling
1st September 2005, 23:42
It is quite obvious to me that there are secret cult messages in that episode and that's why they are not releasing the damn video.

Try playing it backwards....

tony leith
2nd September 2005, 11:28
Speaking of cults, having just watched the DVD (excellent quality for what it is, certainly much better than nth generation VHS) the presentation of the philosophy of SK is pretty jaw dropping. The manji is prominent throughout, including in the opening shots where it is intercut with shots of shavey headed Hombu students doing what they do, accompanied by ominous thumping on a taiko drum. No explanation is offered until about a third of the way in, and then it's an off hand sentence. Suzuki Sensei is translated as saying that every person has to be regarded as a potential enemy, which I'm pretty sure was at least taken out of context. Something as straightforward as samu around Hombu is represented as a ritual of self abasement cum brainwashing for the students ('not even a leaf must escape' intones the narrator - well, no, if one did, you wouldn't be doing a very good job of sweeping up the leaves, would you?). Admittedly the fact that Hombu staff and students at the time when not in dogi were clad in natty black jumpsuits (with gold manji!) straight out of the Bond movies probably didn't help...

Fortunately, the depiction of the technical side of SK makes up for all this. Despite the best efforts of the narration to suggest embu is a dubious cultish pratice, it can't detract from what you're actually seeing on screen (I think the choice of words is important here - the script talks about SK being 'a religion where fighting is a form of devotion, and hence this (embu) can be the highest sort of prayer' - substitute 'philosophy' for religion and 'meditation' for prayer and I for one wouldn't really have that much of a problem with it). The footage of the late Bando Sensei is still very impressive - the facility to watch what he does in super slow motion was much appreciated (I have an odd sense of humour).

Tony Leith

David Dunn
2nd September 2005, 13:33
It's dramatic licence I guess Tony. If you look at the hombu released DVD promo of Shorinji about three years back, you'll note that Arai and Yamazaki do more or less the same embu. That's how to get it polished - do it for twenty years.

On that note, I'm off to France, via Mayfair dojo, so see some of you later.

jailess
2nd September 2005, 14:00
Well, I go away for a few days, ruin a few patients get in the way during surgery, I come back and my good name gets soiled!


Jame, do you think semi-skilled means incapable of understanding complex issues?

No: Anyone - barring people with an organic mental problem - is possible of attaining an IQ of 130 or over - more than enough to become a lawyer, doctor, etc. For various environmental and social reasons, most people don't.
I'm referring to the various occupational classes:

I: Professional/managerial.
II: Skilled manual/non-manual.
III: Semi-skilled.
IV: Unskilled.

(NOT: I think I've missed one out there) These are taught to Med students as part of assessing patient's exposure to environmental hazards, but they're also used in sociology (apparently), cos the website I got those newspaper stats from used them.

If politics is as understandable as sport, then why aren't Tabloids reporting them? Why does the Sun feel the need to fill their pages with crap (apologies to sun-reading Kenshi who actually have the opposable thumbs necessary to work a keyboard and post on this forum)?

Personally, I don't understand this obsession with celebrities and gossip and scandal and exposures and anything else you care to mention (although I can probably get a handle on why Page 3's still popular). Please tell me, everyone, I'm desperate to know: WHY MUST I KNOW EVERY DETAIL ABOUT JORDAN'S FAMILY?

So: Why report gossip instead of politics? What triggered the change?

Oh, and: What's Hegalian?

tony leith
2nd September 2005, 15:01
If politics is as understandable as sport, then why aren't Tabloids reporting them? Why does the Sun feel the need to fill their pages with crap (apologies to sun-reading Kenshi who actually have the opposable thumbs necessary to work a keyboard and post on this forum)?

To some extent, you can't entirely blame 'billionaire tyrant Rupert Murdoch'. Nobody is actually compelling millions of people to buy these tabloids. Tabloids fill their pages with crap because crap sells , simple as that. Most members of the public when surveyed deplore press intrusion into people's private lives, and yet the circulation of a tabloid with hot scoop on Beckham bonking another in a production line of nannies and personal assistants will go up by hundreds of thousands if not millions. The public, in other words, are clearly lying through their teeth.

I suspect the 'change' reflects broader cultural shifts - specifically the emergence of something close to a 'post literate' culture. As I said in an earlier post, our socioeconomic system requires that adults be able to consume and function in a fairly circumscribed work context - it does not require that they be well informed generally or have the ability to formulate analyses on a more global level (in fact, for obvious reason, that sort of thing is probably to be actively discouraged).

This is reflected all the way through our education system - increasingly, university departments have to justify their existence in terms of a specifc economic rationale, and if they can't, they're being closed. I'm not talking about Post Structuralism 101 here, I'm talking about Chemistry departments - not attracting the students, got to go. Meanwhile, Media Studies departments flourish and multiply..


Oh, and: What's Hegalian?

Refers to Hegel, a German philospher of the early 19th century. In the context of Marxism, mostly relevant in terms of the Hegelian dialectic, which is both a model of reasoning (thesis -initial argument - meets antithesis - counterargument,- to produce synthesis), and re. Marxism also puporting to be a description of the fundemental processes of social change (hence 'dialectical historical materialism'). If your head just exploded, Jame, we can pick up the pieces tomorrow after training.

Tony Leith

JL.
2nd September 2005, 15:31
Gassho!

Tony-sensei, same thing exactly over here (Germany)! Civilization going down, if I'm asked (though I'm probably not :p ).

Btw., by repeating the subject "re. jaime's last post.." the spelling "Jaime" is also being repeated all the time. ;-)

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

jailess
2nd September 2005, 16:43
Thanks, Jan. :)

I'm still not sure why I'm Hegalian, though, if I'm honest.

The Uni thing really pisses me off, as well: Picture the scene.

Evil terrorists from Durkadurkastan have managed to get their hands on a biological weapon and have released it in a big european city: everyone has 72 hours before they're dead from the lethal disease.

This bioweapon has been craftily developed using up-to-the-minute biotechnology, incorporating an immune-shielded mutant of the malaria virus. This variant even in its naked form has an external cloak which makes it resemble a molecule of Haemoglobin (the iron-containing protein which carries oxygen in the blood), and is therefore ignored by the immune system even when outside a red blood cell.

How are we going to solve the fiendish problem of finding a cure for this deadly disease? Biologists don't cut the mustard, because we don't yet know about the mechanism of escaping the immune system I've just described above. They simply don't have the technology for looking at interactions on that small a scale. All cameras point to the Chemistry department... Oh, hang on a minute! we closed it down 5 years ago and gave the building to the Drama Society so they could have a permanent place to rehearse over-acted Shakespearean plays in badly-sewn costumes! Oh, well, looks like that whole city's going to die. Still, at least we have enough media students to report the crisis to the rest of the world...

CityShorinji
2nd September 2005, 16:59
I knew I should have become a chemist........aaarrrrgh.......x

Roly
5th September 2005, 14:39
Isn't Hegelian where those lost gardens are in Cornwall? (apologies in advance for the 'gag').

Oh, and as a great man once said of laws: the good people don't need 'em and the bad people don't obey 'em so what use are they?

R.

sean dixie
7th September 2005, 14:21
Ok, just got the heads up from an unnamed source at the beeb legal department.
Buying said dvd from ebay - no probs, bigger fish to fry.
Selling copies on ebay - pretty much the same.
Now if you take your dvd and place it in the public domain, on the web say,either in full or in part and they catch wind your in trouble! They WILL.....tell you nicely that you are in breech of copywrite and could you please stop.
If you continue then they will instigate action as neccasary. You are also at risk from any third party who may hold rights to the said intelectual property.

So please feel free to work away! (http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&fkr=1&from=R8&satitle=shorinji+kempo&category0=)

sean dixie
7th September 2005, 17:21
Ahh, no DVDs at the moment. I'm sure they'll be along soon.

Tripitaka of AA
7th September 2005, 20:44
So if I get a local police officer to tell me "it's OK to speed on this road. We are busy catching real criminals. Go right ahead", then that will make it alright.

Or if I want to drop litter, and the Park-Keeper is busy chasing the skateboarders..

Morally wrong. End of ;)

John Ryan
7th September 2005, 23:23
This reminds me of some thoughts I had a few days ago. In the Dokun we say "We love justice..." What is this justice? Is it justice as laid down by our lawmakers? In practice we all over-ride the law as set in stone to suit ourselves, whether we admit it or not. We allow these transgressions because we believe ourselves able to judge a specific situation with more discretion than a blind lawbook. So when we say we love justice, is it justice as David says with blind adherence to the law (was this what Kaiso did...?), or justice as we decide (in which case what separates us from vigilantes?)?

JL.
8th September 2005, 00:59
Gassho!

John-san, those are very valid points! The best example is, I think the red traffic light on a dead road (meaning no people there). Should I wait or not? Well the law is pretty clear about it, at least in the literal interpretation. But on the other hand the traffic light is just a machine and doesn't know anything about the traffic situation.
My father, a judge, puts it like this: if it was a police officer, stopping me with no one else there it was obviously illegal for him/her to do so. Then why shouldn't it be illegal for the traffic light? Well, that's German law, maybe it's different elsewhere. But for me that makes sense.

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

David Dunn
19th September 2005, 11:14
This reminds me of some thoughts I had a few days ago. In the Dokun we say "We love justice..." What is this justice? Is it justice as laid down by our lawmakers? In practice we all over-ride the law as set in stone to suit ourselves, whether we admit it or not. We allow these transgressions because we believe ourselves able to judge a specific situation with more discretion than a blind lawbook. So when we say we love justice, is it justice as David says with blind adherence to the law (was this what Kaiso did...?), or justice as we decide (in which case what separates us from vigilantes?)?

John, it's the justice that you're supposed to come to understand from contemplating Dharma :)

Jame, you should read these filthy tabloids. You'll find them far more political than you might imagine. The Sun for example has an editorial policy that is explicitly against the UK integrating into Europe either economically or legislatively (barn door and horse). It is pro the invasion of Iraq. It is in favour of the state introducing measures to remove freedoms to 'prevent terrorism'. It even uses the celebrity bollox to express it's preferred morals. I don't need to tell you that the Mail is anti-immigration. There is an explicit political programme in all of their commentary. The fact that there is little substantive political discussion in society in not the fault of the press.

I don't think you are a Young Hegelian (that would be a bit anachronistic). It was the idea that the legislature springs from a natural well of 'justice' that pre-exists humanity. In fact it doesn't, it's a product of the humanity of the time.