[LAU] re Subconscious Affecting Music

[Patrick Shirkey]

On Thu, September 2, 2010 6:46 am, fons at kokkinizita.net wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 06:11:53AM -0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>
>> > * Reducing a complex social process to a simplistic conspiration
>> theory.
>> >
>>
>> Analysing a myriad of options to arrive at a place that I can work from
>> and an angle I can confidently approach with gusto.
>
> What myriad of options ? I have no idea what you want to say here.
>
> What happens is a general dumbing down, of people refusing to think,
> be critical and form well-informed opinions. And yes, some people have
> an interest in this and do stimulate it, and a lot more just exploit it.
> Why this phenomenon exists in society is not something that can be
> explained in a few slogans. And if you reduce it to a 'conspiration
> of music producers', that becomes just an example of the very dumbing
> down itself.
>
>> > * Abusing ill-defined but suggestive terminology from Freudian
>> psychology,
>> >   ('subconscious', 'mind', etc.) ignoring everything this science as
>> >   produced over the last 30 or so years.
>> >
>>
>> What exactly have I ignored? Definitely not everything.
>
> Without going into the details: the idea that there is some part
> of our mental activity ('the unconscious') that remains mysteriously
> closed to ourselves but is open for others to 'manipulate' just
> doesn't hold. You can't invoke 'the inconscious' as a magic wand
> to explain aspects of people's behaviour. On the contrary, the
> fact that we are not aware of some of our motivations needs
> itself to be explained.
>
> Terminology such as 'the inconscious', 'the mind', etc. is so
> vague that it is effectively useless. It seems to explain some
> things, but that is an illusion. If used at all in modern psy-
> chology such terms will be defined much more striclty, at which
> point they lose their capacity to apparently explain things.
> They just become words with an agreed-upon meaning, just as
> 'table' or 'combustion engine'.
>
> As used in everyday parlance, they are just placeholders for
> what is in fact a complete absence of understanding. Yet they
> remain popular even with 'intellectuals', mainly those who
> are into human sciences, who still worship Freud as a guru
> and analysis as the ultimate therapy. One reason for this is
> that Freud's work has literary qualities, apart from not
> being completely without merit. He was after all the first
> who at least *tried* a scientific approach.
>


So, your argument against the possibility of Pop music and mass media
being used to control people is that the whole idea of being controlled
subconsciously is a misnomer?

Are you saying we can't be brain washed?

Maybe my terminology is not 100% correct by the book but I think the
general idea is being conveyed correctly.



-- 
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.