----------
>From: Robert Rosenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: FW: Soapbox
>Date: Thu, Jul 8, 1999, 1:41 AM
>
> In one of Thomas Lunde's postings of July the seventh, he commented on a
> passage from an article by Ulrich Beck. In part, he said:
>
> "This kind of thinking and these kind of questions need to brought before
> the public. These are the kinds of questions that a true democratic
> society would consider of value to discuss. **How do we bring the
> right problems before the populace?** How do we contribute to those who
> are articulate so that they can espouse these questions. Now it is true,
> that the answers of society may be different from my view - or your view,
> but I think we could agree, that these are the ideas a democratic
> populace should evaluate and decide."
>
> This is, of course, one of the primary questions that must be answered -
> before it is too late. It is obvious that, with each passing year, the
> division between those who lead and those who follow - whether they like
> it or not - grows wider. With each passing year the grip of television
> and other entertainment media grows stronger and as it does, the
> availability and use of alternate sources of news and analysis dwindles.
> Without an informed electorate, at some time in the reasonably
> near-future, change, except by violence, will become impossible. An
> informed electorate would be a literate one that understands the
> necessity of considering "these kinds of questions" and understands the
> necessity of discussing them.
>
> This is a very practical question and one that many may not feel
> comfortable with, but one that any person sincerely interested in these
> problems must face. Is there any way that a bunch of academics can
> commandeer a mass media and deliver it to those who are our concern? Or
> is that an impossibility and the only way is a one-on-one campaign? Can
> the Internet be utilized? Soapbox?
>
> Robert
Thomas:
Thank you for your thoughts and questions. I am reminded of a story about
an old Cree Indian who had never been off the trapline, had never been to
reservation school who was flown down to Quebec City from Northern Ontario
as a witness in the controversy and legal actions between Billy Diamond and
the Cree Nation and Hydro Quebec and the dams in James Bay which infringed
on traditional First Nations Lands.
Entering the courtroom, this old indian was led to the witness chair and a
Bible was produced and the Oath was read, "Do you swear to tell the truth,
the whole truth, so help you God?" A long silence ensued after the
translation into Cree and then he answered "No". The judge asked him to
explain his answer and he said, "I do not know the whole truth, I only know
what I saw and heard."
There is an honesty here, I only know my truth and you yours and others
theirs.
Your questions catch me as my mind has been re-remembering a lot of what I
learned from Marshal McLuhan, not that I ever knew him personally, but I did
know someone who had lunch with him several times and was a good friend of
his brother. Now Marshal said that contrary to common sense, TV was an
auditory medium and he made these remarks and qualified them by observing
the state a medium introduced in the subject. He noticed that TV was a
medium that demanded total involvement and he used the slang terms hot and
cool to label different media. TV, as I remember was a hot medium because
the effect it had was one more similar to those in an oral culture than
those in a visual culture.
Now, in an oral culture, and I will use as an example the First Nations
Cultures of the Plains Indians, decisions were reached in a Council. Now
there were rituals and some rules as to who could attend a Council, but for
the sake of my metaphor, let us say that anyone could sit in the Council,
except women, and therefore as any could speak, one could say this was
democratic. Now before the talk was begun, a Pipe was passed around and
everyone took a puff - no they were not pot headheads or drug addicts. It
was in a sense, their Oath, as they chose to believe that the smoke
represented the Great Spirit and that by smoking they took on the highest
qualities of the Great Spirit including the understanding that each would
speak with total honesty. There was also the understanding that one could
speak as long as they chose or not speak. Now the idea was not to arrive at
a majority on any issue before the Council, just the opposite in my opinion,
the idea was to reach consensus. And if that was not reached, those who
chose to not agree were not discrimated against by a majority but were
allowed to continue to hold their own viewpoint and act from it without
losing any face or rights within the tribe. Everyman was free at all times
to join the dominant view or not.
Now in many cases, consensus was not reached by all. But those who accepted
a certain point of view could, as a group act out that limited consensus,
whether that was a war party or a move to new hunting grounds. So, what's
my point?
The need, as I see it, is reflected in the acceptance that the medium of
persuasion is oral and the tool that best represents that media is the
Television. Now, in a manner of speaking, what is required is to use the
medium of the Television to arrange a series of Councils in which subjects
can be discussed, not so much to arrive at an ultimate answer and course of
action, but to allow all the various viewpoints to be expressed until a
sense of consensus is reached and all or some feel compelled to act from the
decisions of that consensus.
We have been told that we are entering the 500 channel universe and it might
be possible, with the right influence for one of those Channels to be
dedicated to the concept of a World Council. A Council that has an agenda
to discuss the big problems and ideas of our times. That people of all
persuasions and expertise be invited to sit in these councils and discuss an
idea like capitalism or environment. Now to do this effectively, in my
opinion, would require the removal of time constraints.
I once worked with a very brilliant therapist. A session with Jim Tolchard
might be 5 minutes or 15 hours. He was relentless in his pursuit of a
resolution to the clients presenting problem. He completely ignored the
convention of a 1 hour therapy session or a weekly schedule. To him, the
pursuit of the challenge before him was not in time - or for that matter
money. The conventional therapy session, Marshal would label as a behavior
from someone from a visual culture, while Jim's model was more of a Shamans
approach in which time had no meaning.
Well, those are my thoughts.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Get the Internet just the way you want it.
> Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
> Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
>
