Greetings Economists,
I sympathize with the pain this caused you. I differ somewhat from
your point about psychological problems. In an economic sense the
point about psychology to me is worth bringing up from the point of
view of what media does.
We manufacture human information with tools that are limited as to
what they can do in regard to say interactivity. Words written as you
point out in 2005 are meant to apply to you three years later.
To me this is about how we use words and what that process does. For
example you note Ataturk was a human being. But you imply that the
society in Turkey is hero worshipping or perhaps god worshipping (the
Father) of Ataturk. This to me signals a problem with media not
psychology. The literalness of words as if once written always the
same meaning is a profound problem of the media. Because the human
aspect of meaning is more generally a dynamic of interrelationships
between people than the long lasting almost immortal implications of
applying words from three years ago to a time in 2007.
When the media are used to tell people about political regime/rules/
leaders the implication of a static meaning to a leader when that
information is broadcast in a mass or general way is a problem of the
media. This overrides human psychology of dynamic meaning. Hence a
radical social change is to make the media more dynamic functioning to
reflect this dynamic human cognition. This conflict between static
meaning and dynamic meaning is not just a psychology effect of people
making rules that Ataturk is sacrosanct. It is the media itself which
does not perform information processes that satisfy human cognition.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
On Oct 20, 2008, at 9:43 PM, Sabri Oncu wrote:
which means the father or
predecessor of Turks by the way, pointed to some serious psychological
problems on his part.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
