Was considering recently what happens when an individual reads anothers’ writing from print (here is one small example) and the attribution of tone etc, when sort of added to ones own, well I am not sure it is an added dimension to ones own internal monologue.

Still attributions happen, one gives some other ‘a voice’.

I don’t do much of it, tend instead to go with the literal propositional content and the variant intention likely about it (highly minimal of the latter avoiding over-attribution).

The thing is I think the attributions are a bag of tricks, so to speak. I actively resist internalizing others (a ‘voice’) into my internal workings because I think it an illusion bordering delusion.

But that’s not really the point of this post.

Truly attributions of how a person sounds, even the newsreader you watch, are completely made up by the human brain. And it doesn’t matter how nuanced or refined the language used, it’s no different than the grunts from a gorilla really. Noises largely decoded by the receiver. Much of the front-end processing of receivers is not amenable to alteration.

Further interesting are the social working of minds over language. Too complex to get started on here.

So of newsreaders, or politicians, even a mum and dad, a teacher, where does the ‘authority’ asserted by language derive? I mean a good proportion of thought is not even in spoken or written language, that’s more a conversion for the purpose of verbal and written communications.

Is there no limit to the tricks involved in how a person hears and reads language?

A neat bag of tricks for sure, but what of that being communicated that really is about something quite different to what is being apparently stated.

I mean what’s the purpose of the TV news really? What’s the purpose of all the talk on TV and radio, is it necessary?

The news market is huge now, they are all scrambling to get the punters attention and in the process the news gets distorted and blown out of proportion, death tolls exaggerated etc.
However it is, for all it’s flaws and imperfections, preferable to just one news outlet, Pravda.

Peak Warming Man said:

the news gets distorted and blown out of proportion, death tolls exaggerated etc.

I notice this every single time there’s a disaster nowadays.

The bushfires were a prime example.

Right from the very first fire here at Salt Ash they were reporting a dozen homes burnt. Then it slowly got reduced until a week later the truth was 3 homes and 4 or 5 sheds.

I remember on 9/11 I was shocked to find “only” 3,000 dead when all through that day they were quoting figures of 50,000 or more.

>>I remember on 9/11

I remember when rock was young.

I think the media is more machine-like than ever. It’s got to the stage of looking like the nazi-olympics of media being the news.

On that cheerful note, some family time I reckon.

transition said:

I mean what’s the purpose of the TV news really? What’s the purpose of all the talk on TV and radio, is it necessary?

I don’t think news is necessary. People like to know what’s happening but they don’t need to know everything. The main problem with having hours of news a day plus radio news, online news and print news, is that you need news to fill it. On a slow news day you might get “news” about what colour knickers a celebrity is wearing that day, plus in-depth reports of other shit no one wants or needs to know about.

I hate when media hype things up and exaggerate before any info is known. With the recent bushfires in the Blue Mts, channel 9 news in Brisbane was reporting that police were evacuating the entire Mts and the waterbombers were using “oceans of water” to control the blaze! In the 1994 fires in the Mountains, I was living there at the time and we had relatives on the other side of the world calling us because they’d heard we were being evacuated by boat to New Zealand.

the news is a brainwashing process – it tells you what to think. the worst thing that could happen is for an event to happen and there no no explanation or excuse for it.

third world nations often spend lots of money on silly things they can’t afford meaning when a natural disaster happens they have no ability to deal with it (plus they often hate their own people).

we are encouraged to concentrate on the human element rather than the idea that they were setting themselves up for a disaster

the bushfires in Australia are often constructed in such a way in the news, we told about the human element rather than the why and wherefores of the disaster – why it happened.

the news is a way of channeling the thought process away from any meaningful understanding of an event

wookiemeister said:

the bushfires in Australia are often constructed in such a way in the news, we told about the human element rather than the why and wherefores of the disaster – why it happened.

It’s always about the human factor. And then it’s trying to tie it in with local news, so a major disaster overseas will be reported here with the number of Australian casualties, then local to where you live e.g if you’re in Sydney, the number of Sydney people involved will be reported before people from say, Darwin (or anywhere else not in NSW).

Divine Angel said:

wookiemeister said:

the bushfires in Australia are often constructed in such a way in the news, we told about the human element rather than the why and wherefores of the disaster – why it happened.

It’s always about the human factor. And then it’s trying to tie it in with local news, so a major disaster overseas will be reported here with the number of Australian casualties, then local to where you live e.g if you’re in Sydney, the number of Sydney people involved will be reported before people from say, Darwin (or anywhere else not in NSW).

people have the memory of a goldfish anyway so you’ll see the same thing happening over and over again

powerlines need to be buried

there needs to be a way to fight fires in remote and difficult places, technology moves forward but …..

instead of buying 350 million dollars of digital boxsets or 1 million dollar tuckshops for a school , 1 million on potplants

people got used to stupid and went along with it.

In the Blue Mts, you’re never more than a few hundred metres away from impenetrable bushland. Most of the townships are built along a ridge, and everyone knows what happens on a ridge when there’s a fire at the bottom. People want to build there with a bushland view, they know the risks.

Divine Angel said:

In the Blue Mts, you’re never more than a few hundred metres away from impenetrable bushland. Most of the townships are built along a ridge, and everyone knows what happens on a ridge when there’s a fire at the bottom. People want to build there with a bushland view, they know the risks.

that’s the other part of the equation no one dare speak of

if you are on a ridge you should have thought about this possibility. either have some decent water tanks and pumps or don’t build there

Well, you’d need water tanks that aren’t going to melt in the heat of a bushfire… Once you need to protect your home, it’s a tad close for a meltable water tank.

wookiemeister said:

people have the memory of a goldfish anyway so you’ll see the same thing happening over and over again

I don’t think it is a memory deficit thing at all. More to do with motivational conditioning. Humans are predisposed to indulging in their fight or flight responses. Many kids games are based on this. There does not have to be a conspiracy for us to enjoy being excited and titillated by world events that are irrelevant to us. That isn’t to say that this isn’t taken advantage of. There is only so long before someone being chased by a tiger will run before checking there is still a tiger chasing. That is all anyone has to remember if they wish to maintain an atmosphere of confusion that maintains the status quo.

I don’t understand the question in the OP. Sorry, I’ve read it twice, but I just can’t follow what you’re on about.

party_pants said:

I don’t understand the question in the OP. Sorry, I’ve read it twice, but I just can’t follow what you’re on about.

If it did make any sense it wouldn’t be our old pal Onty.

Well, partly it’s about the meaning we humans assign to others’ words, intonation and actions. And then the question we’ve been focusing on: Why there’s so much frigging news around.

This verbal diarreah is all so very existential and hipster, but really, OP, in a post about communication, your ability to communicate ideas is a complete fail.

Reading that drivel just made me tired and I gave up half way.

or diarrhoea

wookiemeister said:

or diarrhoea

Thanks…:)

I prefer the diarrhoea spelling

the way I remember it is

di – arr – ho – ea

Divine Angel said:

Well, partly it’s about the meaning we humans assign to others’ words, intonation and actions. And then the question we’ve been focusing on: Why there’s so much frigging news around.

I don’t think the two are related. The question could have been asked without the almost impenetrable preamble.

in other news… its raining

party_pants said:

Divine Angel said:

Well, partly it’s about the meaning we humans assign to others’ words, intonation and actions. And then the question we’ve been focusing on: Why there’s so much frigging news around.

I don’t think the two are related. The question could have been asked without the almost impenetrable preamble.

Indeed, but that’s what makes it an Onty post :)

the news is delivered with a style of authority, and to grab attention.

>…The question could have been asked without the almost impenetrable preamble.

‘Could’ is a bit of useless c#nt I always say, and ‘almost was wasn’t’ similar.

I don’t get what the news and all is really for. It appears to some degree to be about bonding ‘normal’ to spoken and written language, though I am not sure it can do that without repetition and displacement.

transition said:

I don’t get what the news and all is really for. It appears to some degree to be about bonding ‘normal’ to spoken and written language, though I am not sure it can do that without repetition and displacement.

You’re still not making any sense.

Bumped into this below this evening (shit it’s morning), though don’t entirely agree with the emphasis on ‘associationism’ i’d say it comes near, ‘fluid categories’ I go along with, though with qualifications . The phenomenology emphasis is interesting.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man-who-would-teach-machines-to-think/309529/

“Correct speech isn’t very interesting; it’s like a well-executed magic trick—effective because it obscures how it works.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accent

It’s possible I’d expect that intonations (the ‘tone’) etc graduate into accent of large parts of populations and probably become a major aspect of behaviour controls, that expectations (loading) to do with communications do the job. Quite probably this is involved in ideology and ideological controls.

Once it moves into accent what and how it does what it does are probably largely invisible. Similarly this may apply to written language, by way of attributions (provision of ‘a voice’), which could find its way to do the work through a confusion of internal monologue as opposed to or along with internal dialogue, neither of which probably represent the reality of the matter, a reality is instead generated, rendered or reconciled, which is probably more an expedient, and self-interested likely.

The question of what happens when someone elses words are read, heard and recalled, then however incorporated, may make for an interesting subject re the subject of ideological infuence and control.

Basically ‘emotive force’ to do with mental states find their way into language, these propel every nuance in any utterance (or lack of nuance), the work is done this way. To some extent an attribution of convergence of meaning through ‘understanding’ can be quite automated, and a large part of the work done is by way of assuming some convergence of meaning, of which ‘intention’ may come second in importance for the ‘understood’. This does not encourage distinction between literal propositional content and the field of intention, of which the latter may require more depth of orders of intentionality and work that way. The latter may be a ‘field of affects’ that properly understood don’t resolve to a quick understanding.

transition said:

Basically ‘emotive force’ to do with mental states find their way into language, these propel every nuance in any utterance (or lack of nuance), the work is done this way. To some extent an attribution of convergence of meaning through ‘understanding’ can be quite automated, and a large part of the work done is by way of assuming some convergence of meaning, of which ‘intention’ may come second in importance for the ‘understood’. This does not encourage distinction between literal propositional content and the field of intention, of which the latter may require more depth of orders of intentionality and work that way. The latter may be a ‘field of affects’ that properly understood don’t resolve to a quick understanding.

Couldn’t have put it better myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdetermination

I think the media get some of their legitimacy via being involved in ‘overdetermination’ of social reality/ies, they have something of a prickly relationship with the more administrative state apparatus (government), if the former were seen as part of the ‘ideological state apparatus’. There’s a type of sharing, certainly ‘anticipation’ of what’s involves.

For many people, perhaps even most (i can’t be sure), social reality dominates over physics or more generally ‘forces of nature’. Partly this is because ‘culture’ is about or for protecting individuals and groups from nature. Hence the social reality dominating, of which media is in the business too.