 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 2, 2009 - 2:43 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
joan hue
(Member)
|
After the mayhem I've been reading here for the past weeks, I've decided to point out an interesting
analogy between the narrative in Golding's novel Lord Of The Flies and the Internet.
I think most of you have read this novel. If you don't want to know the story, don't read this.
Golding's thesis was that the, "Defects in society or civilization could be traced back to the inherent
defects in the individual". To demonstrate his theme, he has a group of proper British school
boys on an airplane crash on an island. All adults are killed in the crash leaving only the
boys. These boys were being evacuated because World War III was beginning. At first, the
boys try to do the right things like building shelters, starting a rescue fire, and finding food
and water. In order to have order, they use a conch shell to gather and to signal the right
to speak. This shell is a symbol of civilized order, kind of like a judge's gavel. Power struggles
ensue, kids begin to align with different leaders, order collapses, and eventually savagery
emerges. The story demonstrates that if we take people away from the constraints of police, parents,
and laws, the facade of civilization crumbles. Ironically, however, even with constraints, countries
are "nuking" each other in WWIII.
Golding, by chapter 5, has certain human characteristics emerge in five characters. These
five almost become caricatures of certain facets of human behavior. Ralph is the
pragmatist, pushing for rescue and orderliness, but he demands work from kids who
want to play. His antithesis is Jack, the savage hedonist, who wants to hunt and lure
others from Ralph's leadership. Quiet Roger is your sadist who likes to, "sharpen the
stick at both ends," for a pig's head or a human head. Piggy, a fat kid with glasses,
is your rationalist. He reminds me of Mr. Spock in Star Trek. Everything must be rational
and logical. One of his lenses is smashed, so he is half-blind, just as he is blind to
human irrational behavior. Finally, there is Simon, a very quiet, shy epileptic child
blessed (or cursed) with intuitive insight and who recognizes that the "beastie" scaring
the boys is their own innate savage nature. He is Piggy's antithesis when it comes
to reasoning.
Simon: "Maybe the beast is us."
Piggy: "Bullocks!"
Ralph: "Piggy, is there really a beast?"
Piggy: "Of course not cuz TVs and houses wouldn't work."
Jack:: "Kill the beast, cut its throat; shove it right up the arse."
As savagery and fear overtake the boys, ALL of them attack Simon one night when he tries
to tell them that the beast on the mountain is really a dead, decaying parachutist, the tragic
gift from the adult world that is suppose to save them. "Teeth and claws" tear Simon, the seer,
apart, and even Ralph and Piggy participate in this ripping, although they try to deny it the
next day. Such acknowledgment of such irrational behavior could never be accepted by
the rational Piggy. Roger, who once threw stones at Piggy, levered a boulder at him near the
end, while Piggy, now blind, keeps saying he should talk because he has the conch. Of course,
the conch is also smashed, order or civilization is erased, the boys begin to hunt
Ralph, and Roger has, "sharpened the stick at both ends," for Ralph's head.
The island is set on fire, and right before Ralph is captured, the Navy ship shows up. Ironically,
the Navy Captain thinks the boys are having fun. He is in his uniform, and his ship is armed and
on a hunting mission. The boys' uniforms are made of mud and war paint and their weapons
are spears. The ending shows that the boys are rescued by a war ship but asks who will rescue
the adults? It was often predicted during the time that this book was written that a third
world nuclear war would be the end of the world.
I guess my point in writing about this novel is that maybe in a way, the INTERNET places
us on an island of our own (or with a small group of friends) sans civilized constraints. These
past few weeks haven't shown much civilization in our behaviors at this board.
No real laws, police, or parents shape our behaviors. Yes, we do have board rules here
that are too often ignored, and we have Lukas and Joe, who valiantly try to remind us that
some of us are acting like "beasties," but they both must get tired of the REDUNDANCY of their
messages.
What I really miss are our Simons, gentle, intelligent folk who tire of written pigs' heads being
placed on sticks, and so they leave us. Some of us old timers on this board probably remember
Dutch, a gentle, amazingly insightful gentleman who left several years because there
was too much bile and too much spilled blood.
Oh well, I don't expect any answers to this post. Just wanted some of you to think about
the analogy between the Internet and Lord Of The Flies and hope that what few kind Simons
are still here or who may eventually arrive, all wide-eyed and innocent, will stick around to provide
us with musical insights and forgive us our "defects."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 2, 2009 - 2:55 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
What I really miss are our Simons, gentle, intelligent folk who tire of written pigs' heads being
placed on sticks, and so they leave us. Some of us old timers on this board probably remember
Dutch, a gentle, amazingly insightful gentleman who left several years because there
was too much bile and too much spilled blood."
Not only Dutch. Marian Schedenig too. And Chris Kinsinger. They all left because of the decaying atmosphere, if memory serves. As I said in another post recently, being a member of the FSM board REQUIRES you to have a thick skin (just in the last few days, I've been called a jerk and a rapist)!
But interesting analogy, Joan. I certainly see where you're coming from and although I think there's much to what you say, I also think there's a more pragmatical reason for this - namely that the board has grown and grown and is currently the most active and biggest film music forum on the internet. With that privilege also comes more troublemakers, more vitriol, more temperament. It's inevitable. Back in the late 90's and the early 2000's, the board was much smaller and intimate. There were far more "Simons" posting and the few "Jacks" (I'm not naming names, but everyone who were around then know who I'm talking about) were so few that their destructive attitudes did not sour the entire atmosphere of the board. The soil was then more fertile for long, constructive debates and topics without veering off into destructive paths.
There are currently other boards that still have some of that intimate atmosphere that FSM once had, and I've been going there more and more. To use another analogy, I consider them "pubs on the corner" while FSM is the "big disco" where everybody goes. Both have their advantages - and it's not ALL black around here! - but the pub is really where you go to hang out and relax.
Finally, let me echo Joe's sentiment above - you are indeed one of our resident Simons that still makes this board worth returning to every day.  I just wish you would post more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 2, 2009 - 3:06 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
joan hue
(Member)
|
Thanks, Joe and Thor, for labeling me a Simon, but I'm not a Simon. I've had my
share of volcanic outbursts and spewed some vitriol at times. I'm slow to anger, but I can
lose it. I just wanted people to "think" about the similarities between the novel's premise and the Internet. I wish I could expect change, but I don't.
Thor, we were a smaller board way back then. That's true, and I miss the people you named. We did have a few scurvy knaves around then, but they were fewer. I like the fact the board has grown because it means we can discover more film music lovers. I guess the cliché, "We take the bad with the good, " is apt. But still....wordless now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 2, 2009 - 4:41 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Sarge
(Member)
|
Not only Dutch. Marian Schedenig too. And Chris Kinsinger. They all left because of the decaying atmosphere, if memory serves. As I said in another post recently, being a member of the FSM board REQUIRES you to have a thick skin (just in the last few days, I've been called a jerk and a rapist)!
Thor... don't take this as a personal attack, because it isn't. It's advice, and it's food for thought.
After our... ahem... strenuous debate the other day, I'm sure you think I'm one of the destructive personalities you've mentioned. I admit I let my anger get the best of me. But there's an old saying - it takes two to tango.
One could cull through the last hundred threads I've posted in and find few incidents of name-calling, heated arguments or a thread being locked. I think Joe and most people who interact with me would call me opinionated, occasionally caustic, but generally amiable.
But it's been my observation that you are FREQUENTLY at the center of such controversies.
Yes, technically you are always polite - but at the same time you often are insensitive or condescending. Indeed, you typically dig your heels in and calmly, coolly fight to the bitter end, even on points you've argued countless times before.
Put simply, you seem oblivious to all signs that you're antagonizing people until they break out the torches and pitchforks. Then you dismiss them as uncivilized.
Perhaps instead of waxing nostalgic for the way this board used to be, ask yourself why you run afoul of so many people here, both old and new. I can name a number of veteran FSMers who tiptoe around potential landmines that you jump on with both feet.
As Simon said, "Maybe the beast is us." - ALL of us.
Again, NOT a personal attack. I just think your people skills are lacking sometimes. Exercise a bit of forbearance and a bit of diplomacy, and I'm sure you'll see a difference in the response you get.
I personally love this message board. It's fun, informative, and I've met several people here I have great affection for.
Is it sometimes banal, stupid, repetitious and offensive? Of course. But then, so is life. Why should this board be any different?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 2, 2009 - 5:40 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Sarge
(Member)
|
Sgt., although I could easily counter or nuance many of your opinions above, I don't think it's appropriate to turn even THIS thread into a discussion of specific personalities, neither me nor you nor anyone else. That's why I specifically avoided mentioning any names. It's more a general assessment of the "board atmosphere" and should be kept that way, IMO.
Ha!
I repeat...
Yes, technically you are always polite - but at the same time you often are insensitive or condescending.
Oh well. I tried.
Joan, your sentiments are lovely. I agree that the beast is us, but until some people admit their own culpability, nothing will ever change.
Joe, please note that an olive branch was extended and promptly snipped off.
Thor, you and I will never interact on this message board again. I will, as you requested the other day, "sod off!" Please do me the courtesy of doing the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 2, 2009 - 6:45 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
joan hue
(Member)
|
I think there is something to be said for the psychology of reasonable debates. Discussions may
actually continue for a while unless an, "irresistible force meets an unmovable object."
Being firmly entrenched in a position about certain topics is, I think, normal for all of us. Certain
topics, but NOT ALL topics.
Arguments at this board tend to escalate when people are so entrenched in their points of
view that they can't budge even an eighth of an inch to understand another's point of view.
Me: X is white
You: X is black
Me: You don't understand what I'm saying so I'll explain it in various ways. Therefore
X is white.
You: I understand what you said, but you are wrong because.....so X is black.
And this goes on and on with no shift of movement, not even a slight acknowledgment
of the veracity of at least parts of another's opinion. Little words like, "I understand where
you are coming from given your past," at least demonstrate some shift, some
recognition of the cogency of the other person's point of view. However, to go on
for page after page of X is only white, X is only black, leads to amazing frustration,
anger, personal attacks, and finally a lock down. And that pattern will be repeated
here forever unless there is some shift in our own perceptions on at least "some" topics.
But I do acknowledge that there are some topics where shifts in my point of
view may not be possible. But still, we could use a bit more "openness" around here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Really? I was not the one singling out any names. I was trying to have this thread remain as civil and non-personal as possible. In vain, obviously.
Actually, you were attempting to posture as an innocent martyr - a befuddled victim of changing times and insolent people. Which is a roundabout way of denying any culpability for the furor you routinely cause on this board.
In every angry exchange you have with Eric Paddon, you are 50% responsible. In every angry exchange with EVERYONE. I quite honestly think you missed the entire point of Joan's post.
As for my 50%... it's said all it has to say.
It's that passive-agressive gig he's got going. It won't change. It will never change. That's why I just laugh at him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 3, 2009 - 2:28 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
And that pattern will be repeated
here forever unless there is some shift in our own perceptions on at least "some" topics.
But I do acknowledge that there are some topics where shifts in my point of
view may not be possible. But still, we could use a bit more "openness" around here.
Yes, if the two parties are positioned at the opposite side of the scale, the debate can be dangerous in its inresolvability (whether it's politics or film music or whatever). But I'd like to point out one good example of a case where it isn't necessarily so, namely the many debates I've had with estgrey over the years, on eternal issues such as rerecordings or C&C. Our discussions have been VERY heated at times, but almost never become personal. We've managed to stay case-oriented even though tempers fly high; never resorted to namecalling or strawmen, and that's enormously rewarding to me (and, I hope, to him). There are other excellent, rational, case-oriented debaters here too with whom I have a vastly different opinion on many issues (such as Dana above), but he's the one that sprang immediately to mind.
Although neither estgrey nor I are gentle enough to qualify as a "Simon", it's those kinds of people that make a forum worthwhile and "alive", IMO. The ability to disagree with someone - even vehemently - but still walk away from the debate with a good feeling; a feeling that you can't WAIT to get back into the debate and see whatever arguments have been put forth since the last time, rather than just DREADING it because you know there will be namecalling and misrepresentations to wade through or sort out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those with an aversion to what they think as 'psychobabble' please look away and skip this post.
The analogy with LOTF is apt insofar as the 'net' is an unreal place where real people inter-act ... but WITHOUT the normal layers of armour and persona that we normally put on each day before we relate to people in the real 3D world.
People might note that I refer a lot to Carl Jung on here. And they might get the impression thus that I'm a bit fixated on that subject, but it's more complex. Like everyone else I reveal only what I want to reveal. But this board does actually make me think of Jung's basic typology of so-called 'psychological types'. By 'types' he didn't mean personality types, but rather 'orientations' of people with respect to their personal BEST ROUTE to perceiving reality.
Boxes don't mean much, but he said there were four... INTUITIONAL, THINKING, SENSATION, and FEELING types. He didn't call the 'thinking' types 'rational' because he'd correctly worked out that feeling too is a 'rational' type at root. What makes his typology interesting (and he based it on thousands of cases, but never concretised anything 100%) is that he saw POLES in the thing. A clock-face with 'intuitional' types opposite to 'sensation' (by 'sensation' he meant PRACTICAL types who deal best with reality in a down-to-earth manner) and 'thinking' types were opposite to 'feeling'.
The fun here is that the intuitive and sensation types were SUSPICIOUS of one another, and would project all the evils (often their OWN evils) onto each other, while the 'thinking' and 'feeling' types did the same. Very few of us apparently manage to go round the 'trivial pursuits' board of the clockface and pick up all the cards ourselves!
I've seen this thing work itself out here and on other boards ... the 'thinkers' sneer at the 'feelers' and vice versa, and the 'intuitives' sneer at the 'sensators'. It's like clockwork.
But the thing is ... people who are characterised by 'thinking' a lot aren't NECESSARILY true 'thinking' types, because sometimes they are really 'feelers' who are ashamed of it or are suppressing it. The really good 'genius' thinkers always have more than one compass point on their clockfaces.
Thor, for example, I'd say (rashly) is probably a 'thinking' type. Because HE relates to the world via rational academic means, he imagines we ALL do, and should. He sees that as the best and maybe only true and reliable way. This COULD leave whole perspectives absent from his viewpoint. If Thor read this paragraph, he'd wonder where I 'read' it, and wouldn't imagine that things might be arrived at from experience or even from 'spookier' directions.
I can think of one person here who is a quite anger-ridden 'feeling' emotional type (as was Nietzche!) but whose 'thinking' capacities are often carried away by that. He'd never acknowledge it though. His passions actually over-ride his intellect, then enslave the intellect to 'justify' what is really only passion and ego. It's naive to think that 'feelers' are ALWAYS nice people.
The 'sensation' types you can spot right away. They know exactly what tapes exist, what the cue-cards say, they've handled the reel-cans and anyone who hasn't is an idiot!
Some people here are intuitives, and you don't know just what they'll do. But they often get it just right, without the 'proof' the thinkers and sensation types demand.
And some, like the 'Nightmare' family, are all-rounders, and they twig the thing right off, and know how to relate.
The hard thing to do is to get people to realise that their own preferred way of relating to the world (thinking, feeling, sensing or intuiting) is NOT the only way. In past generations, we had the scientists AND prophets AND poets AND builders, and they all respected each other's take on reality.
Anyone having read this far gets a free Twinky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 3, 2009 - 7:07 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
I read it, Will, and I agree that there are certainly many ways to "categorize" the differing personalities or cognitive strategies. Joan mentioned one, you mentioned another. But I also tend to believe it moves beyond that sometimes - into areas of action, image, inferences etc., things that are less reliant on personalities than a pragmatic, discernable, causal chain of events. There's also a whole lot of things to be said about GROUP psychology, especially in a forum like this, really a niche within a niche (not only films, but film MUSIC).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
