PDA

View Full Version : What Causes a TV Show?


coberst
14th December 2008, 02:06 AM
What Causes a TV Show?

Causality is a concept argued over by many very important philosophers.

Cause is a determining factor in a situation. A prototypical causation is when a force is applied to something thereby moving it. Causes are temporally prior. Causes are sources of events. Cause is the agent of event. We conceptualize causes in terms of locations and in terms of objects. Motion in space is fundamental to all creatures and this is our source of much of our experiential knowledge. Cause is force and causation is forced movement.

A critically self-conscious individual has a very different attitude toward the world and the self than does the non-critical thinking individual.

In our everyday experiences we encounter numerous ideas regarding causation.
Domino: Start a proper first change and like dominos others will follow.
Thresholds: A barrier must be overcome. Once that initial hurdle is carried then change will occur.
Plate tectonic: The change takes much time because of the vast inertia that must be overcome.
Path: The path taken determines the events caused. Some might argue that Iraq has been “set on the path’ to democracy. Being on the path means that eventually the goal will be reached.

These are causal models with a different logic for each. “In domino logic, but not in causal path logic, the change is stopped by the application of force. In domino logic, a change is to be prevented. In plate tectonic logic, a change is to be effected. In domino logic, just enough force is necessary to keep the domino from falling. In causal-path logic, just a little push now and then is necessary. But, in plate tectonic logic, a huge amount of force is necessary over a long time.”

There are philosophical widespread views.

Causes are: material substance—forms—purposes—applications of force—necessary conditions—temporally prior to effects—laws of nature—uniformities of nature—correlations (constant conjunctions).

“At the heart of causation is its most fundamental case: the manipulation of objects by force…It is conscious volitional human agency via direct physical force that is at the center of our concept of causation.”

Our fundamental understandings of events are in terms of locations and in terms of objects. Fundamentally we “conceptualize events and all aspects of them—actions, causes, changes, states, purposes, and so forth—in terms of our extensive experience with, and knowledge about, motion in space.”

Location: Causation Is the Forced Movement of an Entity (The Affected Entity) To a New Location (The Effect)

Figure = Affected Entity
Ground = Effect
Example: “The homerun sent the crowd (Figure) into a frenzy (Ground).”

Object: Causation Is The Transfer Of A Possible Object (The Effect) To Or From An Entity (The Affected Entity).

Figure = Effect
Ground = Affected Entity
Example: “The loud music gave a headache (Figure) to each of the guests (Ground).”

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson


Question for your judgment

From the position of the advertiser what is the purpose of a TV show?—Sell merchandise to audience.
From the position of the entertainment producer what is the purpose of the TV show?—Sell entertainment package to advertiser.
From the position of the audience what is the purpose of the TV show?—Entertainment

Which entity do you think caused the TV show, the Advertiser, Entertainment Producer, or Audience?

j000han
14th December 2008, 08:48 AM
What Causes a TV Show?

>
Question for your judgment

From the position of the advertiser what is the purpose of a TV show?—Sell merchandise to audience.
From the position of the entertainment producer what is the purpose of the TV show?—Sell entertainment package to advertiser.
From the position of the audience what is the purpose of the TV show?—Entertainment

Which entity do you think caused the TV show, the Advertiser, Entertainment Producer, or Audience?
Lets run it backward.
Suppose i watch a TV-Show (lets say Star_trek (next generation).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_trek
[The Star Trek fictional universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_universe) created by Gene Roddenberry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Roddenberry) is the setting of six television series including the original 1966 Star Trek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series), in addition to ten feature films with an eleventh in post-production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_%28film%29) to be released on May 8, 2009. The franchise also extends to dozens of computer and video games, hundreds of novels and instances of fan fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_fiction), several fan-created video productions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions), as well as a themed attraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Experience) in Las Vegas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_metropolitan_area). Beginning with the original TV series and continuing with the subsequent films and series, the franchise has created a cult phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_following) and has spawned many pop culture references.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_trek#cite_note-0)
Obviously the original concept of Start_trek was welcomed by a lot of viewers,]
So…
the producer(s) much have thought ‘lets see if we can make a follow up’
By then ST had allready become a trend so partly the appreciation of the viewers
is cause for this follow up.
In order to watch a ST-episode the viewer must
*Switch on the TV and tune in to a particular channel.
So...
the multiple action of viewers who have switchted on
their TV and tuned in has caused the number of the ratings for a particular program
to exceed a certain figure which is a cause for planning a rerun/remake/follow up of
a particular popular program of entertainment.
But what about the original concept where did that come from?
What/who was/were it that inspired Gene Roddenberry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Roddenberry)?

coberst
14th December 2008, 06:54 PM
Here we can better see the complexity of just determining the cause effect relationship. I think that this fact can help us to comprehend the nature of multi-logical problem solving.

I think that our first step is for a significant percentage of our population to become sufficiently intellectually sophisticated as to make many citizens capable of engaging in dialogical reasoning. To do this I think that many citizens must become self-actualizing self-learners when their school daze are over.

Under our normal cultural situation communication means to discourse, to exchange opinions with one another. It seems to me that there are opinions, considered opinions, and judgments. Opinions are a dime-a-dozen. Considered opinions, however, are opinions that have received a considerable degree of thought but have not received special study. A considered opinion starts out perhaps as tacit knowledge but receives sufficient intellectual attention to have become consciously organized in some fashion. Judgments are made within a process of study.

In dialogue, person ‘A’ may state a thesis and in return person ‘B’ does not respond with exactly the same meaning as does ‘A’. The meanings are generally similar but not identical; thus ‘A’ listening to ‘B’ perceives a disconnect between what she said and what ‘B’ replies. ‘A’ then has the opportunity to respond with this disconnect in mind, thereby creating a response that takes these matters into consideration; ‘A’ performs an operation known as a dialectic (a juxtaposition of opposed or contradictory ideas). And so the dialogical process proceeds.

A dialogical process is not one wherein individuals reason together in an attempt to make common ideas that are already known to each individual. ”Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together.” Dialogical reasoning together is an act of creation, of mutual understanding, of meaning.

Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other. Each must be prepared to “drop his old ideas and intentions. And be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for…Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to ‘work together’) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.”

“On Dialogue” written by “The late David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists and foremost thinkers this century, was Fellow of the Royal Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London.

Bohm is convinced that communication is breaking down as a result of the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring. Communication is a concept with a common meaning that does not fit well with the concepts of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic.

I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.

j000han
16th December 2008, 07:52 AM
I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.
C:
I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.
J:<snipped from>
[This is a summary of content from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/citizen
citizen
Main Entry: cit·i·zen
Pronunciation: \ ˈ si-tə-zən also -sən\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English citizein, from Anglo-French citezein, alteration of citeien, from cité city Date: 14th century 1 : an inhabitant of a city or town ; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman 2 a : a member of a state b : a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it 3 : a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state
— cit·i·zen·ly
\-zən-lē also -sən-\ adjective
synonyms citizen , subject , national mean a person owing allegiance to and entitled to the protection of a sovereign state. citizen is preferred for one owing allegiance to a state in which sovereign power is retained by the people and sharing in the political rights of those people &lt;the rights of a free citizen &gt; . subject implies allegiance to a personal sovereign such as a monarch &lt;the king's subjects &gt; . national designates one who may claim the protection of a state and applies especially to one living or traveling outside that state &lt;American nationals working in the Middle East&gt; .]

Well, I take it that though your claim is based on a considered opinion.
The conclusion ,
may be somewhat premature.
There are trhee(3) hidden premises that lead to that conclusion:
1Citizens must learn to live together(in harmony).
2Citizens must learn to dialogue.
3The species can/must be saved.
I notice that you have used an all-inclusive ‘we’.citizens (young/old junior/senior man/woman),
I’d rather would restate it as: [If I as a citizen do not learn to dialogue i cannot learn to live together in harmony.]
I’m not sure yet if indeed the ‘species’needs to be saved and if so if it is possible at all,
but I’m quite sure that if that indeed is the case, harmony is certainly a key-element to faciliate that inmense operation.
I offer the following to consider:
[[I]“We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community” (FranklinD.Roosevelt).]
With all due respect I think this a plain example of bullshit rethoric]
Members of the human community;bymembers by whose definition?
human by who’s definition?
What a great example has been displayed of this citizensship huh.:unsure: