The Charlatan in us all...

[onlookerofmayhem]

@Golden Duck

 

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

@Golden Duck

 

I'm certain I've established the primacy of Aussie perception over those in the Antipodes.

[+Sherapy]

21 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

She's designated driver for the evening.  She's standing on the driver's side ; and, appears to be a pace behind him.

He's clearly got out of the car sooner - because he's a pace ahead - and he's intently trying to locate the bar.

21 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

 

I think it is about selling the car by suggesting in this car you and whoever is with you becomes center stage. All eyes on you because of your car. 
 

Kinda like a selfie moment for the car. 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Sherapy

[Golden Duck]

3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I think it is more about selling the car by suggesting in this car you and whoever is with you becomes center stage. All eyes on you because of your car. 
 

Kinda like a selfie moment for the car. 

For sure I agree that was the intention; but, I've invited to look at the picture for too long.

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

For sure I agree that was the intention; but, I've invited to look at the picture for too long.

I enjoyed your story for the picture. It was good, I didn’t see him interested in her at all, he was preoccupied elsewhere. Hired actors at best. 

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

I think it is about selling the car by suggesting in this car you and whoever is with you becomes center stage. All eyes on you because of your car. 
 

Kinda like a selfie moment for the car. 

Yes .One's car is integral to one's perceived self image--like people with the newest most expensive phone, held conspicuously to show the distinctive camera positions on the back. Ad agencies know their stuff, feeding on hubris and ego.

[Arbenol]

14 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yes .One's car is integral to one's perceived self image--like people with the newest most expensive phone, held conspicuously to show the distinctive camera positions on the back. Ad agencies know their stuff, feeding on hubris and ego.

I hate to think what my car says about me!

[+Sherapy]

24 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

I hate to think what my car says about me!

Ha ha ha ha ha mine is saying I need a new one. 

[Golden Duck]

If we aren't actively deceiving ourselves, we are easy to deceive.

Quote

Kuleshov effect

Kuleshov edited a short film in which a shot of the expressionless face of Tsarist matinee idol Ivan Mosjoukine was alternated with various other shots (a bowl of soup, a girl in a coffin, a woman on a divan). The film was shown to an audience who believed that the expression on Mosjoukine's face was different each time he appeared, depending on whether he was "looking at" the bowl of soup, the girl in the coffin, or the woman on the divan, showing an expression of hunger, grief, or desire, respectively. The footage of Mosjoukine was actually the same shot each time. Vsevolod Pudovkin (who later claimed to have been the co-creator of the experiment) described in 1929 how the audience "raved about the acting... the heavy pensiveness of his mood over the forgotten soup, were touched and moved by the deep sorrow with which he looked on the dead child, and noted the lust with which he observed the woman. But we knew that in all three cases the face was exactly the same."^[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect

 

[+Hammerclaw]

48 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

I hate to think what my car says about me!

Mine says it gets him where he's going --and it 's true! I'm going nowhere.

[+Sherapy]

[+Sherapy]

Incredible snap shot of this moment. 

[eight bits]

Nice background story about her on the Beeb:

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55738564

 

[+Sherapy]

14 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Nice background story about her on the Beeb:

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55738564

 

Awww, thank you. 

[+Sherapy]

17 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Nice background story about her on the Beeb:

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55738564

 

Wow, another person who has used poetry to overcome a speech impediment. I met a boy of about 6 years old last week and while he stuttered I was struck by how confident he was in taking the time to get his words out and he had his friends  with him about 3 other boys and there was no bullying or mocking him, empathy in action. It is these moments,  I treasure.   

[TashaMarie]

On 1/14/2021 at 5:34 PM, Sherapy said:

What do you see in each picture?

Let’s explore the many ways we fool ourselves.

There are no right or wrong answers just an opportunity to join together on a journey.

All thoughts are welcome.

A special thanks to @Desertrat56 and @eight bits @HalfAnIdiotfor your feedback and ideas.

I'm not sure if I am totally understanding what we are being asked.  

In the first picture I see a man with items popping out of his head, possibly his thoughts, ideas I personally get nothing more than that from it apart from there may be a religious aspect what with the snake and the heel on the shoe. But then I am not sure where the rest fits in to that.

The second one I see a book next to a candle.  I found the picture quite comforting and relaxing.

The third a pipe.

[Alchopwn]

I always liked Rene Magritte.  As an early surrealist he was one of the most interesting artists to really approach the issue of what art is "for".  He was painting in an era when it was felt that technology, specifically the camera, had destroyed the need for art.  He was among the artists who challenged the idea that the "photograph is truth", which was an idea attacked in Salvador Dali's Un Chien Andalou, where the images are distorted and subverted all the time.  More importantly however, Magritte was all about teaching people how to look at art but see philosophy.  Magritte's Ceci n'est pas une pipe for example is telling us that "the map is not the territory".  We see the image of a pipe, and as we have been trained from childhood to name images on flashcards, we respond with the idea that we are seeing a pipe, but we are actually seeing a picture of a pipe.  It isn't even a photograph of a pipe.  The fact is, what we are seeing is a computer screen, and yet if we don't reflect on it, we say, "oh, it's a pipe".  But it isn't. 

Magritte transcended the previous limits of art.  In the past, the purpose of art had been to render a photorealistic image, or to sell a certain propaganda message for a nation.  Now that is not to say that the language of art prior to Magritte et al didn't include a hidden symbolism, but they were always cues to the propaganda message, or occasionally, were present to subvert it.  Magritte pushed the frontier of what it was possible to convey with art in a way that no artist had really done before, and I consider him the father of Modern Art as a result.  For Magritte, the image is a means of forcing us to confront reality and how preconceptions of language and training trick us out of experiencing an authentic reality all the time. 

To give you an idea of why that is, consider that everything you have ever said is a lie.  In fact everything everyone has ever said to you is also a lie.  The fact is, language is an abstraction of reality that we all too often assume is reality.  No matter how we try to achieve accuracy with language.  You could spend all day earnestly trying to describe bamboo for example, and never actually completely describe bamboo.  You are always lying by omission, or inclusion, or ignorance.  That is not to suggest that language is not useful, just that it is not reality.  The only thing real about language is that it is real language.  It is however an imperfect tool.  Language's ability to describe reality is more flawed than a camera's ability to describe what being at the Grand Canyon is like, and let's face facts, no photo is ever going to do the Grand Canyon justice.  We might suppose that a truly great poet might be better at describing the Grand Canyon than a camera, but poetry again, is a linguistic substitute for reality that includes emotional and sensational content, often by inference.

I often hear people decrying modern art, but this is most often done out of ignorance.  Take abstract impressionism.  Most people looking at it only see splodges of paint and say "yeah a chimp did that".  In fact it is most often a study of items in motion with the paint representing the trails of objects moving in time.  If for example you were to take the cap off photographic film and look at vapor trails, the more objects moving in the frame become blurs.  Arguably this is what 3D motion looks like in 2D, and that's amazing.  What is hilarious is that the very people who decry Modern Art are on the wrong side of history.  The CIA understood abstract impressionism and used it as a means of utterly undermining Soviet art.  The Soviets couldn't ideologically engage with and criticize Abstract Impressionism.  They couldn't intellectually grasp it, but to Soviet dissidents the message was very clear; it was freedom, dynamism, and individual expression without restraint that was beyond the language of censorship.  The zeitgeist of the 1960s was that the personal was the political, and the CIA understood how to use that.  And so, strangely enough, this art that only a tiny fraction of even the art community could understand actually became American Propaganda.  Abstract impressionism was personal and it became political.  So make no mistake, there is meaning in modern art, but you need to learn to read it.  The people who hate modern art come in two flavors however, the ignorant and the totalitarian. 

[SHaYap]

2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

The people who hate modern art come in two flavors however, the ignorant and the totalitarian. 

And loves Andy Warhol... 

~

[+Sherapy]

On 1/16/2021 at 10:08 PM, Mr Walker said:

Well, apart from  it actually having a more medical meaning, it is too strong a word, and too negative 

It means a quack, or a fake, or someone trying to sell something with no value 

Very few people are charlatans although some deceive themselves   (and others) with a fake or constructed persona, which is not their true self 

Still one must ask "What IS one's true self /persona ? Most people have several, which the y employ for different purposes, such as work romance etc

Eg I suspect that you are not the "same woman"  at work, as on a romantic night out,   or when partying with friends  

Hmmm, interesting. Why do you see the word charlatan as to strong of a word and too negative?
 

What an interesting opportunity to apply CBT if one actually knows how—Mr. Counselor. 
 

Why would a person fake a constructed persona which is not their true self? What is a true self according to you? 
 

Mask on, mask off... hmmm
 

Nota bene: The Treachery of Pipes comes to mind, 

Edited January 23, 2021 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

On 1/17/2021 at 6:37 AM, joc said:

In the first picture I see The Artist Within

In the second picture I see  The Master of Shadow and Light

In the third picture I see The Master of Detail

Interesting, master as in what context? 

[+joc]

25 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Interesting, master as in what context? 

Master of Shadow and Light:  Candles burning in the dark cast interesting shadows.  The book appears to be hovering a bit...candle shadows masterfully caught...the shadow circle around the candle on the table and on the book.  The complete dark background with the candle flame.  Shadow and light.  Everything we see can be broken down into the differences between shadow and light.   The idea was not to capture the 'detail' of the scene...but the essence of the scene in an accurate way.  

Master of Detail:  It isn't an impression of a pipe.  It is the pipe, absolutely perfect in detail.  Which also means:  Master of Shadow and Light.  In this scene however the idea is to bring out the pipe itself...not the essence or impression of the pipe but the actual detail of the object which was beautifully done.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

13 minutes ago, joc said:

Master of Shadow and Light:  Candles burning in the dark cast interesting shadows.  The book appears to be hovering a bit...candle shadows masterfully caught...the shadow circle around the candle on the table and on the book.  The complete dark background with the candle flame.  Shadow and light.  Everything we see can be broken down into the differences between shadow and light.   The idea was not to capture the 'detail' of the scene...but the essence of the scene in an accurate way.  

Master of Detail:  It isn't an impression of a pipe.  It is the pipe, absolutely perfect in detail.  Which also means:  Master of Shadow and Light.  In this scene however the idea is to bring out the pipe itself...not the essence or impression of the pipe but the actual detail of the object which was beautifully done.

Interesting interpretation.

[Mr Walker]

On 1/24/2021 at 8:32 AM, Sherapy said:

Hmmm, interesting. Why do you see the word charlatan as to strong of a word and too negative?
 

What an interesting opportunity to apply CBT if one actually knows how—Mr. Counselor. 
 

Why would a person fake a constructed persona which is not their true self? What is a true self according to you? 
 

Mask on, mask off... hmmm
 

Nota bene: The Treachery of Pipes comes to mind, 

Because of the definition of a charlatan.

Most humans might be self deluded but they aren't deliberately so.

A charlatan  is deliberately deceptive 

I could give you a psychological in depth answer to why,  but rather: 

I watch a lot of chick flicks or rom coms

While not always true   the y do explore how, and why, people present different faces of themselves in different situations 

Do you behave the same in an all girls group as  in a mixed gender group?

Very simply, do you wear  the same clothes to work as to the beach? No you dress appropriately /fit for purpose.

  We also "dress"  out minds/personas to  fit situations. 

The more skilled read another's oral and body language, and adapt their own responses appropriately.  

True self ?

Not as important as KNOWING and recognising that self   (which is where CBT can be very useful)

I could give you 20 words which  i felt best described "me"  from  my perspective 

You could then ask 30 of my colleagues, who work with me every day, to write out their 20 words describing how they perceive me.

As it happens we did this a few times when i was teaching 

What happens is that maybe half a dozen to a third  of the words are identical in all the lists.

For me these included;  intelligent, knowledgeable,  well read, helpful, kind/compassionate , generous, lucky  

Then you get variations depending on my relationship with others.

Some might write funny, while others wrote serious  Some might write quiet, while others wrote garrulous.   Some might write eccentric while others wrote   psychic 

 

ps MY perception of my true self

A work in progress

So it changes minute by minute, and day by day 

I do have long term goals i set a long time ago, and more recent goals, for my self. 

I wouldn't argue with any of the words used by myself or my colleagues to describe me 

eg sometimes, and with some people, l am quiet while others make me laugh, and bring out the comic in me. 

Some younger colleagues needed and valued my advice and experience.

Older ones didn't need it so much. 

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

17 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Because of the definition of a charlatan.

Most humans might be self deluded but they aren't deliberately so.

A charlatan  is deliberately deceptive 

I could give you a psychological in depth answer to why,  but rather: 

I watch a lot of chick flicks or rom coms

While not always true   the y do explore how, and why, people present different faces of themselves in different situations 

Do you behave the same in an all girls group as  in a mixed gender group?

Very simply, do you wear  the same clothes to work as to the beach? No you dress appropriately /fit for purpose.

  We also "dress"  out minds/personas to  fit situations. 

The more skilled read another's oral and body language, and adapt their own responses appropriately.  

True self ?

Not as important as KNOWING and recognising that self   (which is where CBT can be very useful)

I could give you 20 words which  i felt best described "me"  from  my perspective 

You could then ask 30 of my colleagues, who work with me every day, to write out their 20 words describing how they perceive me.

As it happens we did this a few times when i was teaching 

What happens is that maybe half a dozen to a third  of the words are identical in all the lists.

For me these included;  intelligent, knowledgeable,  well read, helpful, kind/compassionate , generous, lucky  

Then you get variations depending on my relationship with others.

Some might write funny, while others wrote serious  Some might write quiet, while others wrote garrulous.   Some might write eccentric while others wrote   psychic 

 

ps MY perception of my true self

A work in progress

So it changes minute by minute, and day by day 

I do have long term goals i set a long time ago, and more recent goals, for my self. 

I wouldn't argue with any of the words used by myself or my colleagues to describe me 

eg sometimes, and with some people, l am quiet while others make me laugh, and bring out the comic in me. 

Some younger colleagues needed and valued my advice and experience.

Older ones didn't need it so much. 

 

Hmmm, interesting...but I am not any clearer why you are bothered with the possibility that charlatan could mean intentionally deceptive?

I think it is possible to (on occasion) intentionally deceive ourselves. 
 

For example: intelligence,  kind, knowledgeable, well read, compassionate, generous...

 

 

I would say certainly there are moments when these descriptions could/ might apply, and there are certainly plenty of contexts they do not. I would say this is the human condition across the board to varying degrees. 

An authentic self would put as much stock and exploration  into the good and bad feedback (elements) of ones humanness (in an attempt to nurture honest self reflection, genuineness and growth).

 

What you tend to argue for is defending and rationalizing your loyalty to your persona, (not a judgement) just an observation because in some contexts, it has a place, serves a purpose, shoring up ones self esteem seems to be your  purpose. I would say the charlatan in us could  do so intentionally, look at what isn’t said, one could infer one chooses to mislead with intent. Just my two cents. 

 

True self? It sounds like your definition of “true self” is only the qualities that you wouldn’t argue with. 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Hmmm, interesting...but I am not any clearer why you are bothered with the possibility that charlatan could mean intentionally deceptive?

I think it is possible to (on occasion) intentionally deceive ourselves. 
 

For example: intelligence,  kind, knowledgeable, well read, compassionate, generous...

 

 

I would say certainly there are moments when these descriptions could/ might apply, and there are certainly plenty of contexts they do not. I would say this is the human condition across the board to varying degrees. 

An authentic self would put as much stock and exploration  into the good and bad feedback (elements) of ones humanness (in an attempt to nurture honest self reflection, genuineness and growth).

 

What you tend to argue for is defending and rationalizing your loyalty to your persona, (not a judgement) just an observation because in some contexts, it has a place, serves a purpose, shoring up ones self esteem seems to be your  purpose. I would say the charlatan in us could  do so intentionally, look at what isn’t said, one could infer one chooses to mislead with intent. Just my two cents. 

 

True self? It sounds like your definition of “true self” is only the qualities that you wouldn’t argue with. 

 

 

I dont value online feedback very much .

In general It is mostly ignorant  (ie people who don't know me)  and biased  ( ie people respond from  inside their own strong world views and perspectives )

I always value feedback from  people I know  

The only person who truly knows me is myself.  Thus my own self critical evaluation (usually based on objective criteria referenced assessments) is the most trust worthy and reliable.

  However, the adjectives i posted were the actual ones given as written feed back by other teachers and students  during formal processes of evaluation and feedback  Ie those are the responses of others to the face/persona I presented as a teacher  

The most critical feedback I ever received was that i was a bit too gentle and quiet,  but that was from  a student who was raised in, and valued, quite an aggressive, even violent, environment  and liked.required, tha t sort of control and direction from  anyone in authority.  

Well of course i like my peronas They are each  what i have  designed and then   created,with discipline and effort over the years,  to fit different environments/situations  They work for me , are highly effective and have made me successful, happy/  content with life, and prosperous

I dont get your last comment.

Your true self  is the person you have shaped yourself to be.

 

it  is who/what you truly are, and not something constructed to meet the needs of others, or your job, partner  etc .

 it is the persona which reflects who you want to be in your own company The one you would hold, while living alone on a deserted island.

  It is the one you can live with comfortably, when alone with your thoughts