Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA21895 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 2 Apr 2001 21:47:45 +0100 Message-ID: <3AC8E1B1.33BCD878@clara.co.uk> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 21:31:47 +0100 From: Douglas Brooker <dbrooker@clara.co.uk> Organization: University of London X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: taboos References: <E14j0vU-000GsE-00@gaea> <002901c0bbb0$f2000660$b902bed4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
> Hi Douglas,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Douglas Brooker <dbrooker@clara.co.uk>
> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 5:35 PM
> Subject: Re: taboos
> > Why would advertisers want to use something that all clinical trials
> > shows doesn't work and is also likely to get the advertiser and agency
> > into deep merde? Did you see see the 'rat'?
> > The controversy about subliminal advertising isn't about whether it
> > works or not, it's about the intent of the advertiser and the
> > vulnerability or fears of those who see or hear the ad that their free
> > will will be subverted.
>
> << subverted, ...hm, I have doubts about the use of this word, though.
> IMO the fears are more about deception, we must be protected against...
> IMO free will has nothing to do it....it is the Law who has the final word.
>
Hi Kenneth, not sure if I'm clear on what you're saying. my point was that if
the intent of the ad was to make a person do something they would not do of
their own free will, it seems to follows that some kind of subversive of free
will is involved. Even if this type of advertising doesn't work, the important
element is the subject's fear that it might make them do something they don't
want to do. what I've said is a more subjective, thinking of the ad's viewer,
you've emphasized the objective side, perhaps. Whether something did happened
certainly, the law could have the last word in determining what the 'facts'
were.
in some other messages recently I've referred to the effects of cultural
differences on the perception of facts. my field is law, so when you deny the
role of free will and then refer to the Law I have to think of two big
differences that distinguish common law systems like the UK and US from European
civilian systems. One difference concerns a view of the state as protector that
is a natural and spontaneous view for Europeans, but this view of the state's
role is controversial in common law systems. The second area concerns cultural
attitudes towards the nature of truth as manifested in the each legal system.
In common law, truth is more relative - parties' truth, whereas in Civilian
systems it appears to be more absolute, a state truth. The Civilian
Inquisitorial system can be contrasted with the common law adversarial system on
this point. My background is common law, and most common law lawyers have a
negative view of civilian law, which hopefully I am not bringing to my
thinking. What I am trying to do is to compare the two sets of beliefs to
understand why they are what they are - history, tradition, wars or the absence
of wars and other factors are all relevant.
Douglas
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 21:50:29 BST