From: Van oost Kenneth (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat 01 May 2004 - 16:44:30 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kennethvanoost@belgacom.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: The Passion of the Christopher
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <email@example.com>
> Jon you wrote,
> > One meme that I have not seen analyzed anywhere in the media criticism
> > online discussion of this film is the cultural meme that causes us to
> > that it is bad, distasteful, or somehow wrong to depict
> > violence/blood/gore in amount that the meme dictates as "excessive".
> > meme is so prevalent that in general, people seem to take it as a
> > universal human truth that something past a certain level of realistic
> > violence and gore is "offensive", "uncalled for", or that it implies the
> > filmmaker has some kind of "sick obsession".
> << Yet, I see it more as an [ universal] social meme ! Is there a cultural
> difference of how people see violence and in what amount it becomes
> wrong or excessive !?
> On the other hand, for many [ too excessive ] becomes ridiculous.
> Is the discussion about the movie, cultural inspired_ that fulblooded
> christians were to be upset, ok but the rest !? The majority would
> consider the violence as being bad, distateful and excessive, but
> others would consider it as " a necessity to tell the story " .
> But, ok, when is too many too much !? But is such a cultural/ social/
> memetic dictate confined to violence !? I think not, when is too much
> sex on TV a political item, when are adds ( p.e. Benetton) distateful !?
> Whan is adding yet another 100 miles surplus to what is then already
> the fastest car, murder, if you sell those cars to youngsters !?
> IMHO, it is a meme individualistic bound, but linked to a more general
> moral/ ethical level.
> Damasio in his latest book, " What we call ethical behavior, has an
> ancient emotional history. "
> I agree with this as far for the very basic of the statement, not so much
> with the conclusions drawn from it. I see an individualistic element in
> what you or I think as too much, one other will take yet another stand.
> That all of this is social/ cultural inspired, no doubt, but it is not the
> for the assumption.
> > Yet it is our modern culture that hides us from death, putting it in
> > wooden boxes, ambulances, and the news editing room room floor. Most
> > humans that have ever lived, especially in ancient times, witnessed
> > and violence as a regular event. Many people today, on the other hand,
> > have never even seen a corpse.
> << I don 't think any cultural/ social/ political/ ethical institution
> from us, but I do believe that those show us death as indeed neat, not
> or bloody at all.
> We drom the bombs, but we never actually see/ count the casulties.
> And moreover, IMO, it a social dominant determinant that neglects,
> represses, simply fails to recognise that death means final, no more !
> We stand indifferent for the pain and suffering, we have no longer
> of the other(s), we act careless even if our own life is concerned.
> In ancient times, indeed death lived on their doorstep, yet in our modern
> society is does too, but it seems at the same time, so far away when those
> pictures come thru' the cable, isn 't it !?
> 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 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 01 May 2004 - 16:42:37 GMT