gall(iano)bladder
2010 McQueen committs suicide; 2011 Galliano is an antisemite
the video is sad and lonely...but i can't wait for the movie
from Daniel Dennett's Sweet Dreams:
"Television and fame are two entirely different sorts of things--one's a medium of representation and one isn't--but the sorts of fame made possible by television are interestingly different from earlier sorts of fame, as we have recently been told 'til we're sick of it. Consider the phenomena of Princess Diana, O. J. Simpson, and Monica Lewinsky. In each case a recursive positive feedback became established, dwarfing the initial triggering event and forcing the world to wallow in wallowing in wallowing in reactions to reactions to reactions to the coverage in the media of the coverage in the media of the coverage in the media, and so forth. Did similar fame-phenomena occur in the preelectronic age? The importance of publicity had been appreciated for millennia--secret coronations, for instance, have always been shunned, for the obvious reasons. There have long been sites of recursive reaction, such as the page of letters to the editor in the Times (of London, and to a lesser extent, the New York Times). But these were still relatively slow, 'narrow band' (as we say nowadays) channels of communication, and they reached a small but influential segment of the populace. In the preelectronic age, were there people who were famous for being famous? It is the capacity for the combined modern media to capture anything and turn it into a ubiquitously 'accessible' or 'influential' topic through sheer echoic amplification that strikes some observers as a novel (and perhaps alarming) social phenomenon, and I want to suggest that a similar family of innovations in the brain may lie behind the explosive growth in reflective power that I take to be the hallmark of consciousness."
the video is sad and lonely...but i can't wait for the movie
from Daniel Dennett's Sweet Dreams:
"Television and fame are two entirely different sorts of things--one's a medium of representation and one isn't--but the sorts of fame made possible by television are interestingly different from earlier sorts of fame, as we have recently been told 'til we're sick of it. Consider the phenomena of Princess Diana, O. J. Simpson, and Monica Lewinsky. In each case a recursive positive feedback became established, dwarfing the initial triggering event and forcing the world to wallow in wallowing in wallowing in reactions to reactions to reactions to the coverage in the media of the coverage in the media of the coverage in the media, and so forth. Did similar fame-phenomena occur in the preelectronic age? The importance of publicity had been appreciated for millennia--secret coronations, for instance, have always been shunned, for the obvious reasons. There have long been sites of recursive reaction, such as the page of letters to the editor in the Times (of London, and to a lesser extent, the New York Times). But these were still relatively slow, 'narrow band' (as we say nowadays) channels of communication, and they reached a small but influential segment of the populace. In the preelectronic age, were there people who were famous for being famous? It is the capacity for the combined modern media to capture anything and turn it into a ubiquitously 'accessible' or 'influential' topic through sheer echoic amplification that strikes some observers as a novel (and perhaps alarming) social phenomenon, and I want to suggest that a similar family of innovations in the brain may lie behind the explosive growth in reflective power that I take to be the hallmark of consciousness."