Willful Suspension of Disbelief

[knucklehead]

This refers to a term generally used in theater and film. It basically means that even though the audience is fully aware that what they are seeing is not real or "true" they are willing to believe it for the sake of the experience. With modern filmmaking technology this is not so hard, however it does take a bit more effort when you can see the wires that are suspending the actor as they "fly" through the air in a production of Peter Pan.

This willful suspension of disbelief works fine for entertainment, but isn't it a bit dangerous when looking at real world events? Is W. actually flying or is he a 200 pound Peter Pan suspended by 1" thick wires that you can see from the theater across the street? Are the principles of freedom and democracy really the reasons for the conflict in Iraq?

Originally posted by knucklehead
This refers to a term generally used in theater and film. It basically means that even though the audience is fully aware that what they are seeing is not real or "true" they are willing to believe it for the sake of the experience. With modern filmmaking technology this is not so hard, however it does take a bit more effort when you can see the wires that are suspending the actor as they "fly" through the air in a production of Peter Pan.

This willful suspension of disbelief works fine for entertainment, but isn't it a bit dangerous when looking at real world events? Is W. actually flying or is he a 200 pound Peter Pan suspended by 1" thick wires that you can see from the theater across the street? Are the principles of freedom and democracy really the reasons for the conflict in Iraq?

So generally it wouldn't be a good term when describing things not theater or film?

Why do you think we are fighting in Iraq?

I think...... 1) 13 years of UN sanction violations 2) decades of intolerable human rights abuses 3) Sadam's track record of invading his neighbors (do you really think the Saudi's and Kuwaiti's are unhappy that Sadam is gone? 4) to create a more stable middle east with the goal of ensuring an uninterrupted flow of oil to the consumer markets - any war in a country with as much oil as Iraq means that the war concerns itself with oil. If the war was in South Africa - think it might concern itself with gold and diamonds? Wars are frequently fought of access to scare supplies of resources. 5) screw the WMDs - we know he'd used them in the past - we cannot currently document much about his program - or at least we've seen very little to merit comment. I find this sales pitch the most dishonest from the administration.

Originally posted by WarLord
Our entire society is based on suspension of disbelief on one level or another. We're willing to trust our leaders despite knowing that they are only human and as open to temptation as any of us. We agree that $1 is worth a $1, despite their being nothing backing the currency except for the trust exhibited by the creditors of the government. If they lose faith in our ability to repay, the world will come crashing down. We agree that red means stop and green means go, for no particular reason.

The ever increasing amount of time spent watching the lives of others, whether real or fictional, exacerbates this trend. Some degree of suspension is necessary, but like all things, when taken too far the results are often disasterous.

Is there a world currency that IS backed by anything other than faith?

red/green - arbitrary sybols used to represent a concept - but as far as traffic is copncerned - they are internally consistent arbitrary symbols and they are useful.

There is difference between suspension of disbelief and unavailability of information. One has not suspended ones disbelief when another intentionaly tricks you or lies to you.

Certainly there is a balancing test that must be applied. Just how far some one is willing to accept what they are told without starting to balk depends on many thing - what is obvious to some is at best an entagled snarl to others.

[knucklehead]

Originally posted by xiannaix
So generally it wouldn't be a good term when describing things not theater or film?

Absolutely not, it would be insane to use it for describing anything other than theater or film.

There is no problem in green being a symbol for "go". The problem would be in willfully thinking you are seeing green when you know you are seeing red.

[johnny861]

Faith in a system is not a bad thing. I'm not for sure why many people have such a problem with money, other than the fact that many people seem to have a problem budgeting.


If anything, money is a luxory that we don't appreciate at all.
It makes our lives very easy when it comes to daily trading.

Currency is simply a medium of exchange. A standard created to overcome the limitations of bartering. This keeps us from having to carry pigs and sheep around with us, just in case we need to exchange some of them for a couple of gallons of gas for our cars, assuming that Texaco is accepting sheep that day.

You might need to get some gas in the morning to make it to work, but your local Texaco is full of sheep and would like a nice cow instead, thefore, your sheep has devalued tremendously that morning. So, now you gotta drive around from store to store hoping somebody values a cow at the same rate as your sheep so you can take the cow back to the Texaco, but by then, you've surely run out of gas and your boss is pissed off.

Currency provides us a nice medium of exchange so that people don't have to worry about the hourly value of every single product on the market and how each product values against another.


And paper currency is simply promisary notes saying that there is either assets or monies due to holder of the said notes. This keeps us from having to haul around big bags of precious metal coins.


There in lies the faith. Faith that the institution that note belongs to, will garuntee you some sort of asset of equal value the note promises. Could be gold, could be cows, or maybe a few hundred of your devaluated sheep.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by johnny861
Faith in a system is not a bad thing. I'm not for sure why many people have such a problem with money, other than the fact that many people seem to have a problem budgeting.


If anything, money is a luxory that we don't appreciate at all.
It makes our lives very easy when it comes to daily trading.

Currency is simply a medium of exchange. A standard created to overcome the limitations of bartering. This keeps us from having to carry pigs and sheep around with us, just in case we need to exchange some of them for a couple of gallons of gas for our cars, assuming that Texaco is accepting sheep that day.

You might need to get some gas in the morning to make it to work, but your local Texaco is full of sheep and would like a nice cow instead, thefore, your sheep has devalued tremendously that morning. So, now you gotta drive around from store to store hoping somebody values a cow at the same rate as your sheep so you can take the cow back to the Texaco, but by then, you've surely run out of gas and your boss is pissed off.

Currency provides us a nice medium of exchange so that people don't have to worry about the hourly value of every single product on the market and how each product values against another.


And paper currency is simply promisary notes saying that there is either assets or monies due to holder of the said notes. This keeps us from having to haul around big bags of precious metal coins.


There in lies the faith. Faith that the institution that note belongs to, will garuntee you some sort of asset of equal value the note promises. Could be gold, could be cows, or maybe a few hundred of your devaluated sheep.

Well spoken(as usual).

[Adam D]

Originally posted by xiannaix
So generally it wouldn't be a good term when describing things not theater or film?

Why do you think we are fighting in Iraq?

I think...... 1) 13 years of UN sanction violations

Is it much different from Israel's record of repeated condemnations from the UN (from every nation but the US and itself)?

2) decades of intolerable human rights abuses

Israel is rated one of the worst by human rights organizations, yet nobody calls this into concern.

3) Sadam's track record of invading his neighbors (do you really think the Saudi's and Kuwaiti's are unhappy that Sadam is gone?

Israel shares yet another commonality here. Israel is holding, and has in the past held, parts of other nations.

4) to create a more stable middle east with the goal of ensuring an uninterrupted flow of oil to the consumer markets - any war in a country with as much oil as Iraq means that the war concerns itself with oil. If the war was in South Africa - think it might concern itself with gold and diamonds? Wars are frequently fought of access to scare supplies of resources.

If we really want a "stable middle east" why not eliminate Israel? All of the Muslim nations would love us, and it would terminate a very big issue of instability. Moreover, the oil-producing states would likely be more than happy to turn over oil to us at a cheaper rate in thanks.

5) screw the WMDs - we know he'd used them in the past - we cannot currently document much about his program - or at least we've seen very little to merit comment. I find this sales pitch the most dishonest from the administration.

Yet we are extremely confident Israel has nuclear weapons, but all considered above, why aren't we attacking Israel?


Oh, I forgot. Because they are our allies.

Originally posted by Adam D


Is it much different from Israel's record of repeated condemnations from the UN (from every nation but the US and itself)?

[/b]

Israel is rated one of the worst by human rights organizations, yet nobody calls this into concern.

[/b]

Israel shares yet another commonality here. Israel is holding, and has in the past held, parts of other nations.

[/b]

If we really want a "stable middle east" why not eliminate Israel? All of the Muslim nations would love us, and it would terminate a very big issue of instability. Moreover, the oil-producing states would likely be more than happy to turn over oil to us at a cheaper rate in thanks.



Yet we are extremely confident Israel has nuclear weapons, but all considered above, why aren't we attacking Israel?


Oh, I forgot. Because they are our allies. [/B]

Agreed Adam, but....

the quick and easy answer is that Israel is our ally AND has huge support in the US (and I think that's about the only place)

Do you really believe that if we dropped our support for Israel that the Mulsim nations would fall over themselves to become friends with us? I don't.

[willy_jack]

Originally posted by knucklehead


This willful suspension of disbelief works fine for entertainment, but isn't it a bit dangerous when looking at real world events? Is W. actually flying or is he a 200 pound Peter Pan suspended by 1" thick wires that you can see from the theater across the street? Are the principles of freedom and democracy really the reasons for the conflict in Iraq?

Democracy and freedom are nothing more than an afterthought.... the war is over oil, and personal reasons... (my daddy lost because of you Saddam...... btw: this means we will not supply you with anymore chemical weapons so you can turn around and gas your own people with it.... should have played ball because now im going to strike you out)

W. is another fake ass lying deep pocketed rich boy whos time is up....... he just does not know it yet....