Analysis of Project Reason entries
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Analysis of Project Reason entries
There are nine entries only. The video competition rule is: make a video to communicate Project Reason's mission, that of spreading scientific thinking and secular values. Voting started yesterday, and finishes in several days' time.
What do forum members think of them? How much weight would you give to an advertising-type presentation? Do you have a better idea for a video?
(I've decided to share my analysis later.)
.
What do forum members think of them? How much weight would you give to an advertising-type presentation? Do you have a better idea for a video?
(I've decided to share my analysis later.)
.
Re: Analysis of Project Reason entries
I don't think much of them, in fact I didn't manage to watch any all the way through. They're ok given the mission I suppose, but for my taste, I'm more than a little jaded with all the appeals to emotion using music, cartoons and childrens voices that it's all a bit too sugary sweet and gentle. A step in the right direction is how I'd sum them up if forced, but the message has probably lost some of its weight with me, so I have to put my opinion in context.
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Analysis of Project Reason entries
I agree. Idea-wise, it wasn't rich pickings. My impression was they all gave far more weight to presentation than to brains.
My analysis would be something like this. I am going by memory having watched them yesterday, so if I don't remember a video, that is also an analysis of how little impression it left:
1. From the sky: I like the psychological feel of it, of an individual's glance into space, and at nothing in particular, so as to reflect on deeper meaning. But the message is compromised because of the ambiguous meaning of the main point: that no man-made God can be trusted. That just reinforces the theistic delusion that their God is not man-made and is therefore the only true God.
2. Think rationally: From memory, I think this was based on the concept of no book being able to provide answers to all questions. But all the questions asked were all seeking scientific answers. Obviously, there are other questions in life, and scientific answers are rarely the important ones, at least, not the ones that drive people to look in Bibles.
3. Bible basher: A disenchanting post-modern video, where the sum total of diverse opinions is Babel. I too would sit down, hearing that cacophony!
4. The Seer and the Scholar: Actually, a far better video would have been for the scholar to ask the seer to demonstrate flying.
5. All of our values (?): Not an atheist but a political video, promoting a constitution representing all values. Gives the argument that America's constitution included God to strengthen its capitalist government, which doesn't actually address the argument for or against God in the first place. It only argues that the constitution in America should represent all the people. Not only is this a sorry argument for reason, but it's also parochial.
6. God records a public annnouncement: This was probably the best, because even though God was obviously a fairly ridiculous character, there was more reasoning and thinking about what God is, and the arguments given for God. But ultimately it became a satirical video, because there was no real investigation of the meaning of God. Thus, arguing that personal feeling was the proof of God's existence was a moot point. Nice comic touch at the end, but still it lacked comprehensiveness. Basically an anti-religion video, rather than a rational discussion of the meaning of God.
7. Fairy Scientist: An excellent demonstration of the relationship between fantasy and femininity. Also, probably an accurate indication of a lot of "science". Ironically, the parents seemed to ignore the way that the hopeful search for fairies was actually driving the interpretation of "evidence". They simply interpreted the cute child as having reliable scientific skills. Probably the most memorable, but not for reasons the video-maker intended.
8. Can't remember.
9. Imagine: Because there was no definition of religion, it was hard to tell what it was actually saying life would be like without religion. Perhaps the point was that there were no visuals available to indicate what life would be like, and that one did have to imagine. So one just had to watch ordinary scenes and imagine whether anything would be different if there were no religion. Ironically, it gave the impression that little would actually change. A pope watering his flowers?
I'm actually surprised I remembered most of them.
.
My analysis would be something like this. I am going by memory having watched them yesterday, so if I don't remember a video, that is also an analysis of how little impression it left:
1. From the sky: I like the psychological feel of it, of an individual's glance into space, and at nothing in particular, so as to reflect on deeper meaning. But the message is compromised because of the ambiguous meaning of the main point: that no man-made God can be trusted. That just reinforces the theistic delusion that their God is not man-made and is therefore the only true God.
2. Think rationally: From memory, I think this was based on the concept of no book being able to provide answers to all questions. But all the questions asked were all seeking scientific answers. Obviously, there are other questions in life, and scientific answers are rarely the important ones, at least, not the ones that drive people to look in Bibles.
3. Bible basher: A disenchanting post-modern video, where the sum total of diverse opinions is Babel. I too would sit down, hearing that cacophony!
4. The Seer and the Scholar: Actually, a far better video would have been for the scholar to ask the seer to demonstrate flying.
5. All of our values (?): Not an atheist but a political video, promoting a constitution representing all values. Gives the argument that America's constitution included God to strengthen its capitalist government, which doesn't actually address the argument for or against God in the first place. It only argues that the constitution in America should represent all the people. Not only is this a sorry argument for reason, but it's also parochial.
6. God records a public annnouncement: This was probably the best, because even though God was obviously a fairly ridiculous character, there was more reasoning and thinking about what God is, and the arguments given for God. But ultimately it became a satirical video, because there was no real investigation of the meaning of God. Thus, arguing that personal feeling was the proof of God's existence was a moot point. Nice comic touch at the end, but still it lacked comprehensiveness. Basically an anti-religion video, rather than a rational discussion of the meaning of God.
7. Fairy Scientist: An excellent demonstration of the relationship between fantasy and femininity. Also, probably an accurate indication of a lot of "science". Ironically, the parents seemed to ignore the way that the hopeful search for fairies was actually driving the interpretation of "evidence". They simply interpreted the cute child as having reliable scientific skills. Probably the most memorable, but not for reasons the video-maker intended.
8. Can't remember.
9. Imagine: Because there was no definition of religion, it was hard to tell what it was actually saying life would be like without religion. Perhaps the point was that there were no visuals available to indicate what life would be like, and that one did have to imagine. So one just had to watch ordinary scenes and imagine whether anything would be different if there were no religion. Ironically, it gave the impression that little would actually change. A pope watering his flowers?
I'm actually surprised I remembered most of them.
.
Re: Analysis of Project Reason entries
One of Harris' main points that I remember from The End of Faith was to argue against all dogmatic beliefs, whether they be religious or scientific or whatever - that it's the irrational dependence on/attachment to dogma that is often the core problem. If I were to make a video, I'd probably include this just to give a little more recent historical context (the atheist/nazi fallacy) and to make a simple yet powerful point that could help as a stepping stone to further analysis of all beliefs. The problem though is where to stop, given the project's context? I'd want to go on and try and provoke people to think about egoic dissolution, but that's probably going too far...
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Analysis of Project Reason entries
I think that's the best idea for a video, by far. You would have won, perhaps even (perhaps I recall correctly) with a Glaswegian accent.
By abandoning dogmatism, Harris shows by his manner that he means, not becoming soft and tolerant, but dissolving attachment to self. He does talk about that quite a lot. So, as the Prime Mover behind that little universe of a project, he would mostly likely have desired vids of that nature.
The challenge is to communicate it well. To have clear thinking and expression, while embodying the message thoroughly, and crashing through all the verbiage straight to the heart of the idea. I get heartily sick of all the drapery and structure and slick slogans that people bring to their messages: I want the pure gold!
.
By abandoning dogmatism, Harris shows by his manner that he means, not becoming soft and tolerant, but dissolving attachment to self. He does talk about that quite a lot. So, as the Prime Mover behind that little universe of a project, he would mostly likely have desired vids of that nature.
The challenge is to communicate it well. To have clear thinking and expression, while embodying the message thoroughly, and crashing through all the verbiage straight to the heart of the idea. I get heartily sick of all the drapery and structure and slick slogans that people bring to their messages: I want the pure gold!
.
Re: Analysis of Project Reason entries
Simply evoking, in a few short and concise examples, the contrasting outcomes of events based on decisions made within the particular valuing system employed should be enough to get to the heart of it without too much fap. Once the concept of values is introduced, things get immediately more personal and the ideas of self, ego and attachments could be broached a lot easier. Highlighting that reason itself is this process of self-examination of values, and relating that to the strengths of the scientific method as being an outward external manifestation of that same process could be a way to tie it all together within the context of the contest. The valuing of reason within a framework that by its nature would -ideally- never become dogmatic. A message of constant vigilance/examination through reason, basically. Insert some nice lifting music, visuels that relate to the text but leave enough abstraction for the imagination to work a little, use someone else's voice other than my own and rabbie's yer uncle.
Easy to say, not so easy to actually make a video out of I imagine. Christ knows the money would've come in handy had I made one and won, I'd have sent a few dollars your and Dan's way as a payment for your own videos.
Easy to say, not so easy to actually make a video out of I imagine. Christ knows the money would've come in handy had I made one and won, I'd have sent a few dollars your and Dan's way as a payment for your own videos.
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Analysis of Project Reason entries
How would you communicate that the valuing of reason would never become dogmatic?
There are countless people who say they value reason and constant vigilance/self-examination, who are extremely dogmatic. It is as if they have all the ideas, but refuse to connect with them personally. They have the surface, or shell, of substance, as a kind of shield or "socially acceptable" protection, for a completely sealed alternate system underneath. So whatever the key is, it would have to be communicated without the aggressive triggers that often send such people spinning into new shield-maintenance mindstates. And yet, in such a way that it didn't hypnotically manipulate their feelings, into wanting such values purely for their shield-reinforcing powers.
It would seem there's something very important in the idea of valuing consciously, i.e. knowing how to evaluate the worth or significance of something. But something stops people from being able to do that.
.
There are countless people who say they value reason and constant vigilance/self-examination, who are extremely dogmatic. It is as if they have all the ideas, but refuse to connect with them personally. They have the surface, or shell, of substance, as a kind of shield or "socially acceptable" protection, for a completely sealed alternate system underneath. So whatever the key is, it would have to be communicated without the aggressive triggers that often send such people spinning into new shield-maintenance mindstates. And yet, in such a way that it didn't hypnotically manipulate their feelings, into wanting such values purely for their shield-reinforcing powers.
It would seem there's something very important in the idea of valuing consciously, i.e. knowing how to evaluate the worth or significance of something. But something stops people from being able to do that.
.
Re: Analysis of Project Reason entries
Yeah, that's definitely a major problem, and where I would find difficulty in striking the right balance in video form. I suppose the better thing to do (or easier at least) would be to sound less absolute, don't use the word 'never', use the concept of reason as a tool that's both personal and inter-personal, internal and external. The best you can do is really just suggest these things and have a little hope that the message is heard, that seeds are planted sort of thing. But I totally agree with you, there's no guarantee that countless people won't understand or interalise the subtleties, and I don't think it's really the aim of the project anyway to break the protective egoic shields of its supporters, so such treatment is likely to fall on deaf ears.
Actually, I'm not convinced a video advertisement is a good idea at all in the end. It's open to so much more interpretation whenever you put ideas in a visuel format, the viewer is automatically passive and does a lot less mental work, emotions are left to rise practically uncontrollably (as the response to your yt channel could attest). Reading a written text has a different effect on the brain, time can be taken to better understand, connections can be made within the person's own mind that would probably be missed or skipped over in a short video.
Actually, I'm not convinced a video advertisement is a good idea at all in the end. It's open to so much more interpretation whenever you put ideas in a visuel format, the viewer is automatically passive and does a lot less mental work, emotions are left to rise practically uncontrollably (as the response to your yt channel could attest). Reading a written text has a different effect on the brain, time can be taken to better understand, connections can be made within the person's own mind that would probably be missed or skipped over in a short video.
Re: Analysis of Project Reason entries
Kelly,
This one turned out to be the winner. I agree with your comments above. This is the description that accompanies the video, which argues "for a change in our national symbols to include atheists by not presuming a belief in God among Americans at the level of our federal government. The goal is not necessarily immediate action, but rather to raise consciousness about where these references to God came from and why they shouldn't be a part of a government that is supposed to represent all of us." Sounds like they'd want the A symbol on the money (or a multitude of symbols, and on something public) just so that'll make people question themselves about where the symbol(s) came from. ? Not quite sure how this one is reasoned at all, the whole thing is vague and odd.Kelly Jones wrote:5. All of our values (?): Not an atheist but a political video, promoting a constitution representing all values. Gives the argument that America's constitution included God to strengthen its capitalist government, which doesn't actually address the argument for or against God in the first place. It only argues that the constitution in America should represent all the people. Not only is this a sorry argument for reason, but it's also parochial.