posted February 05, 2008 12:54 PM         

Well to be more blunt, do you believe in the Cathartic effect?

Defination:

Source: http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/media/efterms.html

quote:

---

The idea originated with the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who believed that the experience of watching tragedy is cathartic, i.e. it purges the spectator of certain strong emotions. As a result mainly of experiments by Feshbach and Singer, this idea has been developed in media effects research. Watching aggressive media output, it is proposed, does not make viewers more aggressive; quite the contrary - since the vicarious aggression experienced through the media purges the viewer of aggression, the result of watching violence is less aggression. The same argument is sometimes adduced in defence of pornography. Some researchers have taken the example of Japan, where there is far more violent sex in the media than in Europe, yet a much lower incidence of violent sex crime, to support the view that media experience can be cathartic.

---

posted February 05, 2008 04:31 PM         

Do we really want to be purged of strong emotions regarding violence or sexual degradation? What is normal is that those things should create a strong emotion in us. Not to act out the violence or sexual degradation that is pornography, but to be strongly repelled by it.

The cathartic effect is the same as being desensitized if it eliminates what are normal strong human emotions at veiwing violence or the degradation of another human being.

Catharsis means 1. an act of purging or purification 2. elimination of a complex by bringing it to consciousness and affording it expression.

So essentially you are desensitizing yourself of normal, healthy human emotions which is the body and spirits way of telling you that something is wrong.

Catharsis might be good in some things. But not when it comes to desensitizing us of strong feelings against things we know are wrong to act out on other human beings. Violence of any kind is wrong. Sexual exploitation is wrong. We should have strong emotions against those things. We should not be catharic or desensitized to those things.

posted February 05, 2008 05:50 PM         

Aristotle mentions tragedy and the release of strong emotion. The first ideas of association that sprang into my mind were the Blitz spirit of WWII, and the death of Princess Diana. The effect of the second I witnessed very closely - I worked with a view of Pall Mall at the time.

The effect of media on aggression levels didn't conjure the same thoughts at all. The first thought of association was to remind me that my son has expressed an interest in boxing lessons.

Like it or not, when little dudes get together, they quite like to smack each other about with play-fights and the like. I'd rather keep it in the ring and off the streets.

Is aggression an emotion? Is it what Aristotle meant by strong emotion?

Did I bother reading the link? Nah, but if you want me to write a paper on this for you I reckon I could do a good couple of A4 that your prof would like. I'd make an effort then.

posted February 05, 2008 06:19 PM         

As a child we learn that red fire burns. The question becomes what if you see a blue flame or a green flame. Some people would like to feel the blue flame before concluding it burns too. Some would get burnt 3 times or more before realizing, it burns.

Mystics like Buddhas and Christs are in such a state that the first touch of fire gives them all experiences of all kinds of fire and they need not feel a green flame. That was just an example to make a point. Anyway I think I must exclude those people from these mortal discussions

Karl Marx said : Ideology are imaginary prison cells in which every human beings lives. And most of the time the upper class is the one who gives directions to those ideals. Bravo!!! And it is so original. The east has been saying it for thousands of years.

What isn't God? if you see a car coming towards you. You won't say "hehehe all is God. Come to me.". You do step aside and let the car move on, don't you?

So we have to balance it out. So I am not sure what violence are you looking at or have in mind. The context is very important I think whenever you discuss such issues.

When you do not see a Cop, won't you step on your gas? Be honest? Moralities are conveniences imposed by society.

People who are not guilty were put behind bars in the past. People are made to pay court and violation fines even in absence of radar proofs provided by Cop.
The USA right now is leaning towards giving more authority to judges to free people in the absence of physical evidence.

My $0.02

posted February 05, 2008 06:34 PM         

I do not believe that Catharctic purges the experience. But the experience stays within you as latent energy. Some times unresolved bad energies manifests as diseases (both physical and mental) in human beings.

posted February 06, 2008 11:46 AM         

Good to see someone actually realisizing what laws and rules acutually are and what actually drives a society to follow them.

Like it or not people, violence and use of force is actually a part of our daily lives. As Mannu said, if the penal system wasn't there, would people actually follow laws in general? Realistically speaking... No.