What our world has become.
POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Monday, June 29, 2026 21:34
VIEWED: 23018
PAGE 14 of 20
Quote:Pretty much.
Originally posted by rue:
Why is it people haven't learned about classical music? Why is it enough people haven't learned to play any instrument so that they can appreciate the art of another's playing? Why is it people can be so preoccupied standing in line to buy a lottery ticket (and doing nothing, not even rushing to work) they don't even remember a violinist nearby? Why is it an (apparent) lack of money is akin to being a leper, such that people not only didn't stop for a second or two, they didn't even turn and look in acknowledgment.
The question wasn't - what's wrong with YOU? It's, rephrased - is this the society you want to live in?
Is it ?
Of course I don’t think I know anyone who looks at people with an apparent “lack of money” as "lepers." I’m sure there are people like that, but they are the exception not the rule. And I don’t see any way of drawing such a conclusion about people in this article. As far as society is concerned vis-à-vis street performers, it seems to me that society allows people to play the violin in the street if they want, allows those who find something meaningful in the music to stop and enjoy it and those that don’t or have other more pressing issues, not to. And I like that too.
Lot’s of people listen to classical music, rue. I’m not one of them, but many do. And there are many, many choices of music. I don’t listen to them all. We live in time, when there is so much culture and entertainment that few will ever be able to experience it all or even want to. To attempt to develop an ear for all the different types of music or enjoy all the entertainment or experience all the culture that is available to us would become overburdening and completely defeat the purpose. Most people know about classical music and choose, for reason or another, not to pursue it. And I like that too.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
People'e response reminds me a lot of the cab driver segment of TV Nation. When asked why they didn't pick up the Black man, the drivers said they 'didn't see him'.
But there's even more going on. People are visually oriented. That no one should look at the violinist as they passed by indicates more than being city-blase. They were avoiding looking.
Yes, buskers, pan-handlers, people shouting to themselves on the street - people look away.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ask the larger questions. Mine were only a starting point.
What I would enjoy, seeing as how you keep repeating these "open your mind" and "is this what you want" questions, a little more concrete ideas of what it is YOU want.
And, please, another example to draw your conclusions from than Bell, because this same situation could still have occured in a world with 2-hour lunches and 6-hour work days. Because it's not about the amount of free time or preoccupation with money, it's about the numer of people, the amount of stimuli available and the fact that even in a holiday world we would occasionally have reason to be precise in our timing.
Quote:
Do we WANT people to appreciate classical music? AFAIK maybe not.
And you're drawing this conclusion how? And do you have any direction this is going? Because I don't think anyone is being actively prevented from appreciating classical music any more than they are prevented from enjoying any other cultural pursuit.
So it's really, do people want to appreciate classical music? And if they don't, is that actually a problem?
Quote:
Do we WANT people to be so consumed with their jobs and their things that they don't appreciate pleasant moments? Do we WANT a society that can't place a value on things unless there's a dollar sign on it? And so on.
See, here you're losing me again, drawing these extreme conclusions from the experiment.
Do you honestly think this one incident is any indication on whether people are capable of enjoying pleasant moments? Or just your own personal idea of a pleasant moment?
I think that some people run themselves ragged out of ambition or greed or whatever. But I do not think that it's the majority at all. I think that the people who walked by Bell were happy and well-adjusted and that they walked by him not for "bad" reasons but for completely harmless ones.
If he's lying in a puddle of his own urine or blood or even just beer, babbling and confused, and no one pays him any mind - and that's something I can see happen, too - that is something worth talking about. That's something that raises complicated questions I consider to be relevant. (Such as, is there a right to be publically miserable and harmful to one's self?)
And I STILL don't think it would have anything to do with whether they would have walked by him as a healthy man playing the violin.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
What I would enjoy, seeing as how you keep repeating these "open your mind" and "is this what you want" questions, a little more concrete ideas of what it is YOU want.
Why does that matter? The point of the article was the question, not any one particular answer.
Quote:
And, please, another example to draw your conclusions from than Bell, because ... it's not about the amount of free time or preoccupation with money, it's about the numer of people, the amount of stimuli available and the fact that even in a holiday world we would occasionally have reason to be precise in our timing.
1,097 people passed by that day. Out of all those people, how many even turned to look at where the music was coming from? So in one sense, you are right. It's not about free time, because surely many could have spared a half-second glance.
Quote:Didn't I say that ? I could have sworn ...
Rue: Do we WANT people to appreciate classical music? AFAIK maybe not.
Agent: So it's really, do people want to appreciate classical music? And if they don't, is that actually a problem?
Quote:Roughly 1000 walked by. Given when and where, that's roughly 1000 well fed, well housed, well educated, gainfully employed solid urban citizens - the achievement of urbanized society. That very few stopped, and almost no one apparently could spare a glance is, given the numbers, statistically significant. "... 1,070 people who hurried by, oblivious, many only three feet away, few even turning to look." And this question ties into the next -
Rue: Do we WANT people to be so consumed with their jobs and their things that they don't appreciate pleasant moments? And so on.
Agent: See, here you're losing me again ... Do you honestly think this one incident is any indication on whether people are capable of enjoying pleasant moments? Or just your own personal idea of a pleasant moment?
Quote:
I think that the people who walked by Bell were happy and well-adjusted and that they walked by him not for "bad" reasons but for completely harmless ones.
We agree. So the question is NOT (let's say this again) - what's wrong with those people, but rather - is that the normality we want to have?
Quote:
If he's lying in a puddle of his own urine or blood or even just beer, babbling and confused, and no one pays him any mind - that is something worth talking about. That's something that raises complicated questions I consider to be relevant. (Such as, is there a right to be publically miserable and harmful to one's self?)
Commonly the publically miserable and harmful to one's self is someone pushing a shopping cart down the sidewalk, or walking down the street mumbling and shouting. And yes, you'd walk by one of those every time. I'm guessing the difference in your mind between the noteworthy and ignorable is whether or not someone can stand up.
Quote:
And I STILL don't think it would have anything to do with whether they would have walked by him as a healthy man playing the violin.
The homeless and Bell draw the same response - purposeful ignorance. Given every instinct to turn and glance, people did, and do, not. That's something worth thinking about.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So now if I don’t listen to classical music, I hate homeless people? Wow, this moral imperative has really gone crazy. But I’ve already responded this particularly issue. As I said earlier:
"...I don’t feel any social requirement to pay panhandlers, in general. I pay a fair amount each month to local and national charities, several of which run, missions or shelters. If a street musician needed food, he could probably go to one of those shelters or get a real job."
Most homeless people suffer chronic drug addiction and mental illness. The truth is that homelessness is almost never as simple as an “(apparent) lack of money.” It is generally a product of an inability to function in society because of alcohol and drug abuse or several psychological and mental problems. I’ve dealt with both of these problems in my family and they can be daunting, if not virtually impossible to solve. In at least two cases that I know of it led to the family member becoming homeless, despite attempts to help him. Now if we were unable to prevent our own family members from becoming homeless, what is suppose to make me think I can provide any meaningful assistance to some stranger? So I don’t feel any need to provide personal assistance to homeless and I would caution other people in doing so as well, since not only will such assistance likely become drug money to further the problem, but it can be dangerous. Instead, I would suggest that you locate a charity or church and provide them with the assistance, which they will put to much better use through shelters and soup kitchens.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
I'm sorry for your family problems. While people in my family haven't had those problems (yet) I've personally known people who have. And yes, it's often an intractable problem.
If you read my post, I hope you'll notice that my point is that the same thing that makes people ignore buskers is the same thing that makes them ignore panhandlers or the homeless. The response to them is the same even though the situation is not.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Before I tackle your longer reply above...
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If you read my post, I hope you'll notice that my point is that the same thing that makes people ignore buskers is the same thing that makes them ignore panhandlers or the homeless. The response to them is the same even though the situation is not.
But how do you know it's the same thing?
Finn gave a pretty good, rational reasoning for why he doesn't pay much attention to homeless people or panhandlers, and I don't think that the same reason has him ignoring street musicians (if he does).
One is an awareness of not being able to help, anyway. The other probably has nothing to do with an impulse to help at all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The response is: I pretend not to see it b/c it's uncomfortable for me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How many people do you think passed by that day. 500? 1000? 3000? Out of all those people, how many even turned to look at where the music was coming from? So in one sense, you are right. It's not about free time, because surely many could have spared a half-second glance.
It appears we agree that it's not about free time. I'm still, however, waiting to see a real point from you. One that is not "Ask questions!" because without an actual statement from you, this is just "Ask questions randomly!" Which can be fun, sure enough, but is less interesting to me.
Quote:Quote:Didn't I say that ? I could have sworn ...
Rue: Do we WANT people to appreciate classical music? AFAIK maybe not.
Agent: So it's really, do people want to appreciate classical music? And if they don't, is that actually a problem?
You said "do WE want PEOPLE to". What a subset expects of the group. A "what should people do" floats in there.
I am asking what the individuals of the group want for themselves. A choice they are already free to make and are making.
Quote:
Given when and where, that's roughly 1000 well fed, well housed, well educated, gainfully employed solid urban citizens - the achievement of urbanized society. That very few stopped, and almost no one apparently could spare a glance is, given the numbers, statistically significant. And this question ties into the next -
Quote:
We agree. So the question is NOT (let's say this again) - what's wrong with those people, but rather - is that the normality we want to have?
And I keep asking WHY NOT? Your question implies a dissatisfaction with the current state of things. What is the actual problem that you perceive with people not stopping? What is the reason you keep asking us to ask?
You keep demanding questions, so why not offer up a statement or reason for once? A nice, actual exchange of opinions?
I swear, I am not going to accuse you of dictatorship ambitions if you merely committ to an idea of what kind of world YOU want to live in.
You don't say WHY the mere act of being preoccupied is supposedly harmful to people, except when you imply or outright assume that they were preoccupied by some kind of brainwashed need to increase their wealth unnecessarily, a presumably "unworthy" reason.
I say that this presumption is not justified. Can you allow for the option that they are actually preoccupied with positive things? Things concerning their lives that are not necessarily worthy of dismissal?
Quote:
And yes, you'd walk by one of those every time. I'm guessing the difference in your mind is whether or not someone can stand up.
Believe it or not, I consider acute danger a more pressing reason to pay attention than a healthy person's free choices. So yes, "standing up" or "not appearing ill/injured" are categories that my attention is filtered through.
Hell, it's already an entirely different visual stimulus. Attention snaps to those bearing the signs of physical distress and/or really abberrant and potentially dangerous behavior.
The difference here is: acute harm to people vs. no harm to people.
Quote:Quote:
And I STILL don't think it would have anything to do with whether they would have walked by him as a healthy man playing the violin.
They draw the same response, I draw the same conclusion.
I consider that short-sighted.
Two different things can cause the same response.
Ignoring a street musician = at WORST an unhealthy preoccupation with one's trivial life problems. If one feels the need to judge. Harm only potentially done to oneself.
Ignoring an injured person = callous refusal to lend aid.
Do you really think that a street musician is the same ind of visual trigger as a person lying down or slumped over, which indeed rates as much more unusual within a safe and familiar environment?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who says that street musicians make people uncomfortable?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME