You don’t realize my intention at all. I deliberately was as neutral as possible. Just one simple sentence. Facts. I am on no one’s side, because there’s no side in the more or less chronological ordered line of media being accused to spoil the youth, ruin society etc. The irony lies within. No need for intonation (and as a musician, I know a thing about tone and one more about each, rhythm and tempo). No need to take sides in the actual discussion, because it is the old discussion. Yes, there is irony and yes, I am completely serious. This sort of ambivalence is also what makes the arts what they are. Truth is there’s practically no disambiguity in the real world, the duality we humans see everywhere is just how our minds simplify things, because evolutionarily most descisions are binary: flight or fight, left road or right one, answer or not, eat unknown berry or don’t.
This reply of yours is a perfect example. I have done nothing or taken any tone towards you, yet you have imagined I have imagined a tone for your messages, which then affected the tone you imagine I’m taking.
Because again, while text can be neutral, speech isn’t.
You can read a user manual and the objective texts in it won’t be imagined with any tone. But a personal message like this? You have already imagined what tone of voice, I’m using and with what sort of rhythm and tempo as well.
No need to take sides in the actual discussion
I haven’t. Perhaps you’ve imagined that based on imagining a negative tone to a completely neutral reply? Almost as if humans had a tendency to do that. Weird how no-one has brought it up. Oh wait, right, I have, that’s what we are discussing.
You don’t realize my intention at all. I deliberately was as neutral as possible. Just one simple sentence. Facts. I am on no one’s side, because there’s no side in the more or less chronological ordered line of media being accused to spoil the youth, ruin society etc. The irony lies within. No need for intonation (and as a musician, I know a thing about tone and one more about each, rhythm and tempo). No need to take sides in the actual discussion, because it is the old discussion. Yes, there is irony and yes, I am completely serious. This sort of ambivalence is also what makes the arts what they are. Truth is there’s practically no disambiguity in the real world, the duality we humans see everywhere is just how our minds simplify things, because evolutionarily most descisions are binary: flight or fight, left road or right one, answer or not, eat unknown berry or don’t.
I realise your intention perfectly.
This reply of yours is a perfect example. I have done nothing or taken any tone towards you, yet you have imagined I have imagined a tone for your messages, which then affected the tone you imagine I’m taking.
Because again, while text can be neutral, speech isn’t.
You can read a user manual and the objective texts in it won’t be imagined with any tone. But a personal message like this? You have already imagined what tone of voice, I’m using and with what sort of rhythm and tempo as well.
I haven’t. Perhaps you’ve imagined that based on imagining a negative tone to a completely neutral reply? Almost as if humans had a tendency to do that. Weird how no-one has brought it up. Oh wait, right, I have, that’s what we are discussing.
Made me laugh, thank you.