Groundrules for Discussion
Many thanks to the various commenters who have offered their valuable insights into the nature of popular culture (perhaps specifically Hong Kong). I am learning a lot from everyone's view points, in the sense that it is intellectually stimulating. It seems that this is a very engaging issue: already I see each commenter holding his or her own point of view. I most certainly intend to further this discussion. I think there are lots of things to be explored, and a dialogue is always better than a monologue.
If indeed discussions are going to be continued (rather than my usual, traditional monologues or poetic works), I think a few ground rules should be set. I apologize if my ground rules are entirely arbitrary; if you don't agree with them, you do not have to comment on my blog. However, I think it is for the general good and health to all commenters, to ensure that here is a safe space for discussion of various ideas that are intimately related to our daily lives.
The only really important rule I have is Respect: I know AC started out with the whole "get a life" thing, and that sparked a little fire, but I'm sure that was not intentionally offensive. I think we should all respect one another and not attack each other. There are a few comments out there, but I hope that they are now disregarded; from now on all comments are not to contain any kind of offensive personal attacks. I think it is okay to attack someone's ground or opinion given good, intellectual reasons, but certainly there is no need to take a ground and reduce it entirely to the identity of that person. There is a great difference between views and identities. The former can be debated, accepted and rejected; the latter cannot and should not. My apologies to those who are offended: I did not expect this to become a great discussion.
Another thing is, please sign your name (whatever you want to be called) at the end of each comment, and please use the same name. It is just easier to refer back to individuals this way and avoid miscommunication.
Regardless of whether this discussion is going to last or not, I want to thank everyone for their valuable ideas.
Tristan
PS - AC: in some ways I'm happy to not know your identity. I think it gives me a more objective view (whatever that is) into insights. Perhaps you know who I am, and in that case you can probably deduce the assumptions I make in my own arguments. So, nice to meet you!
If indeed discussions are going to be continued (rather than my usual, traditional monologues or poetic works), I think a few ground rules should be set. I apologize if my ground rules are entirely arbitrary; if you don't agree with them, you do not have to comment on my blog. However, I think it is for the general good and health to all commenters, to ensure that here is a safe space for discussion of various ideas that are intimately related to our daily lives.
The only really important rule I have is Respect: I know AC started out with the whole "get a life" thing, and that sparked a little fire, but I'm sure that was not intentionally offensive. I think we should all respect one another and not attack each other. There are a few comments out there, but I hope that they are now disregarded; from now on all comments are not to contain any kind of offensive personal attacks. I think it is okay to attack someone's ground or opinion given good, intellectual reasons, but certainly there is no need to take a ground and reduce it entirely to the identity of that person. There is a great difference between views and identities. The former can be debated, accepted and rejected; the latter cannot and should not. My apologies to those who are offended: I did not expect this to become a great discussion.
Another thing is, please sign your name (whatever you want to be called) at the end of each comment, and please use the same name. It is just easier to refer back to individuals this way and avoid miscommunication.
Regardless of whether this discussion is going to last or not, I want to thank everyone for their valuable ideas.
Tristan
PS - AC: in some ways I'm happy to not know your identity. I think it gives me a more objective view (whatever that is) into insights. Perhaps you know who I am, and in that case you can probably deduce the assumptions I make in my own arguments. So, nice to meet you!
posted by Tristan at 11:14 p.m.
10 Comments:
Oh boy...
Yanyi, Myolie Wu and Roger Kwok...
You don't happen to be the guy who said "name is ugly face is ugly," do you?!?!?!?!?!
This blog is gradually turning into an interactional space, I am glad. I always like an interactional approach to life, and I particularly enjoy constructive criticisms. However, I don't think some of the comments are very "constructive" as the intentions of some commenters are rather obvious.
The "obsession with beauty" is a realistic trend and at this point, I don't see any practicality to deconstruct this ideal in people. I don't know about you guys, but I definitely don't see ends in rambling about all these stuff. Maybe you (Johnson, Kevin, Chris, D.Y., Jenn, A.C.) could suggest to me that there is something fruitful with the discussions, especially when it comes to maturity of feelings (not of knowledge). I really don't know.
Johnson, I personally think that you should give some sorts of responses to each comment as this is the fundamental respect that every commenter deserves.
Kenneth
Apparently, teleogical thinking was already falling out of fashion in the 17th century.
How could any of these discussions end except in *aporia*?
I'm reminded of an article that appeared in a Ming Pao supplementary section a few months ago that talked about the "Apple Daily effect" in HK.
I'd argue that this "lack of basic respect for others" in HK not only stems from the popular obsession with the entertainment industry but is symptomatic of a larger trend in HK society -- the "Apple Daily effect". In the uncertain political climate ca. 10 years ago, it made sense for some journalistic publications to shy away from discussing political issues and devote their attentions to "fluffier" things of less significance (and danger)... such as entertainment news. While it might have been tolerable for some of the papers on the market to take this superficial and sensationalist approach, the emergence of Apple Daily had actually set the trend for the entire journalistic field in HK, and nowadays there is not a single newspaper on the market that isn't influenced to some degree by the "Apple Daily effect". Indeed, that superficial sensationalism is now no longer limited to entertainment news but has become the defining approach for all aspects of journalism in HK. All matters, whether social, political, or what have you, are treated as if they were bits of entertainment gossip. There's no commitment or responsibility to objective facts, and whoever manages to come up with the most eye-catching, sensational story, no matter how far removed from reality, attracts the most readers and sells the most copies. In turn, the tastes and expectations of readers are shaped by this mode of operation, which makes it even more profitable for the newspapers to operate in this fashion, thus perpetuating an endless cycle in which the production and consumption of tabloid-like crap ever increases.
Anyway... in that respect, it's not so much *what* we talk about, but *how* we talk about it, that matters. It's possible to talk about developments in entertainment just as much as sociopolitical issues from either a critical approach or from an "Apple Daily" approach. As long as we don't succumb to the "Apple Daily effect", I think we're fine.
Oh yeah.
If Mr. Lorenz was indignant that the *New York Times* had become nothing more than a "glorified tabloid", he'll no doubt blow himself up when he learns about the state of professional ("professional") journalism in HK, where only about 10%-20% of news stories are actually true or something. LOL.
Some interesting Chomskyan and Baudrillardian themes we have here, eh?
Hm, It's kind of weird to post a comment on my own blog, but I think this is an easier way to respond directly to each individual person. My blog is only to express a coherent argument, and therefore unfit for the purpose of response. (Imagine if 15 people commented, and all said different things! How am I supposed to keep a coherent blog? Remember, my blog is kind of like my journal. I still intend on writing personal and creative works.)
To Kenneth: The point of whether this discussion is fruitful to any goal is already replied by "Who's this jun gee wai" (now he's known as W to me - I'm weary of publishing real names online unless the user wants to.) W said that thinking teleologically (meaning towards a definite goal) is out of fashion 300 or 400 years ago. In terms of academic history, that is true. But I think the important thing to do is to think about the meaning of "progress". The popular definition of "progress" points to the scientific realm; rereading Shakespeare's play over and over again hardly seems like progress; certainly all this talk about "the obsession with beauty" also gives no impression of progress. But I would argue things the other way around: scientific progress is hardly progressive - one uses the same belief system despite all the material changes. Many fundamental beliefs and methods of science has not really changed since Francis Bacon's "New Organon" back in the 16th century. The science undergraduate student hardly questions these fundamental beliefs and methods. (Science students please mercilessly correct me if I am wrong in this regard; this is the general impression I get of science, and it could be because I'm very biased in my arts studies.) Literary and cultural studies, however, are progressive in the sense of always critiquing its base, its assumptions, its beliefs. Our progresses are slow, but they are not non-existent. They operate at a very fundamental level, one outside of social consicousness. Nobody "normal" would deconstruct what Jun Gee-Wah said about the many kinds of princess. Yet by paying attention to what we said, by close listening or close reading, we can find out where we are, and we can move on from there.
To W: I think the "apple-daily effect" is beautifully put. I entirely agree with you.
Ditto the ditto.
Stop smoking pot and going on about "structure" vs. "order" and "progress" and "cultural equality" and "feminism" and "Chinatown". :-p ;-)
(P.S. ... are you able to speak without recourse to the "t" word for, like, more than 10 minutes?)
(P.P.S. The above postscript isn't addressing Tristan... or at least I don't mean the above postcript to address Tristan... but I suppose that language will always necessarily say more for me than what I mean [meant?] to say.)
I'm curious. How exactly do you see the "'t'-word" though? (Like in the first place.) (When you're reading something... is it like... something jumps out at you and announces itself as the "'t'-word" or something?)
"see"
Post a Comment
<< Home