WEBVTT - Listener Mail: Realm of Refraction 0:00:03.040 --> 0:00:06.560 Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio. 0:00:10.119 --> 0:00:12.920 Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. Listener mail. 0:00:13.080 --> 0:00:14.080 My name is Robert. 0:00:13.880 --> 0:00:17.000 Lamb and I am Joe McCormick, and it is Monday, 0:00:17.079 --> 0:00:19.280 the day of each week that we read back messages 0:00:19.320 --> 0:00:22.040 from the Stuff to Blow Your Mind email address. If 0:00:22.079 --> 0:00:23.639 you're a fan of the show and you'd like to 0:00:23.640 --> 0:00:26.640 get in touch, you can reach us at contact at 0:00:26.760 --> 0:00:29.840 stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. All types of 0:00:29.840 --> 0:00:33.880 messages are welcome, but we especially appreciate feedback to recent episodes, 0:00:34.440 --> 0:00:37.400 and we really appreciate if you have something interesting to 0:00:37.479 --> 0:00:41.720 add to a topic we've talked about. Let's see, Rob, 0:00:41.800 --> 0:00:43.600 do you want to kick things off with this message 0:00:43.600 --> 0:00:45.040 about the glass frog today? 0:00:45.600 --> 0:00:48.080 Oh? Yeah. This is a response to one of the 0:00:48.159 --> 0:00:58.080 Anamalia Stupendium episodes. This is from Jim Jim Wrightson and says, 0:00:59.120 --> 0:01:02.640 as I listened to Argo Mandanese descriptions of the amazing 0:01:02.720 --> 0:01:07.000 glass frogs organs visible beneath transparent skin, the words of 0:01:07.000 --> 0:01:09.600 my email to Robert and Joe informing them of Fritz 0:01:09.640 --> 0:01:12.760 Lieber's ghouls manifested in my mind. But no, the KG 0:01:12.920 --> 0:01:16.479 Sorcerer beat me to the punch. I haven't read all 0:01:16.520 --> 0:01:20.160 of the and I have to note, I'm I've never 0:01:20.160 --> 0:01:22.080 been sure how to pronounce this character's name. I always 0:01:22.120 --> 0:01:25.240 read it in my mind as Fard and the Gray Mouser, 0:01:26.000 --> 0:01:29.720 but I guess you could pronounce it Fuffored. I'm not sure, 0:01:29.800 --> 0:01:32.679 but I don't know. To me in my own mental 0:01:33.120 --> 0:01:37.480 version of all this, it's Fard, but have it however 0:01:37.520 --> 0:01:39.360 you will. But anyways is if you haven't read all 0:01:39.360 --> 0:01:42.319 the Fafford or Fared in the Gray Mouser books, you 0:01:42.360 --> 0:01:44.720 should love the wizard Stick and the D and D 0:01:44.840 --> 0:01:48.040 framing in the Anomalius Topidium series. Please don't drop it. 0:01:48.160 --> 0:01:52.280 Jim, So faf hrd is not a typo. That is 0:01:52.280 --> 0:01:55.320 how this is spelled. There's not right a vowel left out. 0:01:55.680 --> 0:01:59.600 Yeah yeah. So these stories, for anyone not familiar with them, 0:01:59.680 --> 0:02:02.760 these the stories. They were written by American author Fritz 0:02:02.840 --> 0:02:07.400 Liber who lived nineteen ten through nineteen twenty two, and 0:02:07.600 --> 0:02:13.200 his father was also named Fritz Leiber and was an 0:02:13.240 --> 0:02:17.440 actor that was in like Shakespearean stuff and swashbucklers. So 0:02:17.880 --> 0:02:20.120 it's interesting to go into the stories knowing that because 0:02:20.120 --> 0:02:22.640 there's a fair amount of sword play in these tales. 0:02:22.680 --> 0:02:26.079 These tales were one of the many inspirations on Dungeons 0:02:26.120 --> 0:02:30.880 and Dragons, and I have not read them in many 0:02:30.919 --> 0:02:33.280 a year, like it's been over probably fifteen years. It's 0:02:33.280 --> 0:02:35.520 maybe been twenty years since I read these, but I 0:02:35.560 --> 0:02:39.000 remember them as being a lot of fun, just classic 0:02:39.080 --> 0:02:42.040 sword and sorcery adventures with this you know, kind of 0:02:42.040 --> 0:02:46.639 beefy barbarian type and it's like smaller roguelike friend and 0:02:46.720 --> 0:02:49.240 accomplice and they go on all sorts of magical and 0:02:49.360 --> 0:02:50.280 daring adventures. 0:02:50.760 --> 0:02:54.160 So is the conan set up with a beefy barbarian 0:02:54.240 --> 0:02:58.880 main hero with a rogue thief accomplice like a recurring 0:02:59.000 --> 0:03:00.560 motif in this genre. 0:03:01.639 --> 0:03:05.040 It is, off the top of my head, I'm not sure, 0:03:05.080 --> 0:03:07.760 like who really kicks it off? I mean, I guess 0:03:07.800 --> 0:03:09.800 in a way you can, you can go way back. 0:03:09.840 --> 0:03:11.520 Maybe you can make a case for like the epic 0:03:11.560 --> 0:03:18.960 of Gilgamesh having something like who is Gilgamesh's beastly sidekick 0:03:19.280 --> 0:03:21.240 in key Do? I think, yeah, I don't know, if 0:03:21.240 --> 0:03:23.720 you it's maybe not one to one, but like you know, 0:03:23.760 --> 0:03:27.280 it's kind of like the most ancient buddy adventure that 0:03:27.400 --> 0:03:27.840 comes to. 0:03:27.800 --> 0:03:30.600 Mind, though I don't know if in key Do is 0:03:30.600 --> 0:03:32.880 is more of a rogue thief type or just a 0:03:32.919 --> 0:03:36.480 different type of beef beef man like he's described I 0:03:36.480 --> 0:03:39.400 think as a as a wild man, like a you know, 0:03:39.480 --> 0:03:45.240 a strong man of the wilderness, whereas Gilgamesh himself is like, he's, 0:03:45.280 --> 0:03:47.360 i don't know, more a symbol of civilization, like the 0:03:47.400 --> 0:03:50.400 warrior king of the the he's the he's the city beef, 0:03:50.600 --> 0:03:52.440 and in key Do is the country beef. 0:03:53.080 --> 0:03:56.200 Yeah. So anyway, these stories, these stories don't date back 0:03:56.240 --> 0:03:59.240 as far as Conan the Barbarian and so forth. I 0:03:59.280 --> 0:04:01.560 think these I'm just looking at a list of the 0:04:02.000 --> 0:04:04.520 collections and when they were published, but they go back 0:04:04.560 --> 0:04:06.320 at least as far as nineteen sixty eight. 0:04:07.560 --> 0:04:09.600 Well, I'm not familiar, but maybe I'll have to check 0:04:09.640 --> 0:04:11.240 that out at some point there. 0:04:11.520 --> 0:04:13.120 I think I've probably mentioned this in the past and 0:04:13.160 --> 0:04:15.720 the show before, but there was at least one collection 0:04:16.040 --> 0:04:19.480 of these stories that I had where the illustrator decided 0:04:19.480 --> 0:04:22.720 to envision these two characters as just Robert Plant and 0:04:22.800 --> 0:04:25.320 Jimmy Page, like they're just straight up Robert Plant and 0:04:25.400 --> 0:04:29.240 Jimmy Page. Way, which worked, but it was an interesting choice. 0:04:29.480 --> 0:04:32.440 Okay, I'm going to do this next message. We're gonna 0:04:32.440 --> 0:04:35.920 do some messages in response to our series on authenticity. 0:04:36.200 --> 0:04:44.760 This one comes from Nathan. Nathan says, Dear Robert and 0:04:44.880 --> 0:04:49.479 Joe and guest producer Paul. Oh yeah, Paul. Our coworker 0:04:49.480 --> 0:04:52.800 Paul Deckins sat in to produce one of those while 0:04:52.880 --> 0:04:56.640 JJ was out last week. Nathan says, Wow, I didn't 0:04:56.680 --> 0:04:59.560 expect to have so many thoughts sparked by your great 0:04:59.560 --> 0:05:04.839 commerc about authenticity. In part one, Joe mentioned existentialism's take 0:05:04.960 --> 0:05:08.800 on living inauthentically. Their term for this is living in 0:05:09.000 --> 0:05:13.679 quote bad faith. Jean Paul Sartre famously gave an example 0:05:13.720 --> 0:05:17.040 of a cafe waiter whose movements Sartra thought were too 0:05:17.360 --> 0:05:21.080 waiter esque, too eager to please. This waiter sees his 0:05:21.240 --> 0:05:24.920 role in life exclusively as a waiter and fulfills only 0:05:25.000 --> 0:05:28.760 that duty. Therefore, he is not being truly himself. In 0:05:28.800 --> 0:05:31.960 Part two, you brought up how seeing a computer image 0:05:31.960 --> 0:05:35.080 of a painting is not the same experience as seeing 0:05:35.080 --> 0:05:38.120 it in person, and is in a sense, not actually 0:05:38.160 --> 0:05:41.120 seeing the painting. This reminded me of one of my 0:05:41.160 --> 0:05:45.279 favorite paintings, The Treachery of Images, often called this is 0:05:45.360 --> 0:05:49.680 not a pipe by Renee mcgreet. Even though we see 0:05:49.720 --> 0:05:52.719 an image of a pipe, macgreet also wrote the phrase 0:05:53.760 --> 0:05:57.479 sorry for failing at French air to see nepaun peep, 0:05:58.080 --> 0:06:01.359 this is not a pipe at the at the bottom 0:06:01.480 --> 0:06:04.640 of the painting. This is to remind us that it's 0:06:04.720 --> 0:06:07.960 merely a representation of a pipe, not a real one. 0:06:08.000 --> 0:06:11.000 In fact, the print of this painting currently hanging in 0:06:11.000 --> 0:06:13.640 my room is not the real image either, but merely 0:06:13.680 --> 0:06:18.279 a reproduction of a representation of a pipe. You also 0:06:18.360 --> 0:06:21.600 mentioned how artists both historic and modern would learn their 0:06:21.720 --> 0:06:25.320 art precisely by trying to reproduce existing works of art. 0:06:25.839 --> 0:06:28.800 This ties into the central thesis of a YouTuber named 0:06:28.839 --> 0:06:32.560 Kirby Ferguson. In his video essay Everything Is a Remix, 0:06:33.000 --> 0:06:36.640 he argues that there is no truly original idea, and 0:06:36.680 --> 0:06:39.839 he boils down all creativity in art and culture to 0:06:39.960 --> 0:06:45.920 three steps, copy, transform, and combine. For copying, he cites 0:06:45.920 --> 0:06:49.120 a story of how, as a young young writer, Hunter S. 0:06:49.160 --> 0:06:53.680 Thompson re typed whole pages of The Great Gatsby word 0:06:53.800 --> 0:06:56.359 for word quote to get the feeling of what it 0:06:56.440 --> 0:06:59.080 was like to write that way. Oh yeah, I don't 0:06:59.080 --> 0:07:02.599 think I knew that about Thompson specifically, but I would 0:07:02.720 --> 0:07:04.760 endorse this practice. I think this is also one of 0:07:04.800 --> 0:07:09.640 the benefits of memorizing passages of literature, like passages you 0:07:09.680 --> 0:07:13.520 really like, descriptive passages and stuff from fiction, or memorizing 0:07:13.560 --> 0:07:18.000 speeches or memorizing poetry. I think it something about the 0:07:18.040 --> 0:07:21.440 process of memorizing the order of the words kind of 0:07:21.440 --> 0:07:24.360 helps you imagine what it would be like to produce 0:07:24.480 --> 0:07:27.560 that style of writing from yourself, and therefore can be 0:07:27.600 --> 0:07:32.680 one part of developing a kind of synthetic, composite, original 0:07:32.720 --> 0:07:33.720 style of your own. 0:07:34.160 --> 0:07:37.720 Yeah. Yeah, it reminds me that it wasn't too long 0:07:37.760 --> 0:07:41.800 ago that I saw in this is somebody's social media post, 0:07:41.840 --> 0:07:47.040 but they are resharing something that was like basically saying, hey, Christians, 0:07:48.040 --> 0:07:51.680 if you want to get a little closer to God 0:07:51.840 --> 0:07:54.280 or feel, i don't know, more in line with your faith, 0:07:54.600 --> 0:07:57.440 pick out some passages in the Bible and just copying 0:07:57.480 --> 0:08:01.680 word for word. And you know, I think maybe there 0:08:01.720 --> 0:08:03.880 might be an impulse for some to find that silly, 0:08:03.920 --> 0:08:06.520 But of course I instantly realized, like, oh, that's exactly 0:08:06.560 --> 0:08:10.320 the same exercise as this creative writing exercise, you know, 0:08:10.400 --> 0:08:13.240 of going through and copying these words. So I mean, 0:08:14.080 --> 0:08:17.480 regardless what your opinion is of a particular sacred text 0:08:17.840 --> 0:08:20.200 or its translation and so forth, I mean there is 0:08:20.240 --> 0:08:23.680 something too copying it word for word and having those 0:08:23.720 --> 0:08:26.720 words travel through your mind in a slightly different way. 0:08:27.200 --> 0:08:30.120 Absolutely. I mean this might sound strange, but I think 0:08:30.160 --> 0:08:32.680 there's actually all kinds of There are all kinds of 0:08:32.760 --> 0:08:35.560 details in a text that we can miss when we 0:08:35.760 --> 0:08:39.240 just read it, and interacting with the text in a 0:08:39.320 --> 0:08:42.800 different way, such as by memorizing it or by copying 0:08:42.880 --> 0:08:45.520 it out manually or something like that causes you to 0:08:45.920 --> 0:08:49.680 experience it again in a different way and to maybe 0:08:49.720 --> 0:08:51.840 notice things that normally you would gloss over. 0:08:52.320 --> 0:08:55.920 Yeah. So I would imagine it's probably a religious practice 0:08:55.920 --> 0:08:59.560 one way or another in various religions. You know, all 0:08:59.559 --> 0:09:02.360 these different face have sacred text. What happens when you 0:09:02.400 --> 0:09:04.640 copy it? And maybe it brings you a little closer too, 0:09:05.160 --> 0:09:07.199 whatever's being transmitted through it. 0:09:07.480 --> 0:09:10.400 Okay, one more comment from Nathan here. Nathan says, lastly, 0:09:10.520 --> 0:09:13.720 all the talk of filmmakers wanting us to experience movies 0:09:13.720 --> 0:09:17.839 as originally intended felt vindicating. I have long spoken out 0:09:17.840 --> 0:09:21.280 against watching movies on a phone for an authentic experience. 0:09:21.320 --> 0:09:24.119 I watch movies not on a television, but by projecting 0:09:24.160 --> 0:09:27.079 them onto my living room wall. That's the nearest I 0:09:27.120 --> 0:09:30.120 can get to recreating a theatrical viewing, and I have 0:09:30.200 --> 0:09:33.719 no regrets. Thanks as always for your thought provoking conversations 0:09:33.760 --> 0:09:38.080 about Everything under the Sun. Nathan. Yeah, Nathan, I think, 0:09:38.120 --> 0:09:39.960 as we talked about in the episode, I'm sort of 0:09:40.080 --> 0:09:42.800 two minds about this. I mean, on one hand, sometimes 0:09:42.800 --> 0:09:45.199 you're in a situation where all you can do is 0:09:45.520 --> 0:09:48.080 watch on your phone, so you're gonna, you know, you 0:09:48.120 --> 0:09:50.160 do what you can. On the other hand, I can 0:09:50.160 --> 0:09:54.679 totally understand if you are a filmmaker and the experience 0:09:54.880 --> 0:09:57.440 that you are imagining for the audience is like seeing 0:09:57.480 --> 0:10:00.200 it in a theater with you know, with the sigh in, 0:10:00.240 --> 0:10:03.440 the sound and all that it could be. It could 0:10:03.440 --> 0:10:06.679 be kind of disappointing to imagine people watching the movie 0:10:06.679 --> 0:10:09.120 you made on a phone, because that's not the experience 0:10:09.160 --> 0:10:11.760 you had in mind for them. And not to say 0:10:11.760 --> 0:10:14.640 there's anything wrong with them experiencing it that way. 0:10:15.280 --> 0:10:18.200 Yeah, yeah, I mean, really the example, the most extreme 0:10:18.200 --> 0:10:20.400 example is probably we've talked about in Weird House Cinema 0:10:20.400 --> 0:10:22.560 in the past, is when we were looking at various 0:10:22.800 --> 0:10:26.880 three D pictures, you know, and we felt some of 0:10:26.880 --> 0:10:30.880 that frustration of wanting to try and watch these films, 0:10:31.280 --> 0:10:34.000 even just some with some form of three D, not 0:10:34.120 --> 0:10:37.679 the original form of three D that people would have 0:10:37.760 --> 0:10:40.520 experienced in the theaters, but just any form, and it 0:10:40.559 --> 0:10:44.640 was sometimes just difficult or impossible to do so, so, 0:10:44.800 --> 0:10:47.200 you know, I do get it. But then again, at 0:10:47.240 --> 0:10:49.200 the end of the day, it's like, am I going 0:10:49.280 --> 0:10:52.959 to watch House of Wax as originally intended? Or am 0:10:52.960 --> 0:10:56.840 I going to watch it in some other format or 0:10:56.880 --> 0:10:59.880 just not watch it at all? Like, obviously I'm going 0:10:59.920 --> 0:11:02.280 to watch it however I can. And if I'm on 0:11:02.320 --> 0:11:05.840 an airplane, I got to watch something. So I'm gonna 0:11:05.840 --> 0:11:07.760 cue up something to watch, and I'm just gonna have 0:11:07.760 --> 0:11:10.280 to apologize to the directors that I'm not watching it 0:11:10.280 --> 0:11:12.400 as originally intended. I can't think of a film off 0:11:12.480 --> 0:11:16.320 and that was made especially to be watched on an airplane. 0:11:16.480 --> 0:11:18.840 Yeah, better to pick your own movie, bring it with 0:11:18.920 --> 0:11:21.880 you and watch it on a phone than to on 0:11:21.920 --> 0:11:24.080 a slightly larger screen in the back of the seat 0:11:24.120 --> 0:11:26.920 in front of you watch one of six Mark Wahlberg 0:11:27.000 --> 0:11:28.600 movies that are available. 0:11:28.800 --> 0:11:31.319 I guess the thing is if it's worth watching, it's 0:11:31.360 --> 0:11:33.560 worth watching again in a different format, so you know, 0:11:33.559 --> 0:11:35.240 you can always come back later and try and make 0:11:35.280 --> 0:11:37.640 it up. Oh, coming back to the this is not 0:11:37.720 --> 0:11:40.120 a pipe. I was not familiar with this work, but 0:11:40.320 --> 0:11:42.160 it is an interesting experience just to look at it 0:11:42.200 --> 0:11:44.240 for the first time, because knowing what the text says, 0:11:44.840 --> 0:11:47.000 it makes me want to see other things in the 0:11:47.040 --> 0:11:50.200 pipe than the pipe, So it's it's kind of an 0:11:50.240 --> 0:11:52.960 interesting experience, Like I want. Part of me wants to 0:11:53.040 --> 0:11:55.400 lean in and interpret the pipe as some sort of 0:11:55.440 --> 0:12:00.200 a otter like organism or see its curves as something 0:12:00.240 --> 0:12:04.320 more like human or sensual. But then I have to 0:12:04.400 --> 0:12:06.320 like fall back to like, no, this is a pipe. 0:12:06.440 --> 0:12:11.960 My other attempts to interpret this otherwise realistic looking image. 0:12:11.960 --> 0:12:14.320 It is not a surrealistic image, and it not itself. 0:12:15.360 --> 0:12:19.400 Attempts to do so fail and I go back to pipe. 0:12:25.800 --> 0:12:28.120 All right. This next one comes to us from Thomas. 0:12:28.240 --> 0:12:30.360 Thomas says, Hi, Robert, and Joe, I just finished the 0:12:30.360 --> 0:12:34.560 two episode theory on authenticity and wanted to share some 0:12:34.640 --> 0:12:37.440 insight from my line of work. I'm a lawyer, and 0:12:37.480 --> 0:12:40.040 before any evidence can be introduced in court, it has 0:12:40.080 --> 0:12:44.559 to be authenticated. Evidence can roughly be divided into witness testimony, 0:12:44.640 --> 0:12:49.600 physical evidence, and documents, which includes photographs and recordings. Legally speaking, 0:12:49.679 --> 0:12:53.160 the distinction discussed in Part one between honesty and credibility 0:12:53.200 --> 0:12:57.359 and authenticity if a person doesn't exist, all witness testimony 0:12:57.400 --> 0:12:59.640 is evidence and it's up to a judge or jury 0:12:59.679 --> 0:13:02.600 whether to believe it. A witness does normally need to 0:13:02.640 --> 0:13:05.200 testify about how they know a particular fact to help 0:13:05.320 --> 0:13:09.520 assess their credibility, and just hearing from somebody else hearsay 0:13:09.640 --> 0:13:13.160 generally isn't good enough. Before physical evidence, for example, a 0:13:13.200 --> 0:13:15.360 gun found at the scene of a shooting can be 0:13:15.400 --> 0:13:18.800 introduced in court, the witness who collected the evidence needs 0:13:18.800 --> 0:13:22.479 to establish that it is quote the same or substantially 0:13:22.480 --> 0:13:24.840 the same condition as when it was found. This is 0:13:25.240 --> 0:13:29.240 an interesting articulation of the concept of authenticity as history 0:13:29.720 --> 0:13:31.760 that you discussed in relation to works of art in 0:13:31.800 --> 0:13:34.920 Part two. If a piece of physical evidence has any 0:13:34.960 --> 0:13:37.679 history at all since it was collected, that history has 0:13:37.760 --> 0:13:40.480 changed the character of the object so that it is 0:13:40.520 --> 0:13:45.120 no longer authentic. Authenticating a document is much simpler and 0:13:45.200 --> 0:13:48.240 in line with a basic definition of authenticity that you 0:13:48.280 --> 0:13:51.200 discussed in Part one. A document or photograph is authentic 0:13:51.280 --> 0:13:54.080 if a witness with appropriate knowledge, usually but not always, 0:13:54.080 --> 0:13:58.240 its creator testifies that it fairly and accurately represents the 0:13:58.240 --> 0:14:01.839 information it contains, the layout of an area shown in 0:14:01.880 --> 0:14:04.480 a map, or the events of a traffic stop shown 0:14:04.520 --> 0:14:07.840 on dashcam footage. In other words, documents are authentic so 0:14:08.000 --> 0:14:11.360 long as it's established that they are what they purport 0:14:11.520 --> 0:14:14.040 to be. Always appreciate the deep dives you do. Keep 0:14:14.080 --> 0:14:14.600 up the good. 0:14:14.480 --> 0:14:18.520 Work, Thanks Thomas. That is really interesting, and I think 0:14:18.559 --> 0:14:21.760 it adds a nice dimension because we were talking about 0:14:21.760 --> 0:14:27.000 how we are constantly making authenticity evaluations of people in 0:14:27.480 --> 0:14:30.520 like a social context, where in most cases you would 0:14:30.520 --> 0:14:33.000 say the stakes are are very low, like you're making 0:14:33.120 --> 0:14:36.120 judgments about people just kind of I don't know, to 0:14:36.400 --> 0:14:38.960 decide whether you like them or not, or whether you 0:14:38.960 --> 0:14:40.680 want to hang out with them or not, or something 0:14:40.760 --> 0:14:43.640 like that, you know, where there's not a whole lot 0:14:43.720 --> 0:14:47.360 on the line. Obviously authenticity in court cases the stakes 0:14:47.360 --> 0:14:48.400 are very high. 0:14:48.560 --> 0:14:51.040 Yeah, it's interesting, like you said, as to point out 0:14:51.280 --> 0:14:54.360 the like the chain of ownership and an item, like 0:14:55.200 --> 0:14:59.080 I wonder how this factors into the ownership of collectibles, like, oh, 0:14:59.080 --> 0:15:02.880 this is the stop watch that once belonged to this 0:15:02.960 --> 0:15:07.160 famous individual, but they weren't the most recent owners of it. 0:15:07.600 --> 0:15:11.160 At what point do previous owners supersede the most noteworthy 0:15:11.200 --> 0:15:13.400 owner of a given object and so forth, without even 0:15:13.440 --> 0:15:15.440 getting into the whole ship of THESEUS. 0:15:15.000 --> 0:15:18.440 Situation, Yeah, totally. So it is interesting to see the 0:15:18.480 --> 0:15:21.960 difference here and how authenticity is applied to these physical objects. 0:15:22.040 --> 0:15:25.200 These have more similarity to what we were talking about 0:15:25.240 --> 0:15:28.040 with like works of art in the Walter Benjamin sense. 0:15:28.520 --> 0:15:32.200 But also coming back to personal authenticity, I was trying 0:15:32.240 --> 0:15:34.520 to think, well, does it really matter in a court 0:15:34.600 --> 0:15:38.600 case whether somebody is being true to themselves in their 0:15:38.640 --> 0:15:41.640 testimony or not. Wouldn't it just matter whether what they 0:15:41.680 --> 0:15:44.400 are saying is factually correct or not? And in some 0:15:44.440 --> 0:15:46.560 cases I think it would matter whether they're being true 0:15:46.600 --> 0:15:51.800 to themselves, because there are cases where in courts you're 0:15:51.800 --> 0:15:54.880 trying to establish what someone's true inner thoughts and feelings 0:15:54.920 --> 0:16:01.080 are when you're searching for motive, like motive greatly implicates authenticity. Yeah. 0:16:01.160 --> 0:16:04.280 Yeah, So anyway, it is interesting to approach something like 0:16:04.320 --> 0:16:07.200 this from the legal standpoint because, like you know, legally, 0:16:07.560 --> 0:16:09.840 you need to reach that point of action on something. 0:16:09.880 --> 0:16:13.240 You can't just philosophize and say, well, you know, nobody 0:16:13.320 --> 0:16:15.920 really knows what's authentic. Yeah, you need to get down 0:16:15.960 --> 0:16:18.280 to brass tax at some point and say like, okay, 0:16:18.320 --> 0:16:21.080 we've got to move on this. Is this person guilty 0:16:21.160 --> 0:16:23.160 or innocent? Is are charges going to be placed or 0:16:23.200 --> 0:16:24.320 are they not? And so forth? 0:16:24.680 --> 0:16:26.560 Yeah, And I guess ideally in a court case you 0:16:26.600 --> 0:16:29.680 would have really strong physical evidence to rely on, but 0:16:29.800 --> 0:16:32.000 in a lot of cases that's not how it is, 0:16:32.040 --> 0:16:34.080 and you actually do have to you know, you have 0:16:34.560 --> 0:16:38.680 juries essentially doing vibe assessments on witnesses to see like 0:16:38.960 --> 0:16:40.920 does it seem like they're telling the truth? Do I 0:16:40.960 --> 0:16:42.560 get a genuine vibe from them? 0:16:42.880 --> 0:16:45.040 Yeah? And then of course, yeah, obviously you have cases 0:16:45.040 --> 0:16:47.520 of evidence that has been corrupted but at the time 0:16:47.960 --> 0:16:50.400 it's thought to be legit or you know, later on 0:16:50.600 --> 0:16:53.320 looking back at genetic evidence and so forth. So, Yeah, 0:16:53.360 --> 0:16:58.480 authenticity has an interesting trajectory through any given legal system. 0:16:58.480 --> 0:17:02.840 I imagine, Okay, I'm gonna do this. Next message from Aurica. 0:17:07.680 --> 0:17:12.040 Aurica says, Happy Wednesday. I am enjoying your miniseries on authenticity. 0:17:12.960 --> 0:17:15.520 It is such a large topic and hard to articulate 0:17:15.600 --> 0:17:19.840 what qualities authenticity should encompass. One aspect that was left 0:17:19.840 --> 0:17:22.680 out of Part one was how authenticity and mental health 0:17:22.720 --> 0:17:26.639 are connected. The study of the NBA students was quite interesting. 0:17:27.000 --> 0:17:29.640 I also think mental health was glossed over too quickly 0:17:29.680 --> 0:17:33.560 and lumped in with mood, affecting self authenticity. As a 0:17:33.600 --> 0:17:37.880 mental health counselor, I do feel I gauge authenticity as 0:17:37.920 --> 0:17:41.959 a major factor in my career. However, I view authenticity 0:17:42.040 --> 0:17:46.359 as the amount of energy one uses to be in 0:17:46.440 --> 0:17:50.760 any given situation. People are extremely resilient and find themselves 0:17:50.760 --> 0:17:55.080 in a multitude of uncomfortable circumstances. There are indicators from 0:17:55.160 --> 0:18:00.320 the facial expressions, eye movements, tone, mannerisms, etc. To go 0:18:00.400 --> 0:18:03.760 into determining how much effort or energy a person is 0:18:03.960 --> 0:18:06.960 using to communicate. If there is a lot of effort 0:18:07.080 --> 0:18:10.680 for casual conversations or vice versa, if there is seemingly 0:18:10.800 --> 0:18:14.080 no effort for difficult ones, that is an indicator that 0:18:14.160 --> 0:18:17.840 something is off. It's the idea of masking self for 0:18:17.920 --> 0:18:22.720 protection or potentially grounds to explore further. Obviously, the everyday 0:18:22.760 --> 0:18:26.199 person is not asking strangers in class. Quote have you 0:18:26.240 --> 0:18:29.359 ever made a plan to hurt yourself or in your life? 0:18:29.440 --> 0:18:33.359 Therapists look for patterns and responses, rephrase questions and ask 0:18:33.440 --> 0:18:37.439 again to look for similar mannerisms or changing behaviors. Depending 0:18:37.520 --> 0:18:40.440 on the goal of the session, Those minute changes would 0:18:40.440 --> 0:18:43.200 be called to the attention of the patient, As some 0:18:43.359 --> 0:18:46.480 have no clue what is actually going on inside themselves. 0:18:46.840 --> 0:18:50.080 Most people try counseling because they do not know who 0:18:50.119 --> 0:18:53.399 they are or how to access their inner world. A 0:18:53.400 --> 0:18:56.960 slightly different take on authenticity, I do love the notion 0:18:57.080 --> 0:19:00.000 that a person can never truly know another's inner self 0:19:00.520 --> 0:19:04.040 and therefore cannot make a judgment about their external behaviors 0:19:04.080 --> 0:19:08.080 as being authentic. People are so complex. It's worrying to 0:19:08.119 --> 0:19:11.200 think how many decisions are made based on other's abilities 0:19:11.200 --> 0:19:15.560 to determine authenticity. Thank you for this one, Aurica. Well 0:19:15.600 --> 0:19:18.960 thanks Arca. Really interesting thoughts there, and I really like 0:19:19.040 --> 0:19:23.200 your adding this other understanding of authenticity because I think 0:19:23.240 --> 0:19:27.199 this is something that already squares with part of our 0:19:27.280 --> 0:19:30.879 lay understanding of authenticity. Like, when you're making authenticity checks 0:19:30.880 --> 0:19:34.480 on people outside of a therapeutic context, I think part 0:19:34.560 --> 0:19:37.480 of what you are looking for is whether it appears 0:19:37.640 --> 0:19:42.320 that they are are struggling in a social interaction and 0:19:42.320 --> 0:19:45.320 that may lead to totally unfair judgments. But I can 0:19:45.359 --> 0:19:47.600 see in the case of a therapist, how it could 0:19:47.600 --> 0:19:50.560 be really useful for a person to get that information 0:19:50.640 --> 0:19:53.960 reflected back to them like that. They might not realize 0:19:54.040 --> 0:19:56.720 it's coming off like they are struggling to engage in 0:19:56.800 --> 0:20:01.439 a simple interaction, or maybe they are seeming to be 0:20:01.680 --> 0:20:06.000 very disconnected or take too easily a difficult topic. 0:20:06.600 --> 0:20:09.639 Yeah, yeah, all right. This next one comes to us 0:20:09.640 --> 0:20:16.800 from Brittany. Brittany writes sa It says, Dear Robin Joe, 0:20:16.840 --> 0:20:19.920 your episodes on authenticity prompted me to write in about 0:20:19.960 --> 0:20:25.320 a recent experience. Salom dancing before herod and eighteen seventy 0:20:25.359 --> 0:20:28.520 six oil painting by Gustav Moreau. It is one of 0:20:28.520 --> 0:20:31.040 my favorite works of art. Last month I had the 0:20:31.080 --> 0:20:33.440 opportunity to see it on a trip to Los Angeles. 0:20:33.800 --> 0:20:36.840 It was wonderful to see the minute detail and brushstrokes, 0:20:37.040 --> 0:20:39.720 the lush colors and crackling from age. I was able 0:20:39.760 --> 0:20:42.360 to get very close and look at it from various angles. 0:20:42.560 --> 0:20:46.000 It was a true pleasure, an almost sublime experience. Seeing 0:20:46.040 --> 0:20:48.560 this painting in pixels years ago didn't lead to any 0:20:48.560 --> 0:20:52.199 disappointment and seeing it in person, because I might have 0:20:52.320 --> 0:20:55.359 never known it existed if it weren't for an online reproduction. 0:20:55.960 --> 0:20:59.080 As Rob noted on Booklan's Isle of the Dead, the 0:20:59.160 --> 0:21:02.439 lighting effected his viewing experience as it did mine. Of 0:21:02.520 --> 0:21:05.320 the Moreau. It makes me wonder if any work of 0:21:05.440 --> 0:21:09.040 art is truly authentic outside of the circumstances in which 0:21:09.080 --> 0:21:12.560 it was created. That's interesting, Like is the can you 0:21:13.040 --> 0:21:16.760 accurately understand the painting outside of the artist's studio, Like 0:21:16.800 --> 0:21:22.919 you'd really have to go to Pablo Picasso's, you know, 0:21:23.000 --> 0:21:26.040 his his art studio while he's there, while he's alive 0:21:26.119 --> 0:21:28.560 in his lifetime, and have him show it to you. 0:21:29.880 --> 0:21:31.520 And even then you're seeing it at the point of 0:21:31.560 --> 0:21:34.679 completion and not the like you weren't there for the 0:21:34.720 --> 0:21:36.359 experience of it being made. I don't know. 0:21:36.640 --> 0:21:39.199 Yeah, maybe one of those things where you can't identify 0:21:39.280 --> 0:21:42.040 what actually would be the true experience of a work 0:21:42.080 --> 0:21:46.679 of art, but you can identify increasing layers of alienation 0:21:46.800 --> 0:21:49.600 and artificiality as you get further and further from the 0:21:49.640 --> 0:21:52.480 original experience. Does that make sense? Like there there there 0:21:52.560 --> 0:21:56.800 isn't a one hundred percent true experience, but somehow there 0:21:56.840 --> 0:21:59.240 are things that are more artificial. 0:22:00.200 --> 0:22:01.960 And of course, another thing to think about is that 0:22:02.040 --> 0:22:03.960 when you go to an art gallery, and this of 0:22:03.960 --> 0:22:06.560 course is going to be something that is exploited by 0:22:06.680 --> 0:22:10.280 art galleries. You know, certainly if they're good, if the 0:22:10.280 --> 0:22:12.160 person behind it is good and knows what they're doing. 0:22:12.240 --> 0:22:15.440 Is that you're not just viewing individual pieces. You're viewing 0:22:15.440 --> 0:22:18.840 pieces in sequence. You're viewing pieces in relation to other pieces. 0:22:19.119 --> 0:22:20.760 They might be. It might be in relation to another 0:22:20.800 --> 0:22:22.720