Qu'Est Ce Qu'Une Relation Authentique Avec Autrui ?
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Magmatix a répondu le Wed 31 Oct, 2007 @ 4:58am |
 Coolness: 52880 | Nous vivons dans une époque que se prétend une ère de la « communication ». On nous répète sur tous les tons que nous vivons un monde qui dispose de moyens de communication extraordinaires, dont ne disposaient pas les générations précédentes. L’argument tend à nous persuader que, grâce à des moyens techniques modernes, les hommes ont changé de condition et qu’ils sont enfin en relation les uns avec les autres.
Mais l’éloge de la communication recoupe beaucoup d’ambiguïtés. Il y a d’abord la confusion qui est faite avec l’information. L’information va à sens unique d’un sujet vers un autre sujet. A proprement parler, la radio et la télévision ne sont pas des instruments de communication, mais des outils d’information. On ne peut pas discuter avec la télévision ! C’est plutôt le contraire, on la subit assez passivement. La communication suppose une information réciproque. Cela veut dire que deux sujets échangent, partagent du sens. D’autre part, si on éprouve un tel besoin irrépressible de communiquer, c’est peut-être justement sur le fond d’une réalité de fait qui est la tragédie de l’incommunicabilité ! l'absence de relation. Mais avons-nous conscience de ce que suppose une véritable relation ? Ce qui est en question est-ce seulement les « moyens » de la communication ou bien est-ce davantage ?Qu'est ce qu'une relation authentique avec autrui ? |
| I'm feeling new prophet right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moohk a répondu le Wed 31 Oct, 2007 @ 10:02am |
 Coolness: 68970 | la radio et la télévision ne sont pas des instruments de communication, mais des outils d’information. On ne peut pas discuter avec la télévision ! C’est plutôt le contraire, on la subit assez passivement.
when you say "we cannot dialogue with the television", are you speaking with a voice of authority? can't i dialogue with the television? who defines the terms of an exchange? what if, for example, i were to have crticial thoughts in response to what i view? and what of, my critical responses? why do you assume my passive reception? what if i got up and changed the channel? what if i smashed the televison? what if i continued watching? what about public radio? public television? |
| I'm feeling magic robot right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Deadfunk a répondu le Wed 31 Oct, 2007 @ 1:03pm |
 Coolness: 152915 | ;e probleme c pas la quantitée de communication que on peut avoir, c'est la qualitée de linformation communiquée
ta beau parler face a face pendant des heures, si tu parle de bullshit pi que les 2 personne mentent, ta beau avoir "communiquer" mais ta pas plus apprit que si tavais cheker le cannal "a une cenne" pendant 10 minutes (lcn) |
| I'm feeling promiscuous right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Tamala a répondu le Wed 31 Oct, 2007 @ 1:06pm |
 Coolness: 165550 | Originally Posted By MOOHK
LA RADIO ET LA TÉLÉVISION NE SONT PAS DES INSTRUMENTS DE COMMUNICATION, MAIS DES OUTILS D�INFORMATION. ON NE PEUT PAS DISCUTER AVEC LA TÉLÉVISION ! C�EST PLUTÔT LE CONTRAIRE, ON LA SUBIT ASSEZ PASSIVEMENT. WHEN YOU SAY "WE CANNOT DIALOGUE WITH THE TELEVISION", ARE YOU SPEAKING WITH A VOICE OF AUTHORITY? CAN'T I DIALOGUE WITH THE TELEVISION? WHO DEFINES THE TERMS OF AN EXCHANGE? WHAT IF, FOR EXAMPLE, I WERE TO HAVE CRTICIAL THOUGHTS IN RESPONSE TO WHAT I VIEW? AND WHAT OF, MY CRITICAL RESPONSES? WHY DO YOU ASSUME MY PASSIVE RECEPTION? WHAT IF I GOT UP AND CHANGED THE CHANNEL? WHAT IF I SMASHED THE TELEVISON? WHAT IF I CONTINUED WATCHING? WHAT ABOUT PUBLIC RADIO? PUBLIC TELEVISION? You still won't be communicating with anyone else but yourself. That was the point of this reflexion. |
| I'm feeling exhausted right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Smurf a répondu le Wed 31 Oct, 2007 @ 1:47pm |
 Coolness: 42910 | "La communication suppose une information réciproque"
Faux. Voir definition de communication dans le dictionnaire. Communication = 1 way. Dialogue = 2 way (oui je sais c'est plutot par rapport a Monologue). Quand on communique avec quelqu'un, on lui transmet de l'information, et il importe peu si on recoit quelque chose en retour. Donc la TV est un moyen de communication. Prenons l'exemple d'un concept très utilisé, celui du communiqué, qui est 1 way, et dérive de communication. Le point pour la tv et donc caduc a la base. Mais si on parlait de dialogue, je devrais alors reprendre le post de Moohk: Qu'est-ce qui empeche la TV d'etre 2-way? Si on exerce la critique de ce qu'on capte a la tv, par exemple sur les forums de discussion de l'emission, par lettre ouverte ou ferme, autour de la machine a cafe avec des collegues, n'est pas la une socialisation de l'information televisuelle? Maintenant si on parle de dialogue entre deux personnes, on peut suppose qu'avec les nouvelles methode de communications, il est plus facile de parler a bcp plus de gens qu'avant (des gens loin, des gens qui parle un autre language... des gens a qui on avait pas acces). Pour ce qui est de la qualite, rien n'est change! La qualite d'un dialogue depend des deux individus. Ca ne changera jamais, sauf lorsqu'on va pouvoir lire dans les pensee et qu'il n'y aurra plus de manipulation de l'information echanger. on a side-note: moohk you rock. |
| I'm feeling booooored right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Holly_Golightly a répondu le Wed 31 Oct, 2007 @ 2:13pm |
 Coolness: 158645 | j'ai pris qq cours de communication et en fait plusieurs theory(modeles) existent... c'est different d'un courant de pensee, d'une epoque a l'autre..
ce serait vraiment trop long revoir tout ca et plutot emmerdant alors pour les interesse(e)s... vous devriez mettre c'est mots clef dans le moteur de recherche google si vous voulez vraiment en savoir plus... modèle de gerbner... modèle de shannon et weaver.... modèle de jakobson.... modèle de riley et riley... et il y en a beaucoup plus que ceux ci... pour les adeptes hehe |
| I'm feeling hitched right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Horus a répondu le Wed 5 Dec, 2007 @ 1:19pm |
 Coolness: 40660 | Originally Posted By MOOHK
la radio et la télévision ne sont pas des instruments de communication, mais des outils d�information. On ne peut pas discuter avec la télévision ! C�est plutôt le contraire, on la subit assez passivement.
when you say "we cannot dialogue with the television", are you speaking with a voice of authority? can't i dialogue with the television? who defines the terms of an exchange? what if, for example, i were to have crticial thoughts in response to what i view? and what of, my critical responses? why do you assume my passive reception? what if i got up and changed the channel? what if i smashed the televison? what if i continued watching? what about public radio? public television? Even if you have "critical thoughts" regarding what TELEVISION or any other medium has just "told" you, these critical thoughts will be based on the very terms on which said media is expressing itself. Thus, even if you go and prove everything they say as fales, you will do so using the terms which they have thus DICTATED you to think about. Mind-conditioning is achieved even if you smashed the television, although that is a good step towards not being subjected to such brainwashing again in the future. |
| I'm feeling pretty damn good right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» raisinlove a répondu le Wed 5 Dec, 2007 @ 1:22pm |
 Coolness: 62860 | Malgré tout ceci, les garçons ne comprendrons jamais les filles :( |
| I'm feeling knakklefritz right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» MolocH a répondu le Wed 5 Dec, 2007 @ 1:26pm |
 Coolness: 226185 | Originally Posted By RAISINLOVE MALGRÉ TOUT CECI, LES GARÇONS NE COMPRENDRONS JAMAIS LES FILLES :(
Dude, parle pour twa. |
| I'm feeling accutely homocidal right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Horus a répondu le Wed 5 Dec, 2007 @ 1:28pm |
| Coolness: 40660 | Originally Posted By MOLOCH
Originally Posted By raisinlove Malgré tout ceci, les garçons ne comprendrons jamais les filles :(
Dude, parle pour twa. Haha moi tou j'les comprends. Pis j'les aime pareil! :o |
| I'm feeling pretty damn good right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» DCRn a répondu le Wed 5 Dec, 2007 @ 3:13pm |
 Coolness: 158145 | Une relation autrui c'est une relation bestiale. |
| I'm feeling vandamnien right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Shindy a répondu le Wed 5 Dec, 2007 @ 3:14pm |
 Coolness: 171750 | Originally Posted By DRNYARLATHOTEP UNE RELATION AUTRUI C'EST UNE RELATION BESTIALE.
poutipoum TCHI! |
| I'm feeling batarnac right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Tamala a répondu le Wed 5 Dec, 2007 @ 3:27pm |
| Coolness: 165550 | Originally Posted By RAISINLOVE MALGRÉ TOUT CECI, LES GARÇONS NE COMPRENDRONS JAMAIS LES FILLES :(
C'est facile comprendre une fille! Faut juste que tu y aille avec la solution la plus compliqué, c'est toujours celle-la qu'on prend :P |
| I'm feeling exhausted right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Bitchy.Milz a répondu le Wed 5 Dec, 2007 @ 3:41pm |
 Coolness: 60790 | HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
le pire c'est que c'est pas loin de la vérité. quand même, you made my day Tam! |
| I'm feeling let it snow right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» JojoBizarre a répondu le Wed 5 Dec, 2007 @ 4:08pm |
 Coolness: 294885 | ou bien tu fais tu juste nodé et dire ouais ta raison...
problem solved |
| I'm feeling super right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Tamala a répondu le Wed 5 Dec, 2007 @ 4:12pm |
| Coolness: 165550 | :S |
| I'm feeling exhausted right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moohk a répondu le Wed 5 Dec, 2007 @ 4:18pm |
| Coolness: 68970 | You still won't be communicating with anyone else but yourself. That was the point of this reflexion.
is that so? if there is one (and only one) 'point' to this 'reflection', then i wonder why bother to discuss the idea(s) this way? why not just open with "THIS IS HOW YOU SHOULD THINK : . is opening up a so-called discussion with a morally self-righteous one-way lesson, DISGUISED as an open-ended question possibly also problematic in the same kind of way that asserting dominant worldviews through media manipulation is...? so, on the one hand i could defend public television, (the ideals of public broadcasting are often incompatible with commercial goals), namely PUBLIC ACCESS television, (that is, most or much of the programming is created by members of the public which receives the programming). but on the other - i also think it is important to defend, (to an extent), my viewing of shows such as reality television or a music channel, for example (read: TV made to indoctrinate society). that is not to say i want to defend reality television, nor my 'right' to watch it... what i would like to defend is my reality that the television that i watch (or don't watch) is NOT the barometer for how conscious, active or engaged i am with other human beings. doesn't even calling TV-viewing into question come from such a privileged place for us? who exactly, is in the best position to be able to afford the leisure time to watch television (or NOT watch it), as a consumer choice? let alone smash it?? that's not to say i don't support people turning off, not buying, stealing, and /or even smashing TVs! but it just seems inadequate to scapegoat TV, and i have a problem with demonizing TV-watching. i want to be clear that i am not an advocate of TV. but i do think that anti-TV mentality can be a type of elitism. i am not okay with ascribing to a self-congratulatory politics and philosophy of intellectualism that is somehow supposedly of a higher consciousness. |
| I'm feeling disco squid right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Tamala a répondu le Wed 5 Dec, 2007 @ 4:40pm |
| Coolness: 165550 | eh, what I meant is "this is what he was saying"
You're entitled to your opinions, I was just stating his point since it did not seem to be understood... might I have been wrong too, but that's how I saw "this" as in HIS reflexion sheesh |
| I'm feeling exhausted right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» databoy a répondu le Wed 5 Dec, 2007 @ 8:02pm |
 Coolness: 106025 | Who fucking cares about tv, when there are so many new formes of communication like: the telephone, the internet, shortwave radio, sevral parallelle postal services. Just the fact that so many peoples can read and wright means we are light years away from, say, our great grand-parents. If there is a problem with "communications" today, its somewhere between the mouth, the ears and the brain. |
| I'm feeling fuck yeah! right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» DCRn a répondu le Wed 5 Dec, 2007 @ 8:46pm |
| Coolness: 158145 | Man what kind of history lesson have you had?
Your "great-grandparents" HAD short wave radio, telephone and postal services. How can you call century-old forms of communication "new"? As if the TV was older. 0_O Though a lot more people can "read and write", it seems that said people care less and less for grammar, syntax and punctuation. Certain websites (i.e. I can Has Cheeseburger) even speak in LOLCAT, for crying out loud. Anyway, not trying to diss you or anything; you're right that communication is not a matter of the tool used but rather of the two ends of the media. Just trying to point out that your point made little sense... |
| I'm feeling vandamnien right now.. | |
Qu'Est Ce Qu'Une Relation Authentique Avec Autrui ?
[ Haut de la page ] |
Poster Une Réponse |
Vous devez être connecté pour soumettre une réponse.
[ Haut de la page ] |
