Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

Friday, March 02, 2012

Project 52 2012 (9/52): On Discrimination (And Why It's Gotten Worse By Getting Subtler)

.:Project 52 2012 (9/52): On Discrimination (And Why It's Gotten Worse By Getting Subtler):.

And so we get into all this safe space and anti-discrimination stuff I sometimes touch on every now and then. You might even say that within my tiny sphere of influence, I treat it like an advocacy at this point. I've even written this two-part article about it this week.

This has been a rather interesting time for anyone with a modicum of interest in race relations. Admittedly, this is a weird concept in a country like the Philippines, seeing as our seemingly desperate sense of Filipino pride extends all the way to taking pride in anyone with a drop of Filipino blood in them, up to and including Rob Schneider. Rob. Freaking. Schneider.


What? No Betamax? Rob Schneider, you fail!

Sure, the whole FHM cover brouhaha was also tinged with class issues, but they aren't mutually exclusive from race issues, and both are rife with glaring examples of discrimination. What does get annoying is when some people insist that because they don't see anything wrong with something, then there's nothing wrong with it. Sorta like how people generally miss the fact that there's an arrow in the FedEx logo. And yet it's there.


You might say they're keeping themselves in the... should I even go on?

The above was the ill-advised, or at least, the troll-bait cover from FHM's upcoming issue, featuring Bela Padilla. Now, the cover is reportedly being replaced for when the magazine actually comes out, and FHM and even Bela Padilla herself apologized for the cover. I'm not writing this to crucify FHM or Bela Padilla, but that doesn't mean the discussion about issues of discrimination should similarly stop. If anything, this whole thing should spur further discussion with minimal shaming or condemnation in order to facilitate understanding.

Except that probably won't happen.

Every single time discussions about race crop up, the only time Filipinos really feel a noticeable sense of outrage is when it's a Chip Tsao or an Alec Baldwin or a Teri Hatcher making the apparently racist statement, and Filipinos far and wide crying foul. We'd even happily do it when one of our own dares to spit upon the sacred altar of "Filipino pride." However, it seems that whenever we do come out as racist to other nations, we don't really do much to put ourselves in check, or else there would've been a larger uproar for the time Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, much as I love her to pieces, actually said that the Chinese invented corruption.

This whole issue is no different, as every single play from the Derailing For Dummies handbook was utilized just to sweep the issue under the rug, either because the issue seems irrelevant to most of us privileged people, or because a topic like this may be uncomfortable for privileged people who get upset when they find out they're actually racist. It's pretty coincidental that even Cracked has a relevant article about racism up this week, and it parallels a lot of the things I say right now, with a whole lot more comedy mixed into their take, obviously.

Granted, we don't live anymore in a world where it's okay to segregate blacks from whites, or women not being allowed to vote is par for the course. These things have become galvanizing symbols to rally against: these very blatant, egregious examples of inequality will find very few supporters.

Unfortunately, this also means that these blatant, egregious examples are normally the only things we look for when trying to find inequality in our world today. We seem to need something galvanizing before we so much as consider that maybe, just maybe, something oppressive is already happening right before our very eyes.

Most of us do live with privilege. In an ideal world, everyone would think the same way people of privilege do, where we assume we will get by this world on our own merits, and we can afford to be color-blind or gender-blind because everyone else is more of the same. Race as a mere social construct becomes completely obliviated because there no longer is no need for it. But then, neither would we have need for any of the other social constructs like sovereign nations or families. Which is to say, we don't live in an ideal world, and whether we like it or not, these social constructs are here to stay.

As people of privilege, we can afford to live without being conscious about race, because it rarely affects us, for as long as Desperate Housewives doesn't take another swipe at us. With privilege, we can afford to not be disturbed by, say, a pun likening dark-skinned people to shadows because it's just words, and only sticks and stones can break our bones, and these black people better toughen the fuck up and stop trying to find excuses to get offended all the time.

Of course it's easy for the privileged to say these things. They don't go through it every single day, much like a man in general would not have to live in fear of being raped, and might find it easy to make jokes about how Michael Bay's take on Transformers pretty much "raped" their childhood. What's not easy is to check one's privilege at the door, and to actually recognize what's important for the Other in front of us, instead of what's important only to ourselves.

Now that discrimination has gotten subtler, it has become fashionable for people to cry about the likes of affirmative action or the PC police, as if avoiding saying a word or two for the sake of not upsetting a marginalized group that has institutionally been discriminated against since they could remember would be the end of the world for the privileged. Is perpetrating the endless cycle of oppression against the Other all for the sake of "freedom of expression" really more important than just striking a couple of words from your vocabulary?

I find it a bit bewildering how someone who is caught doing or saying something racist feels so offended, and suddenly makes it about them, instead of the fact that they actually went and offended someone, to begin with. This very casual shift of denying acknowledgment of the Other and her issues only proves that the Other is indeed being marginalized, to the point that we, in our privilege, feel entitled to have the focus about us even when dealing with or simply dismissing their issues.

Discrimination has gotten worse because the fewer instances of discrimination remain seemingly non-taboo, the more steadfastly we will insist on holding onto them. Just look to homophobia and ableism, if you don't believe me. Because we're so busy looking for burning crosses and gas chambers, we forget that little daily affirmations of oppression can and do ruin the day for those who are marginalized.

And no, a lack of malicious intentions or even outright good intentions is not an excuse for offending people. When you step on someone's toes, you apologize for it especially if you didn't mean to do it (If you did mean to, you're clearly looking to start something, anyways.). Intent isn't magic. It's not a get out of jail free card.

Furthermore, since some people know I do contribute to the Filipino Freethinkers, and I even went and supported their call to uphold the right to offend in the middle of the Mideo Cruz issue, why am I suddenly being seemingly inconsistent and suddenly wishing people don't get all offensive against the marginalized?

If you're reading carefully enough, the key word is "marginalized." Obviously, if you're Catholic and in the Philippines, then you are anything but. If anything, atheists are the marginalized ones, and their crusade for secularism is precisely their call for equality. If people are free to insult the beliefs or lack thereof that atheists have, why is the opposite, insulting the beliefs of the religious, suddenly taboo? Does believing in God suddenly make you and your opinions (And make no mistake about it: the existence or non-existrence of God still stands as an opinion, albeit a very important and personal one.) superior?

True, not every single dark-skinned person was offended by the FHM cover, much like not all of us were offended by Chip Tsao's satirical tirade against this "nation of servants." That doesn't invalidate the feelings of people who were offended by any of these, either. It's the opportunity to discuss and educate ourselves from these occurrences that is one of our takeaways from this, rather than to be dismissive of the feelings of people who feel hurt by acts of actual or merely perceived discrimination.

For example, wouldn't it be better to explain to your black friend that the word "niggardly" isn't exactly what it sounds like, rather than to just point and laugh at him for making an honest mistake?


Some things require more explanation than others, though.

And if, after reasonable discussion, your friend still feels put off by the word, then is it such a big deal for you to just never use the word around him again? I think while one cannot rely on human decency in this world, this should never be an excuse for not displaying it. This is akin to how while Mideo has every right to offend religious folk in the manner that he did, I didn't have to like his art (I was never a fan of post-modern art, period, so this is no surprise.), nor do I need to do the exact same thing.

True, everyone's a little bit racist sometimes. And while it doesn't mean we go around committing hate crimes, there's a lot to be said about displaying basic human decency and compassion when it's within our power to do so. While it'd be nice if everyone could take a little joke, the last thing we have the right to do is to tell other people how to feel, because nobody in their right mind goes out of their way wanting to get hurt or offended.

Ultimately, discrimination happens in an imperfect world the more we are blind to the differences among us. It takes a lot of perspective, and genuinely walking a mile in the shoes of the Other for us to even begin to understand. Otherwise, we end up doing another unintentionally condescending "If I Were A Poor Black Kid," and no amount of good intentions could conceivably excuse the sheer insensitivity and ignorance of that.


Stop being insensitive, or he's comin' for you...
no good will come out of completing that statement, will it?

Saturday, May 28, 2011

A Contribution To Filipino Freethinkers

.:A Contribution To Filipino Freethinkers:.

Now, whilst there’s a lot of hoopla going on about the RH Bill that the fine folk at Filipino Freethinkers are covering like mad, and whilst I’m certainly not an atheist by any means, I do feel for them.

On the other hand, with all the brilliant commentary from their end about the issue already, I figured that it was better for me to contribute to their fine website by writing about a topic dear to my heart : mentalism.

I’ve been a professional mentalist for going on five years already. Through it all, I’ve maintained kayfabe, but never hesitated to drop character if it was going to cause me any crisis of conscience. As a performer, there is, by definition of being a magician (Sorry, fellow mentalists. You still count.), an implicit contract between audience and performer that you’re going to deceive them, but you’re going to entertain them through it. This is the tie that binds: the contract that allows people to enjoy the performance of magic without them thinking too hard how it was done afterwards.

When you drop that conceit and pick up that of passing yourself off as the real thing, it begins to tread on questionable ethical grounds. This is particularly highlighted when you use your magic tricks to fool people into thinking you could tell them how to live their lives, sleep with them, or talk to dead spirits. Given my background, and given the fact that I’m all after elevating the respect for the art form, it becomes very objectionable for me when a show like Mind Master gets away with manipulating people who are grieving for a lost loved one.

I think my post on FF covers all my objections to the whole thing, albeit in a sarcastic manner. I can totally understand when people think that perhaps question the motive of the takedown, but anyone who has known me long enough knows that it isn’t just about the person, but about the ethical issues he now pushes mentalism into. As a performer sharing the same designation as he, I do not want to be misrepresented as that, and would like to set the record straight.

Now, without exposing any secrets, I will explicitly tell you: we are not mediums. We can’t talk to the dead. That isn’t part of our job description at all. On top of that, not all of us are slimy, manipulative douchebags. We are generally very honest about our dishonesty. Despite what you may see or hear from my contemporary, he is a woeful minority in what he does.

Is it more exciting to pretend we can talk to dead people and predict the future accurately? Of course. I’d do the same if it didn’t hurt anybody. But see, the minute Ali Sotto started crying on TV, this whole performance art crossed over from mere entertainment to outright exploitation, and I cannot abide by that. Magicians are pre-occupied with the ills of exposure, and to this day, they are railing against Bearwin Meily. That’s fine, but I also hope they aren’t so blind as to just acceptor even encourage the unethical use of the skills a fellow magician has learned from this industry. Otherwise, we just become selective enforcers of ethical practices, all without looking at the bigger picture if we tolerated this practice.

This is why it is my fervent request to GMA-7 and the producers of this show to simply put a disclaimer at the start of each episode. Just make it clear you are not declaring these feats to be legitimate solely by virtue of airing it. Is it vestigial? Yes. But it makes all the difference in the world for the network to acknowledge publicly that it will not encourage this abhorrent practice.

I don’t think it’s such a big thing to ask, is it?

Monday, April 04, 2011

Logical Fallacies 101 (Part 6 Of 6): A Special Bonus Feature On The Entitlement Complex

.:Logical Fallacies 101 (Part 6 Of 6)Bonus Feature: The Entitlement Complex:.


Because I totally have every right to demand her to go to all those conventions so I can stalk her whenever I feel like it, goddammit!!!

Logical Fallacies 101 (Part 5 Of 6): Argumentum Ad Ignorantium and Slippery Slope Logic

.:Logical Fallacies 101 (Part 5 Of 6): Argumentum Ad Ignorantium and Slippery Slope Logic:.


The idiocy! It’s over 9000!!!

Logical Fallacies 101 (Part 4 Of 6): Argumentum Ad Populum

.:Logical Fallacies 101 (Part 4 Of 6): Argumentum Ad Populum:.


So just because everyone is doing it, this makes it right?

Friday, April 01, 2011

Logical Fallacies 101 (Part 1 Of 6): Argumentum Ad Hominem

.:Logical Fallacies 101 (Part 1 Of 6): Argumentum Ad Hominem:.

Hello there! Given that it was April Fool’s Day a couple of days ago and there are a lot of fools out there running around, I feel that it is my civic duty to help enlighten some people so that they wouldn’t spout off and look like a complete idiot while at it.

You may not realize it, but often, in the fine art of argumentation, people are prone to logical fallacies. Now, what are logical fallacies? Logical fallacies are, at their most basic, errors in reasoning. When a person tries to argue and sway you to side with their opinion, that person is capable of arguing fallaciously, particularly when they make an argument that has not been well thought out.

The problem is most people throw these arguments about without realizing that they don’t strengthen their position at all. Worse, some of them look downright silly, because instead of giving simple, factual arguments, they would use their anger, or perhaps their limited anecdotal experience, or just their flat-out ignorance to try to win an argument.

Don’t fall for it. Don’t let it work. Seriously.

Over the course of the next six articles are a few common logical fallacies, with matching examples. As a disclaimer, yes, these articles will also be prone to their own share of logical fallacies (More so the comments, I'm guessing.), but one hopes that the point is not lost despite that fact.

Argumentum Ad Hominem


What an eloquent rebuttal!!!

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

The (Un)Official Statement To Close The Matter, I Hope...

.:Closing Off...:.

For those wondering...

Yes, a formal apology has been made to the aggrieved party.

Beyond that, no, I don't know what repercussions there are for the offending personnel.

Yes, the aggrieved party has requested an end to this discussion, and as a friend to her, I would certainly acquiesce to that wish.

But no, I can't (nor do I wish to) control anyone else who wishes to pursue anything beyond this incident for gender equality, such as, say Filipina Images.

.:Allow Me To Reintroduce Myself:.

For those who may have read my blog for the first time, I am Kel Fabie, and this is really an autobiographical blog with a slice of personal commentary on a wide range of topics from time to time. I know the controversy has attracted an unnatural share of traffic for this blog, and while I'd wish to keep those readers if only I could, I'd rather just not lead people on into thinking I'm the type of blogger who'd shoot down people who offend me or my friends willy-nilly. If you wish to read about how my day was, feel free to keep on reading. If not, since I don't make money from this blog, it's no skin off my back if what I write or how I write doesn't quite tickle your fancy.

This was an extreme case, and one that I felt strongly about, so I felt the need to act. I am especially protective of my friends, in the first place. I don't just go and cry "wolf" everytime something unfortunate happens, especially if it's within my power to resolve it privately and amicably. It's not a case of being afraid: it's a case of being prudent.

Ultimately, I also value our freedom of expression here on the internet, and justice and equality to its fullest possible extent. As an ethicist by practice, it's my personal crusade to understand and make heads or tails of what it means to do the right thing, and to choose to do it.

This incident was indeed unfortunate, but I choose to no longer pursue it as I respect the wishes of my friend. While we all could learn from her example, I hope we would allow the speculation and hearsay to die a natural death, focus on how best to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else, and respect the privacy and wishes of my friend.

Thank you very much, and I apologize if I could not provide you with the juicy dirt some of you may have perhaps wanted to find in this blog. I am, after all, first and foremost, her friend, and as such, would rather comply with her wishes at this point.

Let this be the last time I'd publicly speak about this. Truth be told, I don't even believe that I should serve as a spokesperson for her since she is her own person, but as I know that I was the one who started the fire, so to speak, I need to also be the one to put it out from my end.

Godspeed to you all and happy holidays.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Barking Up Only One Tree... And The Wrong Tree, At That!

.:Barking Up Only One Tree: The Law Applies To All, Otherwise, To None At All:.

First of all, as a guy known for the straight edge lifestyle, let’s face it: I’m not a patron of Flesh Asia Daily, as I honestly don’t have much use for their material.

However, I believe in the saying, “Walang basagan ng trip!” While I may not be a patron of the fine arts of FAD, I do not hold it against anyone who does, and given how my understanding of the entire Hayden Kho hoopla has resulted in me being far more sympathetic to one Maricar Reyes than one Katrina Halili, I do have a certain stand on the issue, albeit it mostly boils down to this: we’re spending too much energy on this.

Suddenly, piracy busts have been exclusively for the extermination of the scandal videos. Never mind the stacks upon stacks of pirated DVD’s they’re rummaging through, but the minute they find one scandal vid, it’s gone.

Why is the law being selectively enacted now? Why the special treatment? Quite frankly, I find that this only underscores the politicking and grandstanding at work nowadays, what with everyone trying to jump on the “Lynch Hayden” bandwagon, never mind that there are other pressing issues that need to be addressed.

The recent attempt to pretend that something’s happening has resulted in Mike Chanco’s residence being raided, and subsequently charges being prepared against him, all the while ignoring the pressing issue: why are we seemingly ignoring this man’s rights? Why the sudden arbitrary enactment of a law that is, currently, at best, only vaguely tangential to what has truly transpired?

I don’t know Mike Chanco. I don’t owe him anything, nor does he owe me anything. But as a fellow Filipino, I see that his rights to due process are obviously being trampled upon, and I look at that and feel: dammit, that could be me, next time. I don’t think I wish to be in a country where caprice and arbitrariness determine the law of the land. I honestly feel that is dangerous to the rights and liberties our forefathers have fought and had board meetings about.

I can’t help but facepalm over the trolls over at Jester’s and One Tamad’s blogs who are acting with even less morals than Hayden Kho, resorting to a stream of four-letter words, and internet tough-guy posturing from behind a computer.

Newsflash, kiddies: “lust” is but one of the seven deadly sins. The way you’re frothing at the mouth right now, you’re pretty much guilty of “wrath”, “pride”, and by the looks of how you talk so big only behind an anonymous nick, probably “sloth” and “gluttony”, too. Nothing makes you look more of a hypocrite than hiding behind anonymity, hurling invectives, all the while pretending to be guardians of morality. Thanks for completely missing the point of Jester’s post: it was never about saying porn is cool and okay. It was the fact that someone’s rights were apparently trampled upon, and we cannot allow for shortcuts in due process just because we don’t like somebody. Justice is supposed to be blind.

As an ethicist as opposed to a moralist, I have no say on the nobility of FAD’s site. I wouldn’t know, it’s not my cup of tea. It’s not my place to judge, but let’s face it: the rain falls on the just and the licentious alike. If for some reason they believe Mr. Chanco is guilty of whatever they’re trying to trump up against him, why are they barking up only one tree?

Oh, right. Because it’s posturing, more than actual action. While we still don’t know who killed Nida Blanca, we already know who sent the first video to FAD. Doesn’t this seem rather off to you?

Stop making it an issue of morality, when it is primarily an issue of due process. Even if it were an issue of morality, since when did being immoral guarantee you jail time? Erap had how many mistresses again? Even from a Christian standpoint, Christ didn’t come down to save the righteous. They don’t need saving now, do they? He came down to save the sinners. It’s funny how these zealots thump their Bibles so much, they forget to read it from time to time.

We worry so much about the immorality of one website, when the gross immorality of our current dispensation should alarm us more. The Puritanist values should really be given a rest already.

Unless the NBI people are willing to play nice, and willing to give this due process, then I guess it’s obvious what the cry has to be... FREE FAD!

Thursday, May 28, 2009

On Professional Courtesy In Magic

In light of finding out someone ripped my magic off today, and after having him flaunt it in my face that he did precisely that, I figured it would just be fair that I write this...

.:On Professional Courtesy: An Ethical Issue:.

There are many issues on professional courtesy in magic, whether undercutting other magicians and the like, but allow me to discuss the most glaring one: outright plagiarism of other magicians.

In the age of torrents and YouTube and piracy, people seem to forget their manners. The internet is indeed the perfect place for people to act as if the rules of propriety and respect don’t apply, but just because everybody does it does not make it right.

As magicians, especially professional magicians, we invest into our material. From purchasing videos and books to watching seminars, learning from other fellow performers, learning the history of our routines, and never performing routines if we can’t do them justice.

Magic has always been an industry of secrets, and we have seen unscrupulous magicians in the past, dating all the way back to the heyday of Vaudeville, who would actually steal each other’s routines. While we do not have true ownership of our tricks, the presentations we employ, and even the inspiration for routines we come up with or appropriate for ourselves, are issues that we must be sensitive towards.

We are no longer in an era where people actively sabotage each other in the realm of magic solely to get ahead in this industry. There is indeed still competition, but in general, competition has not eliminated the concept of simple professional courtesy to each other. If we know a particular magician has developed a reputation based on a particular routine or presentation, we don’t try to upstage them by using the same routine on their time. It’s common professional courtesy.

I remember when Mr. Sonny Minoza taught me one of his prized routines, the one where he stands and has several people push a stick he is holding, and they are unable to push Mr. Minoza. I am unaware if this is originally his, but he taught me the routine, and gave me the blessing to perform it, except on television. Out of respect to the man, I complied, and he has never had a problem with me when it comes to that. Even during a Comedy Cartel show where Mr. JB Dela Cruz performed psychokinesis, despite requests that I perform the same thing after the show for some friends of a comedian, I declined, citing that another performer has done the same thing a while ago. Consider that I have built a reputation as a performer based on the psychokinesis routine, and you would get an idea of how stringent I am when it comes to giving due respect to fellow magicians.

While some people may rightly point out that I have no legal leg to stand on, I was never a legalist when it comes to my love for magic. What I have always emphasized, though, was the need to be an ethical performer, such that we do not act in a way that degrades the art form of magic, nor act in a way oppressive to our other fellow magicians. It’s basic good manners and right conduct. You don’t have to be a magician or an ethicist to know that if someone gave you a good idea, you thank them for it, or better yet, ask their permission to use it, especially if you’re making money off of it. I don’t think it’s too much to ask. Do you?

Look... if you didn’t pay to learn your magic, whether you learned it from YouTube or a friend taught it to you, learn to give the source credit. If you actually have a way to reach the actual source of the routine, you actually ought to ask their permission for it, because that’s their intellectual property. Even a simple translation of patter from English to Filipino already means that the new Filipino patter you’re using is already the Filipino speaker’s intellectual property. As a general rule of thumb, if it’s not yours and you didn’t pay for it, you ask permission and you give credit. This is their livelihood. If you want it to be your livelihood as well, you better learn to respect the intellectual property rights of your fellow professionals.

I’ve been beset with acts of sheer unprofessionalism in the past. Whether it’s an unprofessional client who strings you along until the last possible minute and then backs out on booking you, or an unprofessional colleague who actually grandstands and performs one of your routines despite the fact that you booked him not as a magician but as an aura reader, I’ve experienced these disappointing acts.

By no means did I tolerate them then. By no means will I tolerate them now. As a professional, I hold myself to a higher standard. I do not believe I should expect any less from a fellow "professional".

This particular performer has done this to another magician before, and I’m sure that I won’t be the last person he’d rip off from. He ripped off this other magician’s routine, then had the nerve to ask this other magician if he could get the music this other magician used when he performed the routine. This is outrageous! Why are we tolerating this kind of behaviour? The routining, the wording, everything about the magic act is somebody’s intellectual property. Ripping that off wholesale is just shameful and a slap in the face of all the magicians who work hard to improve their craft.

As a professional, I have always emphasized ethical behaviour, and key to that is respect for the art form and for the artists. Even though my stand on exposure has always been liberal, I have never used that as an excuse to disrespect other performers and thinkers. I invested time, money, and even my intellect into coming up with routines that fit my personality and fit my character onstage, using words that suit my character best. If I learned something by watching, say, a YouTube video, I make sure to credit, or if I can reach the performer, ask permission from the performer, to use a certain approach or nuance to a given effect.

Simply put, when in doubt, I research. That way, I can credit and ask permission. If I want to get anywhere in this industry, throwing away my professionalism is the worst thing I can do, because being unprofessional assures me that I will not only earn the ire of my contemporaries, but I will also alienate my clients who expect me to be on my best behaviour. When you’re being paid an average worker’s entire monthly salary for a mere half-hour of your time, there is no reason to take shortcuts and to shortchange the people who have it made it possible for you to have that kind of livelihood.

As a person who is only getting into standup comedy, I actually see that there is so much more leeway in magic when it comes to intellectual property. Since many magic routines incorporate the same principles, since so many performers technically sell not only the routine but their performance itself, we seem to think that we are entitled to rip off anything we see from other performers. Standup comedy, being the way it is, is downright strict: you don’t use another comedian’s jokes, period. Would I say that magicians have been spoiled and don’t understand what it means to respect another person’s body of work? I would say that some magicians are, but certainly not all.

Newsflash: we are not entitled to do whatever we want to do just because. When you’re being paid thousands of bucks to do what you do, is it so much to ask for a little credit from the people who gave you the idea to do what you do? Or is it already second nature for you to screw them over and not care about their livelihood, their efforts, and their intellectual property? If it is, really, you’re in the wrong line of work. If you can’t respect the art form and the artists, magic is not for you.

As a performer who has been nothing but respectful to everyone in the industry, as a performer who refuses to speak ill of contemporaries to laypeople, as a performer who has taken the pains to write his own material and line up his routines painstakingly to maximize his client’s entertainment, and ultimately, as a performer who takes pride in his body of work, I have done nothing but show my utmost love and respect for my art form.

With this kind of respect I have given to my art, am I supposed to take lightly any disrespect to me as an artist?

I don’t think so.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Beginning To Understand An Ethics Of Deception

.:Why Mentalism?:.

For someone who wishes to write a dissertation on the ethics of deception for his doctorate, it's a bit odd that the particular branch I specialize in would be mentalism, which is just a stone's throw from the charlatans of our times, the mediums and the quacks who try to pass off their abilities as genuine supernatural abilities that make their clients hang on to every single word they have to say.

While I do enjoy mentalism, I deliberately keep the opportunities for my audience to be influenced beyond my performance to a minimum, because I really do not want the kind of responsibility that comes with shaping people's lives through a reading of their personality that, while most of the time accurate, is still never foolproof. Reading a person involves psychology, insight, and quite an amount of guesswork, so the fact that you will influence a person, and unlike a teacher, cannot follow up on the effect you managed to catalyze in them.

As a teacher, if I would shape a student, I would have the ability to guide that influence in the proper direction, because I know I would deal with my students often enough to be able to do so. As a mentalist however, I have no such capability since more often than not, that will be the first and the last time I would ever meet that person. Thus, that being the case, I cannot help but underscore that while I certainly have the potential to read people to a tee when I do mentalism, I have little choice but to not rely on it as much lest I influence people adversely.

Despite that obvious conflict, mentalism is still arguably my favorite branch of the art, because it stands as arguably the last bastion of the art, insofar as in a world of special effects and made-for-tv magic, mentalism still holds the morally ambiguous distinction as one of the truest forms of the art that still remains, because of the simplicity of its nature and its dependence on an audience that is not out to see the performer fail.

I choose mentalism because it taps into the unexplored realms of the human person's abilities: it taps into the sense of wonder, yet at the same time is grounded in reality because in a time where everything can seemingly be summed up handily by science, the small nagging questions about clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and telepathy, still hold an allure all its own that few other things in this planet can hope to even approximate.

Mentalism may not require you to have knuckle-busting skill, but the kind of mindset you must constantly and consistently will yourself into when performing does not come easy, even for those with an innate gift for it, as it were. It requires restraint, subtlety, and showmanship all at the same time, and the mix one needs to endeavor into these three factors are unique to mentalism all its own.

Ultimately, as someone who wishes to specialize in ethics for Philosophy, mentalism proves to be a lived example of the fine line that only it manages to cross with much aplomb, that fine line between ethics and deception.