Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
Jussi, I feel that what you have given us is what I would categorise as "modern marketing theory" (...)
But can we scratch a wee bit deeper than this?
Maybe what you have written is touching on what I'm trying to get at, but I feel it is touching on it as an overlay, not as a part of the foundation. (...)
Perhaps you may care to think a little more on this question?
|
Greetings Mr. Maisey,
I was not implying to marketing or advertising per se but what lies beneath it. - Yes, advertising tries to exploit the phenomena we are talking about by riding on top of it hoping to catch the wave (and building them from scratch) so to speak but the phenomena we are addressing is
born within - not something that can be put forth from outside unless there is a craving already.
We humans want to go further and achieve our goals of which the highest is happiness (self-actualization). We become happy by advancing towards our goals. What ever might be associated with happiness thus becomes a vehicle that could take us towards it. Buying and money per se have absolutely nothing to do with it except that they have become the norm to get them vehicles which one uses to close with what one identifies as the bringer of oneness I. happiness. This is why a
fake Vermeer is not OK. If it were one would willingly accept
redemption.
Would one willingly choose a fake God on his side?
No. This is why we accept to sacrifice (pay) a lot for the original but become angered if deceived. - Whilst both the original and fake might appear similar in appearance it is only the original which has the power to bring us closer to oneness / happiness.
In my opinion the story per se is therefore not it.
It is the
values embedded within and evoked by the story that are it. The story is merely a vehicle to get to the source which paradoxically or not lies within our very own value system and the preconception formed by it. We humans are, by nature, social predators. Thus there is "always" a social element in everything we do whether the act itself be of a social nature or not. An act done in seclusion of, say in ones own study room, has therefore a "social element" in it as it as it is the
lack of the social elements that make´s the act (ritual) special for the performer of it. Thus, say for example a collector of kerises may feel genuine oneness I. happiness when he is performing his monthly ritual of oiling his ORIGINAL kerises.
The act (here oiling) thus becomes a physical manifestation - a ritual if you will - of the pursuit of self-actualization I. happiness by coming closer with - choose - and what one deems as "it". It has been said that a "man is the image of God". By closing and advancing what one feels is "true", "original" and "right" one becomes closer to oneness I. being happy by performing them "divine" acts.
What these acts are or what vehicles are used is mere surface level noise. What is important is what values we attach to these acts and vehicles, why and how this happens, how do we "label" new things of either belonging or not belonging (separating) to the same camp with what we deem "worthy" and "good", how do we come up with what is "good" etc?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
Why did Josh Bell take $32 in the subway on one day, and $25,000 the following day when he climbed onto a stage?
|
Because both audiences recognized the authenticity and divinity of the performance. The zeros in the physical manifestation of these acknowledgments is irrelevant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
What is going on in our minds?
|
That indeed is a good question.