Growl...I am (a story of a lecture)

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

…awake

some will probably think of this as “stirring up old deamons” …but i would like to think that i have grown to be older and wiser. Definetely older!

anyway, i was listening to a lecture the other day and about half of the bloody lecture was the introduction from the lecturer about himself.

He started by introducing himself, all good and proper i suppose. then he talked about the schools he had been to and gotten this or that degree from. After that (about 20 minutes of masterclass behavioral psychologist gratuation stories) he started telling about the various jobs and charity work performed by “me, myself and i”.

yawn, when was he going to get to the :mad: point! i came here to listen to a lecture about constructivism (ill get theese isms someday!) not listen to the story of his life.

that finally over he started the lecture…a mighty fine lecture if i might say so even if i didnt agree with everything the guy said.

now, this got me thinking. a way back i was “debating” various strategies of quoting and other oddities of speech. I asked myself:

“if he wouldnt have introduced himself like he did would i have dismissed his lecture as ravings of an amateur?”

before i say anything else i would like to take you back a few years to when i was taking a course in how to make a speech. my teacher told me that under no circumstances should i apologize before giving my speech. dont say: “i didnt have much time to prepare…blah blah blah” and things like that. that will put the mind of the listener to an alert and negative (towards you) state.

another teacher tried teaching me what “thinking without predudices” is and how to acomplish such a feat. “always question your own opinions” he said. “even question the quesitons of your opinion”.

(hang on, back to topic now)

“wait a minute!” i say. if i can think without predudices, my mind and ideas free from the burdens of steriotypes and labels, why should it matter to the lecturer that i know who he is? what he will tell me will be processed by an independent thought machine that doesnt care what he is, only the content of what he says.

so, the purpose of this “preperation” speech he gave (according to me speech teacher) would be to make the minds of the listeners more acceptable to what he is going to say. something like “belive me because ive done this and that and i know what i am talking about!”.

to me as an independent thought machine (i hope) this is an insult…or at least a waste of time. but then again, the lecturer cant be sure that everyone in the audience is free of predudices and/or bigotry.

there then, this is the sum of all our problems. my view is that people not free of predudices and bigotry shouldnt be allowed to voice their opinion - but how much a bigot am i saying that? so, thats not what i say. i say i will listen to all the bigots in the world, hear all their predudices and “wrong/wierd” opinions (why did i use the word “wierd”?). i will hear them all and hopefully disagree. because if i dont ill be a bigot myself.

(read this last paragraph trough a couple of times to make sure you got what i am trying to say)

the question i need to ask myself is: “can i afford to be misunderstood”, or as the poet said: “im just a soul whose intentions are good. oh, lord. please dont let me be misunderstood”.

reflecting on my own OP here i realize i did not make proper introductions to prepare you for what you are reading - yet, i am not going to scroll up and add that to the top of my post because then this comment will not be needed.

possibly i could have made proper introductions, to make your mind more acceptable to my “logic”…but as i said earlier, i find that insulting to your criticizing tought process.

bj0rn - take care…

2

Moving this, obviously, to MPSIMS.

3

Seems like a public speaker shouldn’t have to ramble on about himself. Unless he’s incredibly famous or renowned or something, why do I care?

Get to the point, I say. Make your case. Present your argument. If I want to know about you, it will likely be AFTER I’ve heard what you have to say.

4

You have to understand that the majority of lecturers have virtually no training in all in teaching theory our public speaking. Although deplorable, it IS status quo and its not at all surprising that many lecturers have abysmally shocking lecture skills.

5

It’s also possible that he’s just an egomaniac, and enjoys bragging about his accomplishments.

Or that he’s actually very insecure, and feels like he has to bolster his lectures by proving that he DOES have some standing to talk about the subject at hand.

6

uhm…well. obviosly (or not!) i was misunderstood.

who the bloody cares about the lecturer and his lecturing skills. he just got me thinking about an age old subject, something socrates himself make a case of in his Phaedrus.

Master Wang-Ka: sure, would that be to know where he got the “knowledge” or just for the pleasure of making aquaintance?

the problem is: how do you present your case so you can be sure your audience accepts your logic. by definition logic should work for itself, otherwise it wouldnt be logic now would it?

if you are not granted acceptance does that mean the definition of logic is faulty or that your oratory skills are? or possibly the third option, the audience is not prepared to hear your logic because they arent “educated” enough.

does logic itself need preperation? do i have to prepare you that what i am about to say is true because of my background. some would say my background works against me…but thats a different story.

given that my logic is faulty i have made a huge mistake and seriously need to reconsider my thought processing.
given that my oratory skills are faulty, i guess i have got to work on them more and try to present my case at a later time.
given that you are not prepared to listen to my logic, well then…there isnt much i can do about that except perhaps help you on your way to the light.

given of course the light i have seen is “the” light. i at least have managed to locate a lamp bright enough for me to see what i am looking at. whether there is something in the darkness beond…i guess there is but i cant see it.

thus i can only work with what i have. and what i have is a “poor” lecturer. a philosophy teacher and some texts about proper quoting and oratory skills from socrates.

oh, and of course my bigot-free thought process (hopefully)

what i am aiming at is perhaps rather vague, easily lost in the confusion of poor writing skills.

but i ask, does that matter? should not the logic (if any) shine through and be self sufficient?

bj0rn - …try not to stare into the light, stare AT the light.