Adam Phillips's public lectures are very dry because of his sheer reluctance to engage with the audience. It is very easy to loose attention and he knows it. He just reads from a paper without explaining or making it apparent for the audience with examples. However, his one to one interviews are similarly enjoyable. I guess his professional practice as a psychoanalyst has something to do with his lack of attention towards a public audience and his mastery of explanation in a room setting interview type conversations.
Yes it's terribly boring to listen to, and you can tell he rushes through it and doesn't seem to enjoy it either. I really enjoy his interview style conversations. His books can be similarly dry though, although better than how it feels here.
Perhaps it would be best not to look at the lecturer, but to treat this as a radio broadcast. I find this talk-as always with Adam Phillips-a fascinating verbal performance, a poetic weaving of works and syntax (he often rephrases or makes more precise by 'turning round' the syntax, as if testing out an idea), a mental work-out for the listener, left amazed that simple language can create such interesting ideas, grasped occasionally, then escaping understanding. The ideas of other lecturers often escape our understanding too, but this is usually because of obscure language and a avoidance of underlining by repetition or rephrasing, by-over-dense structure. Adam Phillips, on the other hand, 'makes language' like 'making music': teasing things out-varying phrases, repeating themes, developing structures.
@07010431 - obviously you aren't speaking about this talk because the entire thing comprised of presenting ideas via examples and explaining repeatedly the connections. Also, I think you used 'similarly' incorrectly: I believe that you wanted to express the difference between his talks and his one to one conversations - so similarly doesn't work. Perhaps 'in contrast' ?
@@jackdawcaw4514 0 I'm 48 minutes in and no rushing yet. In fact, (even though my hearing isn't brilliant) I have understood every word spoken because he speaks clearly and at a reasonable tempo. Also, despite reading from a paper, I have found this interesting and he does occasionally look up and engage with the audience - not often I grant you - but I haven't had the feeling that he isn't enjoying himself. As a literature PhD student this type of talk (and the idea of attention/loss of attention) is extremely interesting and potentially useful for my own research and textual approach.
3:46
is the. presentation. a. means. of. provoking. an. irritated. attention. whichthelistener. should. reflect. on. re. self problems
Adam Phillips's public lectures are very dry because of his sheer reluctance to engage with the audience. It is very easy to loose attention and he knows it. He just reads from a paper without explaining or making it apparent for the audience with examples.
However, his one to one interviews are similarly enjoyable. I guess his professional practice as a psychoanalyst has something to do with his lack of attention towards a public audience and his mastery of explanation in a room setting interview type conversations.
Yes it's terribly boring to listen to, and you can tell he rushes through it and doesn't seem to enjoy it either. I really enjoy his interview style conversations. His books can be similarly dry though, although better than how it feels here.
Perhaps it would be best not to look at the lecturer, but to treat this as a radio broadcast. I find this talk-as always with Adam Phillips-a fascinating verbal performance, a poetic weaving of works and syntax (he often rephrases or makes more precise by 'turning round' the syntax, as if testing out an idea), a mental work-out for the listener, left amazed that simple language can create such interesting ideas, grasped occasionally, then escaping understanding. The ideas of other lecturers often escape our understanding too, but this is usually because of obscure language and a avoidance of underlining by repetition or rephrasing, by-over-dense structure. Adam Phillips, on the other hand, 'makes language' like 'making music': teasing things out-varying phrases, repeating themes, developing structures.
@@richarddury1 Your approach is the same as mine. A sort of weird podcast - like a provocative story.
@07010431 - obviously you aren't speaking about this talk because the entire thing comprised of presenting ideas via examples and explaining repeatedly the connections. Also, I think you used 'similarly' incorrectly: I believe that you wanted to express the difference between his talks and his one to one conversations - so similarly doesn't work. Perhaps 'in contrast' ?
@@jackdawcaw4514 0 I'm 48 minutes in and no rushing yet. In fact, (even though my hearing isn't brilliant) I have understood every word spoken because he speaks clearly and at a reasonable tempo. Also, despite reading from a paper, I have found this interesting and he does occasionally look up and engage with the audience - not often I grant you - but I haven't had the feeling that he isn't enjoying himself.
As a literature PhD student this type of talk (and the idea of attention/loss of attention) is extremely interesting and potentially useful for my own research and textual approach.