Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Media-Re: [anthroposophy] children/karma/questions....

Expand Messages
  • Danny F.
    ... You very well described what I called Ahrimanic. Cold, static, observer, (no need for imagination, putting to sleep the higher cognitive functions,
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 30, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      --- "Joel A. Wendt" <hermit@...> wrote:
      > Dear Danny,
      >
      > I don't know if it was "ahrimanic" in nature, but it was a
      > somewhat true
      > phenomenolgocial observation. McClune (sp?) spoke of whether media
      > was hot
      > or cold (according to how the "observer" related to it). He found
      > television to be cold (static involvment etc), and made the point
      > that it
      > wasn't the content of television that was relevant, but the medium
      > itself
      > (its uninvolved - cool - nature). That the "medium is the message"
      > meant
      > (as I understand it) that from our modern culture came a form of
      > media which
      > effectively dis-involved the individual (no need for imagination,
      > putting to
      > sleep the higher cognitive functions, etc.). Thus television was, in
      > itself, a "message", in spite of its "content".
      >
      > warm regards,
      > joel

      You very well described what I called Ahrimanic. Cold, static,
      observer, "(no need for imagination,
      putting to sleep the higher cognitive functions, etc.)",
      the thing in itself as it appear to the senses plain and dry,
      as killing as it can be for the individual and everything
      above the mineral kingdom. To trigger that which will be of
      an automatic answer on the part of the individual, something
      that has punch. This is the soul that get punched though.
      That which is of a repetitive nature end to act as will,
      and condition. The medias as a result are getting to be
      the marketing place 'par excellence' for absolutely
      everything. Everything of a popular nature create that which
      is of the nature of a pressure, swallow and assimilate. The
      "mainstream" has such a power of determinism that whatever
      comes to reach it will have independent life; this is called
      creating an event, and ultimately a reality. Having the medium
      as message is a great power of determinism and illusion using
      a one-sidedness, for based on appearances.
      That's true and efficient as long as the sense
      activity succeed to encroach and become the "leaven" of a
      materialistic self-sufficiency. Spiritual Science will continue
      to "float" and dwell around as Christ in the etheric. The space
      where it seem that there's nothing but allow movement might be lot
      richer than the one that stop movement. Let's move, let's take the
      good 'train' of thoughts, may the etheric be the medium!

      Danny


      =====
      "Anthroposophy does not want to impart knowledge.
      It seeks to awaken life."

      --Rudolf Steiner

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Talk to your friends online and get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
      http://im.yahoo.com/
    • Danny F.
      The actual pattern and tendency in the media is actually as follow: To see = understanding To be there = to know Repeating = confirming (circular circulation
      Message 2 of 13 , May 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        The actual pattern and tendency in the media is actually as follow:

        To see = understanding
        To be there = to know
        Repeating = confirming (circular circulation of the information)
        I there's no image = no event

        This really point to a self-sufficient sense activity no?
        When the senses come to bear what does not belong to them
        they become instruments of the evil. If the medium is the message,
        then the senses must become 'Reason' in itself no? Totally
        Ahrimanic...

        Danny


        =====
        "Anthroposophy does not want to impart knowledge.
        It seeks to awaken life."

        --Rudolf Steiner

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Talk to your friends online and get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
        http://im.yahoo.com/
      • Jo Ann Schwartz
        Hi Danny-- I think it s fair to say that much of the media manipulation we are subjected to is not aimed at reason at all, but at the lower brain functions---
        Message 3 of 13 , May 1, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Danny--

          I think it's fair to say that much of the media manipulation we are
          subjected to is not aimed at reason at all, but at the lower brain
          functions--- the 'lizard brain' as Phil Agre terms it in the following
          piece...

          love & light,
          JoAnn


          =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
          This message was originally posted via the Red Rock Eater News Service
          (RRE). You are welcome to send the message along to others but please
          do not use the "redirect" option. For information about RRE, including
          instructions for (un)subscribing, see
          http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html
          =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

          [snip]
          RRE readers wrote to scorn Wired News and its false assertion that
          Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. These readers were
          especially scornful of the article's petty conclusion:

          High-visibility events can be prone to embarrassing slip-ups.
          At one recent White House event, Gore introduced Cisco Systems
          CEO John Chambers, who he had met with privately earlier that day.

          Gore told the audience how much he valued Chambers and one of
          the products Cisco produced. But he mispronounced "routers" as
          root-ers.

          Paul Hoffman of the Internet Mail Consortium, for example, wrote from
          the IETF meeting in Australia to say that:

          I believe that at least 10% of the people in the IETF pronounce
          it as rooter. That percentage goes up when you talk to people who
          actually develop routing protocols.

          This is certainly my experience, and others said much the same.
          Besides, it can't be easy to say "rowter" with a Tennessee accent.
          Give the man a break, or at least know what you're talking about.

          There's also this passage:

          Gore has taken credit for popularizing the term "information
          superhighway" and around 1991 penned related articles for
          publications such as Byte magazine. But the term "data highway"
          has been used as far back as 1975, before Gore entered Congress.

          Notice the sleight of hand. I'm not sure how one could have been
          alive in 1994 and deny that Gore popularized the term "information
          superhighway". But Wired News doesn't actually deny Gore's claim.
          Yes, similar phrases were "used" earlier, but by no stretch had
          those phrases been popularized. Here we see a relatively new
          pattern: scoffing at a statement that is true, giving the impression
          that it is false without actually denying it.

          This business about Gore supposedly claiming to have invented the
          Internet would be trivial, comparable to the question of whether Dan
          Quayle really misspelled the word "potato", if it were not part of
          such a pattern. The media by now has gone through numerous episodes
          of echo-chamber hysteria, accusing time Gore of lying, exaggerating,
          shading the truth, and even being mentally ill, based on stories
          that were simply false. And not just arguably false or somewhat
          false, but just plain factually-not-true false. You've heard them:
          Al Gore falsely claimed to have inspired the novel "Love Story",
          the author vehemently denied that what Gore said was true, and Gore
          admitted that he had been making it up. Gore falsely claimed to
          have worked on a farm as a child. Gore claimed to have discovered
          Love Canal. And Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. These
          stories are by far the most common examples adduced in support of
          the idea that Gore exaggerates, and they are all false. Every last
          one of them. Completely wrong. Yet the pattern goes on and on and
          on without anybody but a few nuts on the Internet pointing it out.

          And unlike the 1990s fabrications about Bill Clinton that made a
          roundabout journey from right-wing chat rooms to the Daily Telegraph
          to conservative op-ed columns to Congressional inquiries to the
          front pages of serious newspapers, most of these fabrications have
          originated with political reporters from the Washington Post, the
          New York Times, and other serious publications. (In this sense,
          the Wired News case is an exception -- a throwback to the old model
          of scandalizing bottom-feeders.) Few of these howling falsehoods
          has ever been retracted in any serious way -- in contrast, say, to
          the time that the New York Times retracted a perfectly true story
          about the anti-Semitic sources of Pat Robertson's writing. And many
          of them continue to be repeated with impunity long after they have
          been exposed.

          Isn't anybody else alarmed at this pattern? What is perhaps most
          disturbed about it is its lizard-brain logic: the media stars who
          exaggerate and lie by falsely accusing Al Gore of exaggerating and
          lying are not just hypocrites; they are very compactly projecting
          their own wrongdoing into the object of their abuse. This kind of
          projection is the most primitive and the most dangerous of lizard-
          brain thought processes. If you stand back and look at it logically
          -- something that the strong emotions and cognitive fragmentation
          of the lizard brain conspire to make difficult -- then you see
          something scary. The people who issue whole reams of false and
          exaggerated accusations against various supposed enemies of society
          are in fact everything that they claim the objects of their abuse
          to be. It's not just that they are making a horrible caricature
          of their enemies; they are, right before our eyes and yet somehow
          almost invisibly, making themselves into something just exactly
          that horrible. In their minds they are confronting the devil, but
          in their hearts they are becoming him.

          I therefore found it particularly distressing when a small number
          of actual readers of this mailing list wrote to explain that, really,
          Al Gore *did* claim to have invented the Internet. In each case
          their reasoning proceeded by taking Gore's words out of context and
          saying something like, "'creating' does sort of mean 'inventing',
          doesn't it?". What's distressing is the unhappy sense that I am
          not talking to a human being. Anybody could look at Gore's words
          and see perfectly well what they meant. Their most straightforward
          interpretation was not modest, to be sure, but it was entirely true.
          The Internet pioneers who spoken on the matter haven't bothered to
          play word games about it, but their statements provide considerably
          more support for Gore's claim than anything the solitaire-playing
          governor of Texas has provided for *any* of his claimed "reform"
          accomplishments.

          Yet these people, having persuaded themselves that Al Gore is an
          exaggerator, claim to be able to discern extra meanings hidden in
          his words. They twist them and bend them and place interpretations
          on them that are completely arbitrary, and yet in their minds it is
          not they who are twisting language. Rather, it was Gore who twisted
          the language, and they are untwisting it. This is more projection.
          In working themselves around to this position, they have checked
          themselves out of the community of normal speakers of English --
          the one whose members, regardless of their politics, can listen
          to a phrase of the shared language and take for granted a grown-up
          agreement on what elements of meaning it does and does not contain.
          Their thought processes are out of control: whatever constraint
          an ordinary person might feel from the demands of logic or meaning,
          these people have liberated themselves from. Their enemies are
          totally evil, they've decided, and capable of anything, and so
          their reasoning about those enemies does not require any rational
          constraint or scruple either.

          But this is not a matter of individual psychopathology. I don't
          know whether these people are clinically disturbed or not. But I do
          know that they are cultivating a dangerous set of thought-patterns
          whose origins lie in the black arts of public relations. Here is
          the basic formula, which is repeated innumerable times every day:

          (1) Start with a "message", call it M. (Political people such as
          Newt Gingrich use the term "strategy".) The message has to be vague
          enough that small handfuls of facts cannot refute it but forceful
          enough that people who don't like it will feel obliged to refute it.
          Messages typically take the form of primitive associations, such as
          an association between "Gore" and "exaggeration". It should ideally
          be epitomized in a simple adjective-noun phrase such as "tenured
          radicals", "environmental wackos", "liberal media", or "Al Gore's
          preposterous claims".

          (2) Research a set of "facts" that, taken in whatever context you
          choose to present them, seem to provide support for M. "Facts" is
          the PR term of art, as in "liberals ignore facts!". These "facts"
          might be examples -- the outrageous left-wing college professor
          of the week, the latest wacky proposal from environmentalists, the
          latest fragment of news reporting that does not hew closely to the
          conservative party line, Gore's latest outrageous story. It doesn't
          matter whether these "facts" are true, or how trivial they might
          be, or how representative, or whether any numbers they contain are
          based on any rational methodology. Just have a lot of them.

          (3) Start feeding the message through various media outlets. Talk
          radio hosts are always starving for material. Syndicated columnists
          often get their research predigested from interest groups that they
          support. Members of Congress can gain politically by getting out
          in front of new issues that are likely to have organized campaigns
          behind them. In each case, the finished product will consist of a
          batch of invective that hypergeneralizes from a few facts to support
          the chosen message.

          (4) Keep it up. Repetition counts. You haven't succeeded until
          you get the media echo-chamber effect going, and that requires your
          message to be ingrained in the media discourse. So produce more
          facts in the same series. Get them out there. Because about now,
          a few questioning voices, having conducted research of their own,
          will start pointing out that your "facts" are either misleading or
          false. The correct answer is, "that doesn't matter -- what matters
          is M" or "the reason that people find that claim so plausible is M"
          or "there's something wrong with you for defending those lowlifes --
          given the overwhelming evidence for M, nobody could sanely disagree
          with it". Once you get to this point, you've won.

          (5) Start weaving messages together. Your goal is to ingrain your
          message, M, into the mental equipment of everyone in the society,
          or at least everyone in your electoral coalition. You want them
          to start seeing the world that way, to notice supporting evidence
          for your message (and not to notice contrary evidence), to get snide
          or outraged or whatever in each case, and to mock and browbeat your
          enemies. Once your enemies have internalized this abuse, they will
          respond with helplessness and despair. With time, you will be able
          to say things that are just completely false, and nobody of any
          significance will challenge you.

          This strategy obviously requires massive access to the media. It
          does not require that one literally control the media. But it does
          require a professional understanding of the dynamics of the media,
          which is why so many former reporters have gone to work -- at higher
          salaries -- in the public relations business. You might think that
          it requires that one's opponents *not* have massive access to the
          media, inasmuch as a sufficiently mobilized opponent will be able
          to call you on your distortions in real time. But in recent years
          we have seen this whole strategy executed at its pathological worst
          to tear down a sitting President, and now a sitting Vice President
          and leading presidential candidate. When the media said something
          bad about Newt Gingrich -- instigated in many cases, no doubt
          about it, by liberals using these same methods -- Gingrich could
          count on massive air cover from the conservative media. Clinton
          and Gore do have a few defenders in the media, but the sheer amount
          of slime they have confronted, and the sheer amount of complicity
          in the slime that the New York Times especially has displayed, has
          routinely overwhelmed the vast media-control resources of the White
          House. If the White House doesn't have a dozen supportive op-ed
          columnists shooting down every incoming round, then White House
          officials have to do the shooting themselves, and this doesn't work
          nearly as well.

          At the end of the day, the major victims of these sorts of campaigns
          are not the people they denounce. Yes, a lot of people working for
          the Clintons have had their reputations and bank accounts ruined
          by reckless accusations, abusive investigations, talk-radio slander,
          and all of the rest. But those people know that they are ultimately
          in the right, and they will retain their sanity and get over it.
          The real victims are the rank-and-file of the screamers, the people
          who go around snidely thanking Al Gore for his fine inventions and
          sarcastically chortling, "I guess I'm not being politically correct
          here, haw haw haw". That's right, those people are the real victims.
          In the course of abusing others, they cultivate and internalize a
          disturbed set of thought-patterns that may or may not be clinical,
          but that will certainly condemn them to great oppression one day.
          These are the mental chains of conservatism. These chains are not
          pretty things. They are made of rage and dissociation, projection
          and irrationality. Their ultimate object of abuse is not Al Gore,
          or liberals, but rather the healthy and sane parts of the abuser's
          own mind, which unless rescued will sink into corruption and terror
          so profound that only God can really understand it.



          --- "Danny F." <premabrahma@...> wrote:
          >
          > The actual pattern and tendency in the media is actually as follow:
          >
          > To see = understanding
          > To be there = to know
          > Repeating = confirming (circular circulation of the information)
          > I there's no image = no event
          >
          > This really point to a self-sufficient sense activity no?
          > When the senses come to bear what does not belong to them
          > they become instruments of the evil. If the medium is the message,
          > then the senses must become 'Reason' in itself no? Totally
          > Ahrimanic...
          >
          > Danny
          >
          >
          > =====
          > "Anthroposophy does not want to impart knowledge.
          > It seeks to awaken life."
          >
          > --Rudolf Steiner


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
          http://im.yahoo.com/
        • Danny F.
          ... ...nobody could sanely disagree with it . Once you get to this point, you ve won. The materialistic mind unfortunately has the sanity argument as a
          Message 4 of 13 , May 2, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Jo Ann Schwartz <sr_joanna@...> wrote:
            > Hi Danny--
            >
            > I think it's fair to say that much of the media manipulation we are
            > subjected to is not aimed at reason at all, but at the lower brain
            > functions--- the 'lizard brain' as Phil Agre terms it in the
            > following
            > piece...
            >
            > love & light,
            > JoAnn


            "...nobody could sanely disagree with it". Once you get to this point,
            you've won."

            The materialistic mind unfortunately has the "sanity" argument
            as a weapon on his side for having the sense world as
            natural ally. When the presence of this spectre is felt by the
            spiritual scientist, this is when he has to withdraw and become
            hypocritical...

            How much can really be disclosed openly of Spiritual Science yet?
            Not very much isn'it? When the pressure of being against and holding
            to the Threshold will have manifested all the ridiculous and dryness
            it can yield, maybe Spiritual Science will be welcome, but for now
            there is another 'train' of thoughts that bears and lead to "gravity"
            rather then "light". There's still some good thinkers here and there
            though..
            I just feel that there are things that an anthroposophist say that
            attract the Ahrimanic beings of the surrounding, either the
            listener(s)
            identify with these beings(much of the time) and it's over, or, dispel

            them and come to commune with the speaker and the content of the
            discourse. People have to come to a sovereignty over their thinking,
            an independent thinking, previous to that not much can be done in term
            of knowledge and transmission of it, we merely deal with Ahrimanic
            beings playing in the human thinking.

            Danny






            =====
            "Anthroposophy does not want to impart knowledge.
            It seeks to awaken life."

            --Rudolf Steiner

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
            http://im.yahoo.com/
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.