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

Re: think piece: Is the Internet good or bad for the Consciousness Soul?

Expand Messages
  • Frank Thomas Smith
    Robert Mason also posted this at Anthroposophy-World. See my reply: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_world/message/651 Frank ...
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 7, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Robert Mason also posted this at Anthroposophy-World. See my reply:
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_world/message/651

      Frank

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason
      <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
      >
      > To All:
      >
      > I ran across a blog by Michael A. Hoffman, who
      > was discussing the publication and promotion of
      > his new book:
      >
      <http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2008/07/war-of-ideas-and-promotion-of-judaism.html>
      >
      > For those who don't recognize the name, Hoffman
      > is one of the deeper of non-Anthro thinkers and
      > writers about the occult-political power
      > structure. I think he coined the term
      > *cryptocracy*. Unhappily, in the past year or
      > two censorship on the public Internet computers
      > that I use has been tightened, and so I can't
      > get to his website. But this blog isn't on his
      > site, and it slipped through.
      >
      > In the course of discussing his new publication
      > he does bring forth some interesting and
      > provocative ideas about the Internet and its
      > relation to the consciousness and practical
      > will of the public. Anthros may recall how
      > Steiner taught that the Consciousness Soul in
      > its outer, socio-political aspect arises
      > instinctively in the English-speaking peoples.
      > Of course, he said that almost a century ago,
      > and we are now forced to ask how and why there
      > so little of the Consciousness Soul culture
      > manifesting in present socio-political
      > formations, why the "sheople" are in such
      > abject thrall to the "elite". I have brought
      > some Anthroposophical musings by Gennady
      > Bondarev on this question; basically his answer
      > is that people (the world over) are under the
      > very effective influence of the "black magic"
      > of political occultisms of the Luciferic,
      > Ahrimanic, and Asuric kinds. We might also
      > consider, as have plenty of non-Anthro
      > observers, the soul-deadening power of mass
      > inoculations, fluoride poisoning, the
      > "deliberate dumbing down" by the "educational"
      > system, television, etc., etc. -- to which we
      > can now add the increasingly sophisticated
      > electro-psychotronic onslaught. (About this
      > last item, see here for one of the more
      > tech-savvy and less far-out accounts:
      > <http://www.bugsweeps.com/info/electronic_harassment.html>)
      >
      > But it does seem to many that the advent of the
      > Internet is working against the "power elite" -
      > - that it is the first really free "press" in
      > history, that it is enabling "the people" to
      > work effectively outside "the system", and
      > therefore that it may eventually enable "the
      > people" to inform themselves, to organize, and
      > (perhaps, hopefully) to change the realities of
      > socio-political power for the better. And
      > apparently, some of the "elite" seem to believe
      > that this is so; thus moves are in the works to
      > get control over the Net, with the "Internet 2"
      > scheme and so on. See, for example:
      > <http://www.infowars.com/?p=3753>
      >
      > Asking this question about the mini-world of
      > Anthro politics: One might think that the
      > Internet is decentralizing power; it seems
      > unlikely that the organizational turmoil of
      > recent years would have happened if people
      > outside the center of the Anthro organization
      > had not been able to communicate more freely
      > through the Internet than they had before. On
      > the other hand, we might observe that, even
      > after all the turmoil, the Anthro power
      > structure remains essentially the same as it
      > was before, and apparently with the support of
      > most Anthros.
      >
      > And enlarging this last observation to the
      > wider world, we might observe that the "power
      > elite" it still very much in power, and is
      > actively grabbing even more power -- and
      > apparently with the support of most of "the
      > people", at least passively, at least in the
      > USA. How can this be the case despite the
      > presumably liberating, pervasive presence of
      > the Internet?
      >
      > There is a book from an Anthro viewpoint by
      > Paul Emberson, *From Gondhishapur to Silicon
      > Valley*, which, unhappily, I haven't read yet.
      > But I gather that he follows up on Steiner's
      > idea that our machines are putting us into an
      > environment of Ahrimanic demons, extending
      > Steiner's idea to the idea that the pervasive
      > presence of computers is (perhaps?) putting us
      > ever more dangerously under the influence of
      > this demonic world. -- Maybe so; but now to
      > turn to Hoffman's thoughts:
      >
      > >>Does the Internet make us "stoopid"? It has
      > enlarged my own research and supplemented my
      > hard-copy reading; but books and journals are
      > still my central source of information and
      > enlightenment. One reason involves free
      > enterprise: the best writers, historians and
      > researchers are professionals, meaning of
      > course, that they earn their livelihood by
      > selling their work and consequently cannot
      > offer their writing and research free of
      > charge.
      >
      > >>Another reason touches on Marshall McLuhan's
      > "medium is the message" epigram. The Internet's
      > speed, abundance, distractions and format
      > contribute to a trivialization of information
      > on the road to the bromide, "Information is
      > power." Au contraire, people are confused by
      > competing and contradictory information-
      > overload and paralyzed by it; hence the eerie
      > silence in the heartland, as election after
      > election is stolen by vote fraud, as Jim Condit
      > Jr. has documented with the rip-off of Ron
      > Paul's primary votes, beginning with the Iowa
      > Straw Poll (without vote fraud, Paul would
      > probably have been the Republican candidate for
      > President).
      >
      > >>Information-overload is also paralyzing due
      > to its manifestation as amusement. Many people
      > imagine that the word amusement means joy. It
      > doesn't. It denotes distraction. There is a
      > whole genre of competing conspiracy theories
      > that have proved endlessly entertaining and
      > thrilling to millions of consumers of this
      > material who regard themselves as opponents and
      > critics of the System. Yet, other than acting
      > as an audience for conspiracy theories, they do
      > little or nothing because conspiracy theory on
      > the Internet is sometimes not an inspiration,
      > it's an amusement, a DIVERSION. Could some
      > forms of conspiracy theory-dissemination online
      > be a function of the Cryptocracy itself? Again,
      > the question is not asked.
      >
      > >>In pre-Internet days, even when television
      > reigned in the 1950s, millions of Americans
      > went on strike for weeks or months, and engaged
      > in street marches and protests. Going a bit
      > farther back in our history, in late 1931 a
      > Pennsylvania Catholic priest led an army of
      > 12,000 jobless men to rally for legislation for
      > unemployment insurance benefits. In May, 1932,
      > a mass of unemployed WWI vets, organized by
      > former factory laborer Walt Walters, arrived in
      > Washington DC calling themselves the "Bonus
      > Expeditionary Forces," and demanding early
      > payment of a bonus Congress had promised them
      > for their war service.
      >
      > >>If those grievances had occurred today
      > Americans online would be doing little more
      > than signing online petitions, blogging and e-
      > mailing. That's a good start but it's no
      > substitute for the kind of activism that
      > requires we undertake the seemingly Augean task
      > of walking out our front door.
      >
      > >>We are determined to get "Judaism Discovered"
      > [Hoffman's new book] noticed on the Internet,
      > which is undoubtedly very important, and in
      > newspapers and magazines, which is even more
      > important. Why? Because that's where the brains
      > are. This runs counter to the image of the
      > Brave New online pioneers with their futurism
      > born of science fiction supposedly replacing
      > the "obsolete" Gutenberg universe in a fevered
      > American rush for change for the sake of
      > change.
      >
      > >>But we counter with the fact that readers of
      > the printed page still think deeply and would
      > seem to be more active than Internet folk, in
      > spite of the legends of how "e-mail and blogs
      > aroused the grassroots!" Ron Paul certainly
      > benefited from just such electronic organizing
      > but there was no victory. Arousal there may be,
      > but consummation is another matter.
      >
      > >>Information is not power. The ability to
      > detect fraud is power. That ability has
      > atrophied in proportion of the extent to which
      > the printed page has been abandoned.
      > Coincidence?
      >
      > >>I'm hardly alone in this conviction. There is
      > a growing sense of an ominous decline in
      > intellectual ability. I hope you will take the
      > time to print out, read, contemplate and digest
      > the important essay, "Is Google Making Us
      > Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr, in this month's
      > Atlantic Monthly, at
      > http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
      > (click the "printer format" in the box at the
      > upper right).
      >
      > >>In spite of the notion that genius these days
      > comes in the shape of computer hackers and
      > software programmers in ripped jeans and
      > goatees, the elite, the people we aim to reach
      > with our new book, are predominately found
      > reading newspapers, books and magazines.
      > Whether they are a "dying breed" remains to be
      > seen. One of the tricks of the Cryptocracy is
      > what this writer terms, "predictive
      > programming," in this case to declare victory
      > in a war in which all the battles have not yet
      > been fought.<<
      >
      > -- Is that really WHERE THE BRAINS ARE -- still
      > in the realm of the print media?
      >
      > And is the Internet a net plus or a net minus
      > for the Consciousness Soul? -- My prejudice is
      > that it is a net plus, as least it seems to be
      > for me. I like the (relatively) free
      > availability of such vast information; it seems
      > to be "food for thought" that makes my
      > Consciousness Soul stronger. But I also have
      > to admit that it might be apt to become an
      > addictive distraction from "real life". And
      > maybe it makes my Attention Deficit Disorder
      > worse? I would think that it might well have
      > that tendency for people who do not regularly
      > practice meditational thinking.
      >
      > And in the wider socio-political realm? --
      > Well, we might compare the modern citizenry of
      > the USA to the revolutionary Minuteman and the
      > sturdy Jeffersonian-Jacksonian peasant on his
      > freehold. It seems a dismal comparison;
      > considering, for instance, the effective fight
      > in the early years of the Republic against a
      > private central bank, as compared to the supine
      > submission to the falsely so-called "Federal
      > Reserve System" over the past 95 years. -- But
      > on the other hand, maybe that sturdy peasant
      > is mostly an idealized phantasm of wishful,
      > ignorant nostalgia? The good old days couldn't
      > have been all that good; else how could they
      > have degenerated so badly into the present?
      >
      > Anyway . . .
      >
      > I don't know the answers to all these
      > questions. Right now, I'm just putting them
      > out there, hopefully as a springboard for
      > fruitful discussion. But this much seems
      > clear: the Internet is here, for better or for
      > worse, and we're going to have to live with it
      > as best we can.
      >
      > Robert Mason
      >
    • Albert S├índor
      Nice thoughts. I see how my karma has been working to teach me how to use the internet. One great difference between a spiritual man and a less spiritual one
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 7, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Nice thoughts. I see how my karma has been working to teach me how to use the internet. One great difference between a spiritual man and a less spiritual one is that the first sees processes and the intricate working of divine purpose in everything, while the other sees only their immediate effects, manifestations.
         
        I met many people who regard themselves as anthroposophists, while they can't pass their shallow, judgmental behaviour. Without my early passion to videogames, than through it, my passion towards computers, IT, I could never arrive to the independence where I am now. I own my own firm. I manage my own network. I have my employees, whom by their karma were lead to me, so we can help each other.
         
        Was this passion for virtual worlds beneficial ? Surely. Did it have also a dark, destructive side ? Most ceirtanly. While it was a great driving force, it also took a lot, and only recently I have been able to overcome it. I do not need it now, as I found my Will. But if there was not the lack of this Will, how could I have found it ?
         
        Those who judge others miss their karma. Indeed, adulterers and tax collectors often preceed the righteous. To err is good, to be slave of a strong passion, is good, as it takes you to hell, and only through hell we can rise. Surely there are people with better karmas, more spiritual, as I am only a beginner, but what do I care ? I have to walk my own path.
         
        We must be uncompromising with purselves, and forgiving with others. When we still do not know our own fate, how can we judge that of others' ?
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 9:39 PM
        Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] think piece: Is the Internet good or bad for the Consciousness Soul?

        To All:

        I ran across a blog by Michael A. Hoffman, who
        was discussing the publication and promotion of
        his new book:
        <http://revisionistr eview.blogspot. com/2008/ 07/war-of- ideas-and- promotion- of-judaism. html>

        For those who don't recognize the name, Hoffman
        is one of the deeper of non-Anthro thinkers and
        writers about the occult-political power
        structure. I think he coined the term
        *cryptocracy* . Unhappily, in the past year or
        two censorship on the public Internet computers
        that I use has been tightened, and so I can't
        get to his website. But this blog isn't on his
        site, and it slipped through.

        In the course of discussing his new publication
        he does bring forth some interesting and
        provocative ideas about the Internet and its
        relation to the consciousness and practical
        will of the public. Anthros may recall how
        Steiner taught that the Consciousness Soul in
        its outer, socio-political aspect arises
        instinctively in the English-speaking peoples.
        Of course, he said that almost a century ago,
        and we are now forced to ask how and why there
        so little of the Consciousness Soul culture
        manifesting in present socio-political
        formations, why the "sheople" are in such
        abject thrall to the "elite". I have brought
        some Anthroposophical musings by Gennady
        Bondarev on this question; basically his answer
        is that people (the world over) are under the
        very effective influence of the "black magic"
        of political occultisms of the Luciferic,
        Ahrimanic, and Asuric kinds. We might also
        consider, as have plenty of non-Anthro
        observers, the soul-deadening power of mass
        inoculations, fluoride poisoning, the
        "deliberate dumbing down" by the "educational"
        system, television, etc., etc. -- to which we
        can now add the increasingly sophisticated
        electro-psychotroni c onslaught. (About this
        last item, see here for one of the more
        tech-savvy and less far-out accounts:
        <http://www.bugsweep s.com/info/ electronic_ harassment. html>)

        But it does seem to many that the advent of the
        Internet is working against the "power elite" -
        - that it is the first really free "press" in
        history, that it is enabling "the people" to
        work effectively outside "the system", and
        therefore that it may eventually enable "the
        people" to inform themselves, to organize, and
        (perhaps, hopefully) to change the realities of
        socio-political power for the better. And
        apparently, some of the "elite" seem to believe
        that this is so; thus moves are in the works to
        get control over the Net, with the "Internet 2"
        scheme and so on. See, for example:
        <http://www.infowars .com/?p=3753>

        Asking this question about the mini-world of
        Anthro politics: One might think that the
        Internet is decentralizing power; it seems
        unlikely that the organizational turmoil of
        recent years would have happened if people
        outside the center of the Anthro organization
        had not been able to communicate more freely
        through the Internet than they had before. On
        the other hand, we might observe that, even
        after all the turmoil, the Anthro power
        structure remains essentially the same as it
        was before, and apparently with the support of
        most Anthros.

        And enlarging this last observation to the
        wider world, we might observe that the "power
        elite" it still very much in power, and is
        actively grabbing even more power -- and
        apparently with the support of most of "the
        people", at least passively, at least in the
        USA. How can this be the case despite the
        presumably liberating, pervasive presence of
        the Internet?

        There is a book from an Anthro viewpoint by
        Paul Emberson, *From Gondhishapur to Silicon
        Valley*, which, unhappily, I haven't read yet.
        But I gather that he follows up on Steiner's
        idea that our machines are putting us into an
        environment of Ahrimanic demons, extending
        Steiner's idea to the idea that the pervasive
        presence of computers is (perhaps?) putting us
        ever more dangerously under the influence of
        this demonic world. -- Maybe so; but now to
        turn to Hoffman's thoughts:

        >>Does the Internet make us "stoopid"? It has
        enlarged my own research and supplemented my
        hard-copy reading; but books and journals are
        still my central source of information and
        enlightenment. One reason involves free
        enterprise: the best writers, historians and
        researchers are professionals, meaning of
        course, that they earn their livelihood by
        selling their work and consequently cannot
        offer their writing and research free of
        charge.

        >>Another reason touches on Marshall McLuhan's
        "medium is the message" epigram. The Internet's
        speed, abundance, distractions and format
        contribute to a trivialization of information
        on the road to the bromide, "Information is
        power." Au contraire, people are confused by
        competing and contradictory information-
        overload and paralyzed by it; hence the eerie
        silence in the heartland, as election after
        election is stolen by vote fraud, as Jim Condit
        Jr. has documented with the rip-off of Ron
        Paul's primary votes, beginning with the Iowa
        Straw Poll (without vote fraud, Paul would
        probably have been the Republican candidate for
        President).

        >>Information- overload is also paralyzing due
        to its manifestation as amusement. Many people
        imagine that the word amusement means joy. It
        doesn't. It denotes distraction. There is a
        whole genre of competing conspiracy theories
        that have proved endlessly entertaining and
        thrilling to millions of consumers of this
        material who regard themselves as opponents and
        critics of the System. Yet, other than acting
        as an audience for conspiracy theories, they do
        little or nothing because conspiracy theory on
        the Internet is sometimes not an inspiration,
        it's an amusement, a DIVERSION. Could some
        forms of conspiracy theory-disseminatio n online
        be a function of the Cryptocracy itself? Again,
        the question is not asked.

        >>In pre-Internet days, even when television
        reigned in the 1950s, millions of Americans
        went on strike for weeks or months, and engaged
        in street marches and protests. Going a bit
        farther back in our history, in late 1931 a
        Pennsylvania Catholic priest led an army of
        12,000 jobless men to rally for legislation for
        unemployment insurance benefits. In May, 1932,
        a mass of unemployed WWI vets, organized by
        former factory laborer Walt Walters, arrived in
        Washington DC calling themselves the "Bonus
        Expeditionary Forces," and demanding early
        payment of a bonus Congress had promised them
        for their war service.

        >>If those grievances had occurred today
        Americans online would be doing little more
        than signing online petitions, blogging and e-
        mailing. That's a good start but it's no
        substitute for the kind of activism that
        requires we undertake the seemingly Augean task
        of walking out our front door.

        >>We are determined to get "Judaism Discovered"
        [Hoffman's new book] noticed on the Internet,
        which is undoubtedly very important, and in
        newspapers and magazines, which is even more
        important. Why? Because that's where the brains
        are. This runs counter to the image of the
        Brave New online pioneers with their futurism
        born of science fiction supposedly replacing
        the "obsolete" Gutenberg universe in a fevered
        American rush for change for the sake of
        change.

        >>But we counter with the fact that readers of
        the printed page still think deeply and would
        seem to be more active than Internet folk, in
        spite of the legends of how "e-mail and blogs
        aroused the grassroots!" Ron Paul certainly
        benefited from just such electronic organizing
        but there was no victory. Arousal there may be,
        but consummation is another matter.

        >>Information is not power. The ability to
        detect fraud is power. That ability has
        atrophied in proportion of the extent to which
        the printed page has been abandoned.
        Coincidence?

        >>I'm hardly alone in this conviction. There is
        a growing sense of an ominous decline in
        intellectual ability. I hope you will take the
        time to print out, read, contemplate and digest
        the important essay, "Is Google Making Us
        Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr, in this month's
        Atlantic Monthly, at
        http://www.theatlan tic.com/doc/ 200807/google
        (click the "printer format" in the box at the
        upper right).

        >>In spite of the notion that genius these days
        comes in the shape of computer hackers and
        software programmers in ripped jeans and
        goatees, the elite, the people we aim to reach
        with our new book, are predominately found
        reading newspapers, books and magazines.
        Whether they are a "dying breed" remains to be
        seen. One of the tricks of the Cryptocracy is
        what this writer terms, "predictive
        programming, " in this case to declare victory
        in a war in which all the battles have not yet
        been fought.<<

        -- Is that really WHERE THE BRAINS ARE -- still
        in the realm of the print media?

        And is the Internet a net plus or a net minus
        for the Consciousness Soul? -- My prejudice is
        that it is a net plus, as least it seems to be
        for me. I like the (relatively) free
        availability of such vast information; it seems
        to be "food for thought" that makes my
        Consciousness Soul stronger. But I also have
        to admit that it might be apt to become an
        addictive distraction from "real life". And
        maybe it makes my Attention Deficit Disorder
        worse? I would think that it might well have
        that tendency for people who do not regularly
        practice meditational thinking.

        And in the wider socio-political realm? --
        Well, we might compare the modern citizenry of
        the USA to the revolutionary Minuteman and the
        sturdy Jeffersonian- Jacksonian peasant on his
        freehold. It seems a dismal comparison;
        considering, for instance, the effective fight
        in the early years of the Republic against a
        private central bank, as compared to the supine
        submission to the falsely so-called "Federal
        Reserve System" over the past 95 years. -- But
        on the other hand, maybe that sturdy peasant
        is mostly an idealized phantasm of wishful,
        ignorant nostalgia? The good old days couldn't
        have been all that good; else how could they
        have degenerated so badly into the present?

        Anyway . . .

        I don't know the answers to all these
        questions. Right now, I'm just putting them
        out there, hopefully as a springboard for
        fruitful discussion. But this much seems
        clear: the Internet is here, for better or for
        worse, and we're going to have to live with it
        as best we can.

        Robert Mason

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.