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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.