A lot of huff and puff from the writer, seems IMO to have a bit of an extended opinion of the importance of himself and his website. While I have to admit I quickly skimmed over the the pages thats my initial opinion. Where I'm not blowing it totally off until I actually take the time and carefully read it, but again he seems to have a bit of an ego and is nit picking without giving proper consideration of the entire 4 hour piece.
Interesting - I watched part 1, I have issues with presupposing the validity of psychological theories, but this doesn't ruffle my feathers. There are many assumptions being made on the part of Power (I'm reluctant to divorce government from the people in this country) and the part of Business in the earlier part of the last century - the battle for the hearts and minds of the people as it is laid out in the documentary are fascinating. The battle rages on today, but there is a fundamental flaw as I see it: Neither party is correct in their assumptions and NOW they are on the same side, it seems, utterly pitting the ideals of Liberty against the ideals of Control. Control is control, whether the influential party is benevolent or malevolent. One might assume that there once were advocates for the People (populists) on the one side - seeing us as Citizens; while on the other - opportunists (economic royalists) seeking to capitalise on the productivity of irrational desire - seeing us as Consumers. That seems to have changed now, as the advocates of the People are infiltrated by Power, thinking we need shepherding. Now the People have two forces rallying against them, yet seemingly supportive in their bid to tell us what we need and how they can give it to us. I have argued against these inherent perspective issues, here on this forum more than once, between the identity of an American as a Consumer or a Victim (needing what we don't have) and a Citizen (possessing all the powers inherent in our very existence - protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - needing nothing but the knowledge of this fact.)
I reject the notion that Americans (or all humans) are in need of controlling due to the dangers extant in their irrational emotional states. It's an assumption that must be indoctrinated in order to exploit, and to obvious manipulative ends. It serves Power to see us in this way to justify it's pathological rampage. It behooves Business to see us in this way and it cultivates its consumers like a garden: Building the soil, planting seeds, providing the hormones and fertilisers and pesticides to get just the result that they want - passive, insecure, vacuous consumers trying to fill the void.
Both sides are utterly reliant upon the Herd and its insecurities, owing to the fact that unless the People are needy, they won't behave accordingly. The Sixties in this country are a great example of what happens in a society when it has had a decade of relative prosperity and decides it has the time and energy to be active. Holy shit, that was bad for Power; and need I say more about the anti-corporate, anti-consumerism of the later Sixties?
We have seen the true face of both Power and Business and are aware of their rubric, yet why do we not strike at the status quo? We must believe in the needs set forth by these Oppressors and feel that they are satisfied, otherwise we would see them coming from a mile away and quash them.
Brit Hume said something very interesting today on FauxNews: If you think that the influence bought in Washington by lobbyists can compare with the power of the citizens moving on an issue, you are mistaken. I paraphrased it, but he is right. And he said that special interests know it. But as long as the People believe that they are powerless, they will be and Business and Power need it that way to exist.
I think this documentary is important and I will watch it in its entirety, but I want to make it abundantly clear that we humans behave the way we believe we ARE, as an 'Existence'. If we believe that we are an irrational and dangerously emotionally-charged creature like we are posited to be by the Controller-types, then we will be that very thing. I don't care how 'expert' the opinion, how intricate and arguable the contrived notion is: Belief is powerful and makes a mockery of emotional or rational arguments when it comes to forging Reality. "Don't believe the hype!" -Chuck D and Flavor Flav of Public Enemy
Part One was just the taste, go on to part 2 and forward. This is disturbing, even though using common sense one knows this has been going on. But the troubling point is the when you start "fitting" everything together ...
Submitted by AstuteObserver on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 11:54am.
Great series! It is encouraging to see that you all are considering the root of many of the problems and issues we are confronted with today.
now Fremen you really should try to overcome your propencity to not read the contributions to human psychology - its not tah you are expected to agree with them but you would develop a stronger case for agreeing not to agree!
Once people are capable of recognizing the manipulation of thought then they can hopefully practice true free thinking! Learn to identify the methods of contol associated with the Herd mentality so may reject it based on sound reasoning and present a favorable alternative to others.
Great series! It is encouraging to see that you all are considering the root of many of the problems and issues we are confronted with today.
now Fremen you really should try to overcome your propencity to not read the contributions to human psychology - its not tah you are expected to agree with them but you would develop a stronger case for agreeing not to agree!
I hear you man, but too often we are asked to adopt the rhetoric of our oppressors in the interest of 'rational' debate. Adopting rhetoric is to adopt defeat - you're opponent controls the spirit of the issue from the start. Now, I'm not saying you are asking me to do that here, but you get my drift, I think. I don't need to build a stronger case for agreeing to not agree, what do I have to prove to my opponent (by disagreement) or my oppressor? Unless I have a need to influence someone or 'win'. It could be that we value different things in discourse at different times. Maybe my values lie in presenting facts, or maybe in presenting my feelings about something, or perhaps I do want to present alternatives to others. In any case, my presentation may change with my intentions.
So, for example - Freud's position on the human psyche is crudely summarised for presentation in this documentary. My response to this is well -founded and reasonable and I make the case for it in my post above. Perhaps I did not communicate the response clearly enough for you to make that connection - and I may learn to make those connections more blatant and thus support more conclusively my original position that I take issue with psychology (and here's why I do in this case... blah blah blah.) I think you point out something valid here, and I will become more effective in my presentations because of it.
Quote:
Once people are capable of recognizing the manipulation of thought then they can hopefully practice true free thinking! Learn to identify the methods of contol associated with the Herd mentality so may reject it based on sound reasoning and present a favorable alternative to others.
I think there's a disconnect in this: True free thinking is practiced all the time, but the freedom can be to submit to programming. Once the personal responsibility for this is assumed by an individual, they must then work (really hard at first and possibly forever) to generate their own active perspective. This is where the 'irrational' and the 'emotional' or 'spiritual' come into play heavily - they are the compass with which we may develop our own perspective and make it strong against the tide of manipulation or programming. Your sound reasoning may not cut it, especially when one who values reasoning can be easily manipulated into thinking something is for their personal or the greater good just by rationalising it - you can rationalise anything. I think what you are saying is true, but it isn't enough or it isn't complete. You are spot on with the presentation of a favorable alternative - mine is, "Own it, be responsible for it, do what you will, expect consequences, repeat."
Submitted by AstuteObserver on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 9:41pm.
Fremen you make some interesting points regarding rationalizations. Those for the great part I am not going to dispute. In fact i will give you a pass by on them.
But again it is always best to understand the views of others who have spent their careers studying a particular behavioral pattern etc. Then of course having done this reading (research) you then have a more solid foundation upon which you can construct and therefore more effectively defend your newly arrived at reality.
There is hope for your thinking processes yet my friend. As I read your responses of late I am beginning to see a shift take place, are you at times beginning to question some old beliefs on assesment and understanding? Are you by any chance recognizing the state of imbalance you are feeling internally and now starting to seek out a new position of balance? Isn't growth a wonderful experientail happening!
No way, dude! I'm just gaining insight from my interactions with my fellow 'Herders! I'll never crack open another book! Never!
You think you have me figured out? I'm actually a twenty-eight year-old female Federal Agent surveilling participants in a nation-wide NAMBLA sex ring sting operation and my primary mark is you, AO!
Re: Controling the Herd
I just read some of the critiques of this documentary - very interesting...
They can be found here:
The Unspoken Rule of Media Reporting: The BBC's The Century of the Self - Part 2 - Part 3
Re: Controling the Herd
A lot of huff and puff from the writer, seems IMO to have a bit of an extended opinion of the importance of himself and his website. While I have to admit I quickly skimmed over the the pages thats my initial opinion. Where I'm not blowing it totally off until I actually take the time and carefully read it, but again he seems to have a bit of an ego and is nit picking without giving proper consideration of the entire 4 hour piece.
Re: Controling the Herd
This needs to stay at the top of the 'recent' list...
Re: Controling the Herd
You know, you're right. I'm going to make it a "sticky" on the front page.
Re: Controling the Herd
Bravo! It should be required watching for everyone.
Re: Controling the Herd
Interesting - I watched part 1, I have issues with presupposing the validity of psychological theories, but this doesn't ruffle my feathers. There are many assumptions being made on the part of Power (I'm reluctant to divorce government from the people in this country) and the part of Business in the earlier part of the last century - the battle for the hearts and minds of the people as it is laid out in the documentary are fascinating. The battle rages on today, but there is a fundamental flaw as I see it: Neither party is correct in their assumptions and NOW they are on the same side, it seems, utterly pitting the ideals of Liberty against the ideals of Control. Control is control, whether the influential party is benevolent or malevolent. One might assume that there once were advocates for the People (populists) on the one side - seeing us as Citizens; while on the other - opportunists (economic royalists) seeking to capitalise on the productivity of irrational desire - seeing us as Consumers. That seems to have changed now, as the advocates of the People are infiltrated by Power, thinking we need shepherding. Now the People have two forces rallying against them, yet seemingly supportive in their bid to tell us what we need and how they can give it to us. I have argued against these inherent perspective issues, here on this forum more than once, between the identity of an American as a Consumer or a Victim (needing what we don't have) and a Citizen (possessing all the powers inherent in our very existence - protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - needing nothing but the knowledge of this fact.)
I reject the notion that Americans (or all humans) are in need of controlling due to the dangers extant in their irrational emotional states. It's an assumption that must be indoctrinated in order to exploit, and to obvious manipulative ends. It serves Power to see us in this way to justify it's pathological rampage. It behooves Business to see us in this way and it cultivates its consumers like a garden: Building the soil, planting seeds, providing the hormones and fertilisers and pesticides to get just the result that they want - passive, insecure, vacuous consumers trying to fill the void.
Both sides are utterly reliant upon the Herd and its insecurities, owing to the fact that unless the People are needy, they won't behave accordingly. The Sixties in this country are a great example of what happens in a society when it has had a decade of relative prosperity and decides it has the time and energy to be active. Holy shit, that was bad for Power; and need I say more about the anti-corporate, anti-consumerism of the later Sixties?
We have seen the true face of both Power and Business and are aware of their rubric, yet why do we not strike at the status quo? We must believe in the needs set forth by these Oppressors and feel that they are satisfied, otherwise we would see them coming from a mile away and quash them.
Brit Hume said something very interesting today on FauxNews:
If you think that the influence bought in Washington by lobbyists can compare with the power of the citizens moving on an issue, you are mistaken. I paraphrased it, but he is right. And he said that special interests know it. But as long as the People believe that they are powerless, they will be and Business and Power need it that way to exist.
I think this documentary is important and I will watch it in its entirety, but I want to make it abundantly clear that we humans behave the way we believe we ARE, as an 'Existence'. If we believe that we are an irrational and dangerously emotionally-charged creature like we are posited to be by the Controller-types, then we will be that very thing. I don't care how 'expert' the opinion, how intricate and arguable the contrived notion is: Belief is powerful and makes a mockery of emotional or rational arguments when it comes to forging Reality.
"Don't believe the hype!"
-Chuck D and Flavor Flav of Public Enemy
Re: Controling the Herd
Part One was just the taste, go on to part 2 and forward. This is disturbing, even though using common sense one knows this has been going on. But the troubling point is the when you start "fitting" everything together ...
Re: Controling the Herd
Great series! It is encouraging to see that you all are considering the root of many of the problems and issues we are confronted with today.
now Fremen you really should try to overcome your propencity to not read the contributions to human psychology - its not tah you are expected to agree with them but you would develop a stronger case for agreeing not to agree!
Once people are capable of recognizing the manipulation of thought then they can hopefully practice true free thinking! Learn to identify the methods of contol associated with the Herd mentality so may reject it based on sound reasoning and present a favorable alternative to others.
Re: Controling the Herd
I hear you man, but too often we are asked to adopt the rhetoric of our oppressors in the interest of 'rational' debate. Adopting rhetoric is to adopt defeat - you're opponent controls the spirit of the issue from the start. Now, I'm not saying you are asking me to do that here, but you get my drift, I think. I don't need to build a stronger case for agreeing to not agree, what do I have to prove to my opponent (by disagreement) or my oppressor? Unless I have a need to influence someone or 'win'. It could be that we value different things in discourse at different times. Maybe my values lie in presenting facts, or maybe in presenting my feelings about something, or perhaps I do want to present alternatives to others. In any case, my presentation may change with my intentions.
So, for example - Freud's position on the human psyche is crudely summarised for presentation in this documentary. My response to this is well -founded and reasonable and I make the case for it in my post above. Perhaps I did not communicate the response clearly enough for you to make that connection - and I may learn to make those connections more blatant and thus support more conclusively my original position that I take issue with psychology (and here's why I do in this case... blah blah blah.) I think you point out something valid here, and I will become more effective in my presentations because of it.
I think there's a disconnect in this: True free thinking is practiced all the time, but the freedom can be to submit to programming. Once the personal responsibility for this is assumed by an individual, they must then work (really hard at first and possibly forever) to generate their own active perspective. This is where the 'irrational' and the 'emotional' or 'spiritual' come into play heavily - they are the compass with which we may develop our own perspective and make it strong against the tide of manipulation or programming. Your sound reasoning may not cut it, especially when one who values reasoning can be easily manipulated into thinking something is for their personal or the greater good just by rationalising it - you can rationalise anything. I think what you are saying is true, but it isn't enough or it isn't complete. You are spot on with the presentation of a favorable alternative - mine is, "Own it, be responsible for it, do what you will, expect consequences, repeat."
Re: Controling the Herd
Fremen you make some interesting points regarding rationalizations. Those for the great part I am not going to dispute. In fact i will give you a pass by on them.
But again it is always best to understand the views of others who have spent their careers studying a particular behavioral pattern etc. Then of course having done this reading (research) you then have a more solid foundation upon which you can construct and therefore more effectively defend your newly arrived at reality.
There is hope for your thinking processes yet my friend. As I read your responses of late I am beginning to see a shift take place, are you at times beginning to question some old beliefs on assesment and understanding? Are you by any chance recognizing the state of imbalance you are feeling internally and now starting to seek out a new position of balance? Isn't growth a wonderful experientail happening!
Re: Controling the Herd
No way, dude! I'm just gaining insight from my interactions with my fellow 'Herders!
I'll never crack open another book! Never!
You think you have me figured out? I'm actually a twenty-eight year-old female Federal Agent surveilling participants in a nation-wide NAMBLA sex ring sting operation and my primary mark is you, AO!
Re: Controling the Herd
Oh shit my gig is up!
Re: Controling the Herd
"...And then they would have their own penises"
WTF