Media-tion

[vicente]

From: highschool_revolutio
Dec 03, 2003 - 11:24 AM

For years and years, the media has been carefully manipulated by higher powers to control culture as we know it.

As we all know, the media is biased. Just how biased, many cannot comprehend. The general media has been carefully engineered to inspire a certain reaction in the viewer, which most of the time is to conform. People watch TV no longer because it entertains them, but because they need to re-affirm their beliefs on what society should be like. The TV is what gives people that special something that makes them feel special in this day and age when the masses are beginning to realize that individuality is nothing more than a clever marketing strategy. Thousands peer forth from their cubicles and are shocked to see thousands more peering right back at them. This is when they turn to the TV for reassurance, as it gives them a comfortable filtered view of the world, telling them that they too can be as special as the characters on the screen, if only they buy some advertised products.
We have all sunk so low into passive spectatorship that we can see no alternative to happiness through consumption, and this is a minset that we must rise above.

[sonrisa]

so how do you propose we do that Vicente? I know you got some ideas on the matter.:D

[DavidS]

A most excellently art·iculated and accurate (IMO) 'golden nugget' of social criticism'; thank you, vicente.

Certain 'liabilities' (potentially at least) 'attend' this way of 'approaching' the subject, however, because it is actually not so much of an intelligently thought out approach as it is a desire-blinded 'compulsive' response to the hellish zombie-filled predicament 'we', as individual-personal seats of consciousness, 'awaken' to find ourselves in and want to 'set right' "for heaven's sake" -- the thang of it is that 'we' psychospiritual 'beings' 'innately' mentally-n-emotionally expeerience that (i.e., heavenly life as 'opposed' to hellish zombieness ) as being much more 'desirable'.

What kinds of liabilities, readers ask? Well, regardless of whether anyone asks, as you may image·in based on all my prior shenanigins, I'm gonna tell it like it see it shining in my flashlight beam. Gather round as I put some logs on the fire and get some thang cozy (or not!) goin'. :D

Originally posted by vicente@Dec 4 2003, 12:20 AM
We have all sunk so low into passive spectatorship that we can see no alternative to happiness through consumption, and this is a minset that we must rise above.
One of the liabilities is clearly illustrated in the above quote itself - I hope you see clearly once I mention it -- the fact is that 'the zombie mindset problem' is itself stated in collective terms: we have sunk so low...; we can see no alternative ...; we must rise above this. Do you see? Right off the bat!, even before being born into full light, the very 'individuality' and 'individual prerogative' which the social-criticism 'piece' holds up as being sacred and important to honor in one's self and others is swept-under-the-rug-buried by a whole run of we's on which 'responsibility' for what's wrong and what had better be done to 'right' the situation is placed.

There has been a practically endless stream of historical examples of what happens to 'revolutions' (turns of the wheel) stemming from this we-must-fix the thang that's 'wrong' 'approach', which itself inveitably just turns out to be just another 'level' of 'tier' of a group-dynamic where the greatest purported collective interest serves as justification for 'sacrificing' (burying?) the basic life-principle of personal response-ability and automony based thereon.

Noting that this repeat-reversion 'failure' phenomenon is not 'confined' to any particular 'tradition'-stream, let me Dr. Zeuss-David-illustrate ;) the phenom by pointing out what happened to the 'Christian'-Jewish 'revolution', which ostensibly (i.e, in the 'we'-fashion being critiqued here) aimed at establishing a 'new era' in which personal response-ability and freedom of conscience were recognized in principle and honored in practice.

Here are some quotes which indicate that such principles and practices were meant to be recognized and honored:

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (2 Corinthians 3:17); "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." (Galatians 5:1); "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." (Galatians 5:13); "if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." (Galatians 5:18); "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." (I Corinthians 10:23).

and, of course, the most eloquent passage:

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. . . . Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (Romans 14:4-23)

Not that the Apostle Paul, himself didn't have 'emotional' 'flaws' which also led him to make logically contrary assertions and pronouncements. He also, vicente, was 'driven' by thinking that 'individual' assessment and action in this regard would not be 'sufficient' to accomplish 'the task', and so, along with others, ended up being Lucifer-lured (just a manner of speech) into getting all hopped up and hopping up still more others along the 'party-line' of "we gotta all make this happen 'together' by being of 'one' social mind and heart!"

The 'verdict of history', quite clearly, is that the Catholic priest-layman-social-group-arrangement became one of the most 'individual-thought' and 'individual-prerogative' repressive social 'movements' in recorded history.

The bottom line in realtion to you, vicente: I totally groove with your observations and 'ultimate aim' desires in relation to 'the human condition', dude. BUT I have to (my conscience 'dictates' that 'I') tell you that the we-poison you characteristically spew in your enthusiastic anti-'evil' bouts is the very 'opposite' of the treatment-'cure' which is really 'called for' (by deeper 'conscience'; 'science' = practical knowledge; 'con' = shared by all).

When you 'spew' such 'poisonous' stuff, vicente, I can't help but image·in·atively 'see' you as a blood thirsty' 'vampire'. If you really want to stimulate-seed and sponsor-nurture 'change' in the 'garden' under discussion instead of just being another vain 'revolutionary', vicente, I suggest you "become the change you wish to see" by finding and focus-concentrating the energy you need to do so "in person" instead of just attempting to stir up the waters of dissatisfaction from some image·in·ed 'we' platform, hoping to rouse some kind of 'group' energy so you can continue to play gallop-n-lance with fictional-windmills on the back of such horse.

IOW, it all comes down to personal response-ability and choice, vicente. You 'rise' (or 'succeed') or you 'fall' (or 'fail') iun this regard. As do I. As does every other unique-souled person-individual here, even those who think-n-believe they aren't 'personally' one such <_< .

You, of course, may continue to use you 'ability' to snake-oil-promote and make 'we'ness your own person choice. As may I continue in 'opposite' mode. At this point, I think, we (LOL!) couldn't be more diametrically mutual-worthy-'opponent'-so.

Salut! - David

[rich]

Vicente,

Your statement would be true, IF, all of the media have the same POV. I do not think they do. Not all reporters for the media agree with each other. :) B)

[a random hack]

maybe not, rich, but they nearly all work for about three people, if you are lucky, in most 'markets'.
and these three people all have similar mindsets, seems :)

[rich]

random,

Who are the 3 people you are referring to. Are you talking/writing about the entire planet EARTH ? Or in each nation? The same 3? :unsure:
The unholy 3? :unsure: ;) :lol:

would like names, to understand what you are saying.

[sonrisa]

given where Random hails from, I'm guessing one of them is Rupert Murdoch, & on that I have to agree. Faux News is a god-awful, unwatchable propaganda channel.

ps the unholy three (dubya, cheney, & rumsfeld) are not in the media, just on it an awful lot more than they should be. :)

[a random hack]

rupert murdock is one in most places :D

in australian media, they are rupert and kerry packer...

as stated, am refering to each 'market', which roughly equates (but not always) to countries, or language groups... :)

in usa, (am guessing), they are rupert and some guy called ted turner...