On distinguishing delusion, insight, insanity and reality

[Daniel]

 

Propaganda 101:  The target is a good-hearted person.

 

One of the most common misconceptions in regard to political propaganda is in regard to the target of the mis/disinformation.  Most assume, that if the individual falls victim to the propaganda, it means, deep down, they are prejudiced, and potentially bigoted ( anti-Jewish, anti-anyone ).  This could not be further from the truth.  Those people don't need propaganda.  They already hold the negative point of view which exaggerates, generalizes and ignores counter-examples.  The truth is, the propagandist, necessarily, is targeting good-hearted people, very-good-hearted people are the best.  I'll show you:

 

Imagine a very-good-hearted-person.  They observe and cannot deny an injustice perpetrated by Group A onto Group B.  At this point, the mind, naturally, associates a negative opinion with Group A.  This negative opinion is rational, consistent, and true.  There's nothing wrong with it.  However, because they are a very-good-hearted person, their heart objects to what their mind is considering.   This very-good-hearted person, is uncomfortable with holding the negative stereotype in their mind.  This is not what they do.   They don't negatively stereotype.  But.  They can't deny what their eyes are seeing.  This produces a conflict.  The mind and the heart are out of sync.  This is uncomfortable.  Very uncomfortable for the very-good-hearted person.  This is fertile ground for the propaganda.

 

This good hearted individual, now craves, and is eager to accept reasons why their heart should defer to their mind.  When they hear a whisper, it doesn't need to be detailed.  Just a tiny little bit of encouragement goes a long way.  The individual is rewarded greatly by the tiny little whisper because they are so uncomfortable holding that negative view.  That's how and why it works.

 

The outcome is exaggeration.  The propagandist is not trying to change anyone's mind.  They're encouraging and magnifying the prior valid, true, negative opinion of a group of people.  They're fluffing it up.  That's how to tell the difference between facts and whispers.  But none of this works unless the target is a good hearted person.  If not, the whispers spill onto the floor like water off a ducks back.

 

[stirling]

20 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Propaganda 101:  The target is a good-hearted person.

 

One of the most common misconceptions in regard to political propaganda is in regard to the target of the mis/disinformation.  Most assume, that if the individual falls victim to the propaganda, it means, deep down, they are prejudiced, and potentially bigoted ( anti-Jewish, anti-anyone ).  This could not be further from the truth.  Those people don't need propaganda.  They already hold the negative point of view which exaggerates, generalizes and ignores counter-examples.  The truth is, the propagandist, necessarily, is targeting good-hearted people, very-good-hearted people are the best.  I'll show you:

 

Imagine a very-good-hearted-person.  They observe and cannot deny an injustice perpetrated by Group A onto Group B.  At this point, the mind, naturally, associates a negative opinion with Group A.  This negative opinion is rational, consistent, and true.  There's nothing wrong with it.  However, because they are a very-good-hearted person, their heart objects to what their mind is considering.   This very-good-hearted person, is uncomfortable with holding the negative stereotype in their mind.  This is not what they do.   They don't negatively stereotype.  But.  They can't deny what their eyes are seeing.  This produces a conflict.  The mind and the heart are out of sync.  This is uncomfortable.  Very uncomfortable for the very-good-hearted person.  This is fertile ground for the propaganda.

 

This good hearted individual, now craves, and is eager to accept reasons why their heart should defer to their mind.  When they hear a whisper, it doesn't need to be detailed.  Just a tiny little bit of encouragement goes a long way.  The individual is rewarded greatly by the tiny little whisper because they are so uncomfortable holding that negative view.  That's how and why it works.

 

The outcome is exaggeration.  The propagandist is not trying to change anyone's mind.  They're encouraging and magnifying the prior valid, true, negative opinion of a group of people.  They're fluffing it up.  That's how to tell the difference between facts and whispers.  But none of this works unless the target is a good hearted person.  If not, the whispers spill onto the floor like water off a ducks back.

 

Being that this post feels a little out of context, I'd be very interested to hear what this post is in reference to, and to which propaganda you are referring. 

[Daniel]

2 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Being that this post feels a little out of context, I'd be very interested to hear what this post is in reference to, and to which propaganda you are referring. 

 

25 minutes ago, Daniel said:

They're fluffing it up.  That's how to tell the difference between facts and whispers

 

[Daniel]

3 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Being that this post feels a little out of context, I'd be very interested to hear what this post is in reference to, and to which propaganda you are referring. 

 

Facts vs. whispers in general.

[stirling]

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

Facts vs. whispers in general.

 

Which post(s) in particular fired your desire to share? Which posts here are relating "facts", and which "whispers" in your surmise?

[Daniel]

4 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Which post(s) in particular fired your desire to share? Which posts here are relating "facts", and which "whispers" in your surmise?

 

not yours

[stirling]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

not yours

 

Is there some reason that this question is difficult to answer? For example, this post is intended to engender a response that clarifies your previous post. Which post was your response intended to be a comment on?

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Being that this post feels a little out of context, I'd be very interested to hear what this post is in reference to, and to which propaganda you are referring. 

 

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Facts vs. whispers in general.

 

[Daniel]

38 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Is there some reason that this question is difficult to answer? For example, this post is intended to engender a response that clarifies your previous post. Which post was your response intended to be a comment on?

 

I'm not putting in any effort to answer your question beyond what I've already written.

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, stirling said:

in particular

 

No

 

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

in general

 

[stirling]

22 hours ago, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

Is it something to be a human being?
Where do you stand on this perhaps most fundamental question of them all? Have you made up your mind, and if so, on what basis?

Translated with DeepL (https://www.deepl.com/app/?utm_source=ios&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=share-translation)

 

What is your take Darius?

[Cobie]

On 12/12/2024 at 6:32 PM, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

… Is there anything to being a human being? … Humanity's wisdom traditions … have always spoken of spirit.

… Where do you stand on this perhaps most fundamental question of them all?

 

I have a soul.

 

Quote

Have you made up your mind …

 

Yes.

 

Quote

and if so, on what basis?

Because I feel like it. 

 

 

Edited Friday at 06:03 PM by Cobie

[Nungali]

19 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Is there some reason that this question is difficult to answer? For example, this post is intended to engender a response that clarifies your previous post. Which post was your response intended to be a comment on?

 

This is the typical issue .  It will only 'go circular' ., and then into 'certain reactive areas ' .

 

Thats why  I   offered some assistance via PM to the  OP ,  and thats where  our conversation went.

 

- However Daniel now reports to us that he has Sir Darius on ignore , so Sir Darius  may feel to return to this .

 

.

Edited Friday at 10:09 PM by Nungali

[Thrice Daily]

@Sir Darius the Clairvoyent have you chilled yet?

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

7 minutes ago, Thrice Daily said:

@Sir Darius the Clairvoyent have you chilled yet?

Ye life’s pretty good at the moment. Good music, good company, good drinks. What more can you ask for

[Daniel]

@stirling,

 

1. Yesterday at 04:51 PM - I posted "Propaganda 101:  The Target is a Good-Hearted-Person".  It has nothing to do with you.
2. yesterday at 05:14 PM - You asked me,  " what this post is in reference to, and to which propaganda you are referring"
3. yesterday at 05:17 PM - I answered:  "Facts vs. Whispers in general"  ( You didn't read or understand this, it's GENERAL )
4. yesterday at 05:20 PM - You asked:  "Which post(s) in particular blah, blah, blah, ... "  ( you ignored, that I said, GENERAL )
   • I laugh, because I can tell you're imagining yourself as the center of my attention
5. yesterday at 05:25 PM - I tell you:  "not yours" ( I think it's funny that you reacted so strongly to this, I take note.  )
6. I send you a Private message:  "I ask you, Do you honestly want to talk about my post.  If so, we can chat about it."
7. You read it, I wait, I wait, I wait.  12 minutes pass.  You don;t reply.  You don;t honestly want to talk about the post, or understand the context.  You don't want to talk about it.  You want to argue with me in public.  i take note.  You're not being honest.  It's not about making sure I'm not attacking anyone.  If so, you would have had a conversation in private like any other staff member.
8. yesterday at 07:07 PM - You reply and ask why I can't answer?  But I did.  YOU IGNORED IT, because it didn't give you what you wanted to read.  You were assuming IT MUST BE AN INSULT.  I have no clue what you are talking about in this thread.  Were you whispering?  Were you fluffing up facts to exaggerate them, or something?  I have no clue.  
9. yesterday at 07:43 PM - I showed you the answer, again.  You still didn't read it.
10. yesterday at 07:46 PM - I tell you, I'm not spending any of my energy to find new ways to write something that you're going to ignore.
11. yesterday at 08:14 PM - I show you:  You're asking for Particular, I answered you, It's general.

---

 

By my count, it took you 4 tries to read the word GENERAL and stop the witch hunt.

 

Edited Saturday at 05:17 AM by Daniel

[Nungali]

.  Oh - O  !    Its 'spreading ' .  All over the place  . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited Saturday at 07:23 AM by Nungali

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

5 hours ago, Nungali said:

.  Oh - O  !    Its 'spreading ' .  All over the place  . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

@Sir Darius the Clairvoyent (or rather, Viggo Johansen)

Spoiler

I think you’ll enjoy this. It is from foreword of Meditations, written by Viggo Johannesen:

 

So let's ask the question: Is there anything to being a human being?

 

Some might say no to that as well, arguing that being human is purely a socially constructed phenomenon. Regardless of what you believe personally, remember that science cannot help you here. On this point, science is as helpless as faith, it can only believe. Science assumes that man is a material phenomenon in a material world. Which is a decent assumption, but only an assumption. Even a metaphysical assumption. Completely without scientific evidence. As we all know, humans are conscious beings, and since science only recognises material phenomena as real, it is forced to assume that consciousness is something material. Humanity's wisdom traditions, on the other hand, have always spoken of spirit. Spirit is beyond time; it refers to that in man which belongs to eternity. This cannot be proven scientifically either, so we are left with ourselves and our own experience as the only witness to the truth.

 

Is it something to be a human being?
Where do you stand on this perhaps most fundamental question of them all? Have you made up your mind, and if so, on what basis?

Translated with DeepL (https://www.deepl.com/app/?utm_source=ios&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=share-translation)

@stirling

Spoiler

here is this unity, and awareness of being that permeates this moment. This emptiness of separateness is the larger fabric from which all seemingly separate things arise. Humans are an epiphenomena of this emptiness, like all seemingly separate phenomena, including, but not limited to, gods, birds, cars, famine, chickens and Britney Spears. Are there humans, or any of the rest? Yes, of course, they have a provisional reality arising from the causes and conditions of the phenomenal world, but they do not have absolute reality. Only the simple awareness of being has absolute existence. 

 

https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Two_truths#:~:text=The absolute or ultimate is,aspects of a single reality.

 

  Quote

The absolute includes, but supercedes the relative. - Ken Wilber

 

 

  2 hours ago, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

Have you made up your mind, and if so, on what basis?

 

Yes. Persistent experiential understanding that has lasted over 9 years without changing or shifting.

 

@Nungali

Spoiler

I find that all confusing ... of course it is 'something' to be a human being .

the passage seems to relate to  materialism Vs spirituality .  In either view it must mean 'something; to be a human being , one way or the other .

 

It looks like you are asking if the human being is purely a materialistic construct under the view of scientism  ?

 

@Cobie

Spoiler

  On 12.12.2024 at 6:32 PM, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

… Is there anything to being a human being? … Humanity's wisdom traditions … have always spoken of spirit.

… Where do you stand on this perhaps most fundamental question of them all?

 

I have a soul.

 

  Quote

Have you made up your mind …

 

Yes.

 

  Quote

and if so, on what basis?

Because I feel like it. 

 

So first of all, I shouldve been more clear. The foreword was as mentioned for meditations by Aurelius. But the context of that particular qoutation, was, can something written by the most powerfull man, 2000 years ago, be relevant to us today? Therefore the question of what it means to be human.

 

@stirling I agree with you

@Nungali Yes, it was also intented towards materilaism/mentalism. Or wheter the physical is a construct of mental, or visa versa. I feel quite convinced that the mental is primary. Reason being, we know that the mental can create appearantly physical phenoma, while we have no clue how a bunch of no concious cells can turn into a conciouss being.

 

Id like to open a third alternative tho. What if the world is neither physical nor mental, but that the physical and mental is fundementally the same substance?

[stirling]

Quote

Id like to open a third alternative tho. What if the world is neither physical nor mental, but that the physical and mental is fundementally the same substance?

 

I don't personally think there is a correct conceptual designation possible for what the "world" is or isn't. It just IS.

 

For a thorough and intellectual discussion of the various schools of Buddhist thought on this topic, I can recommend: "Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness" by Ven. Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche

[Nungali]

53 minutes ago, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

 

 

@Nungali Yes, it was also intented towards materilaism/mentalism. Or wheter the physical is a construct of mental, or visa versa. I feel quite convinced that the mental is primary. Reason being, we know that the mental can create appearantly physical phenoma,

 

 

WE do ?   How so ?

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

2 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

 

WE do ?   How so ?

I do. hallucinations.

[Maddie]

I know I'm a little late to this thread but the title caught my eye as delusion was the primary cause of suffering as taught by the Buddha and seeing through delusion is the primary goal of Buddhist cultivation. 

[Nungali]

21 minutes ago, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

I do. hallucinations.

 

Ah ! I see . I ascribed the 'apparently'   to the wrong part of the sentence .

[old3bob]