Sir Darius the Clairvoyent

On distinguishing delusion, insight, insanity and reality

Recommended Posts

 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 12/13/2024 at 12:51 AM, 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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 12/13/2024 at 1:14 AM, 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. 

 

  On 12/13/2024 at 12:51 AM, Daniel said:

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 12/13/2024 at 1:14 AM, 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 12/13/2024 at 1:17 AM, 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?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 12/13/2024 at 1:20 AM, 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 12/13/2024 at 1:25 AM, 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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 12/13/2024 at 1:14 AM, 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. 

 

  On 12/13/2024 at 1:17 AM, Daniel said:

 

Facts vs. whispers in general.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 12/13/2024 at 3:07 AM, 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 12/12/2024 at 5:32 PM, 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 12/12/2024 at 5:32 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 by Cobie
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 12/13/2024 at 3:07 AM, 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 by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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 by Daniel
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

 

 

 

giphy.gif?cid=790b7611xwaot2q11ap8gzdrly

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by Nungali
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  Reveal hidden contents

@stirling

  Reveal hidden contents

@Nungali

  Reveal hidden contents

@Cobie

  Reveal hidden contents

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  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

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 12/17/2024 at 9:59 PM, 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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites