The following are my thoughts and hypothesis, that could probably go on forever...
It has become apparent that propaganda can be used for 'good' purposes or 'bad' purposes, but ultimately, it can be difficult to discern between either.
However, when it is also realized that FEAR is a device used to (push) motivate people, in a more forceful, immediate way, we can conclude that other, more peaceful, and more credible options, were passed in favor of it. Can one say that to be controlled and manipulated by FEAR is right...? Therefore, it can be said that FEAR used in propaganda can be morally wrong (this, however, is a moot point).
But then there is the argument that a person is only controlled or manipulated if he lets himself be controlled or manipulated. That is to say that a person who is controlled is choosing to be controlled. But how is it a person's choice if they are ignorant to their own decision? This leads to conclude that the only audience the 'choice' is apparent to is the manipulator or creator of that choice, or the people who are aware that the choice exists.
By meaning, a Truth is a Truth, regardless of it's arbitrary name. It is unnecessary and probably not possible to augment the reality of a Truth, therefore showing us that it is only necessary and feasible to augment the reality of a lie. Questions pertain as to why...? A simple assumption would lead one to conclude that if a lie is in need of augmentation then it must be more difficult to assimilate and believe, whereas the Truth must be more quick to be comprehended without ornamentation, because it obviously 'makes sense'. This leads to another question as to whether people have a 'sense' or 'universal (or biological) method' that basically leads them to the Truth.
Therefore, if using FEAR as a device in propaganda is morally wrong, then why are BOTH opposing sides using it...? It can only be concluded, since FEAR is used for a specific purpose, as opposed to other methods, to force an ignorant audience to choose to be manipulated, that BOTH sides are augmenting a lie (because the Truth can not be augmented, for if it is not the Truth wholly, it is a lie).
In a perfect scenario, "augmentation" or "ornamentation" will be obsolete in the dissemination of a Truth. A message with black Times New Roman or Arial Font on a white page is almost void of any ornamentation, leading us to conclude that the message is more important than the visual propaganda that goes with it. Furthermore, when a person reads this message through their own inner voice or lens, without having the audio / visual animation and stimulation that comes with much propaganda, they don't have the manipulation of the message being broadcast through a 3rd person narrator (although the text could be rhetorical / biased in it's own account).
In the future, unpopular manipulation from a third party will lead to the creation of a device that 'reads' a person's 'inner voice' (the one in the mind) and broadcasts the world news through that person's 'inner voice' (to avoid any manipulation). Make a note, this could become standard in disseminating ideas, the same ideas that are pushed through FEAR. Obviously, the results will be different.
It can not be said that FEARING something means that it is a lie. However, if a device of propaganda can be recognized in 'pushing' FEAR or evoking FEAR in order to manipulate an ignorant audience, this can lead to conclude that the message that is trying to be broadcast and communicated could not be as Truthful as it may seem. As an audience to the venue of broadcasting stimuli, permeated by propaganda, it is essential to know the purpose of the communicated idea. And without knowing why they react to FEAR, or any other device of propaganda, the audience may remain oblivious to their choice to be manipulated.
-XJ
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Etiquette in Effectively Disseminating a Green Idea
After a smidge of research on a third party in relation to tonight's presidential debate, I could come to the slightly preconceived conclusion that, based on the image projected through the media, some of these groups or 'parties' do not have the etiquette to compete. There are various things a party or group could do that leads to such an opinion, and one of them is GETTING ARRESTED. Unless you're Rosa Parks, GETTING ARRESTED does not help "the cause." It only shows that you do not know how to play by the rules of 'the game', that, might I mention, were not created and are not controlled by YOU. Not only does it not help "the cause" by GETTING ARRESTED, but it does not help your IMAGE either.
Your "image" plays an important role in how others assimilate you in their mind and, moreover important to you and your group, how they incorporate YOU into THEIR lives. If your IMAGE doesn't fit into people's schema, you will not gain their support. Consider this: IF you wanted to explain an unorthodox theory based on FACT to a 'normal' American, would you do so by standing on top of a garbage can, SHOUTING in the street? Obviously you know, this would create adverse results and the opposite of effective dissemination of your theory. People will not only be repelled by your vulgar actions, but they lose respect for your point of view. The last thing you want is to be labeled as a "conspiracy theorist" (a negative connotation), especially when your cause is based on factual evidence.
People want to see change, but to do so in such a dis-eloquent manner projects ignorance. A Mouse does not take out an Elephant by laying in front of it's path, when the Elephant can clearly STOMP on it altogether or ignore it (although I'm not saying the Elephant does not fear the Mouse, because, as we all know, the Elephant FEARS the Mouse (philosophical inquiry pertains as to WHY...?)). There are times when GETTING ARRESTED is appropriate for a cause, but when a political party is trying to "infiltrate the government", it probably isn't the best choice.
There really is no other viable option to 'win' than to play by the rules of 'the game', and this means 'playing' 'the game'. Because if you don't, you become another intricate yet trivial part of that which you are against.
-XJ
Your "image" plays an important role in how others assimilate you in their mind and, moreover important to you and your group, how they incorporate YOU into THEIR lives. If your IMAGE doesn't fit into people's schema, you will not gain their support. Consider this: IF you wanted to explain an unorthodox theory based on FACT to a 'normal' American, would you do so by standing on top of a garbage can, SHOUTING in the street? Obviously you know, this would create adverse results and the opposite of effective dissemination of your theory. People will not only be repelled by your vulgar actions, but they lose respect for your point of view. The last thing you want is to be labeled as a "conspiracy theorist" (a negative connotation), especially when your cause is based on factual evidence.
People want to see change, but to do so in such a dis-eloquent manner projects ignorance. A Mouse does not take out an Elephant by laying in front of it's path, when the Elephant can clearly STOMP on it altogether or ignore it (although I'm not saying the Elephant does not fear the Mouse, because, as we all know, the Elephant FEARS the Mouse (philosophical inquiry pertains as to WHY...?)). There are times when GETTING ARRESTED is appropriate for a cause, but when a political party is trying to "infiltrate the government", it probably isn't the best choice.
There really is no other viable option to 'win' than to play by the rules of 'the game', and this means 'playing' 'the game'. Because if you don't, you become another intricate yet trivial part of that which you are against.
-XJ
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Power And Innovation: Responsibility of a Leader
To know Truth is to have Power. And "with Great Power comes great Responsibility." The goal of anyone with Power, as humans with Power seek more Power, is to achieve the highest illumination of insight possible; to find Truth through this Power so that one can live life in the most Responsible, RIGHT way. To do anything otherwise would be unethical and a squandering of Rights, or control: A world where Power is equivalent to the monetary unit of an 'incentive' allows RIGHTS to be controlled by the 'highest bidder.' Leaders, especially, must be Responsible to set precedence and become paradigms of the society, or world, they wish to come to fruition. However, there is the argument, of course, that a corrupt leader with Power will not do what is RESPONSIBLE, but, rather, what is "WANTABLE."
Words are arbitrary among humans, however, meanings are not, and it is arguable that whether we choose to call anything by any name, in any tongue, a concrete existence, perpetually reaffirmed by our senses, confirms that the object or entity exists universally. The sun inevitably continues to exist, and exists universally, regardless by what name it is or has been called by. The fact that it is Universal, means that it exists. It is the same as saying, "Two men from two different backgrounds, from two different continents, from two different time periods, both came up with the same idea without any influence from each other." This could be called, 'indirect convergence': the 'acknowledgement' (better word could be used) of an idea by two non-connected sources, proving it's either universal 'Truth-ness' or existence.
Thus, RIGHT can be seen as something that is Universal, and one definition that culminates from thoughts on indirect convergence is that RIGHT is something that 'promotes survival' (Note: just because someone is doing the RIGHT thing, doesn't mean they are telling the Truth). It is vague; it could lead to a whole other argument or postulation I've already done, so I will leave it at that.
And we get to the point. Obviously, the leaders of the country in question did not do the RIGHT thing. And by this, I mean, they are UNORIGINAL. I am reading a scholarly book about 9/11 and one of the sections is about "Machiavellian State Terror". Why would "enlightened", "powerful" leaders emulate the works of a past philosopher...? It is important to note, something that is universal or Truth will remain Truth no matter what name is given to it. I've only loosely researched it, but there is a 'supposed document'. IF there is a document, 'Truthing' that "Machiavellian State Terror" was, indeed, an objective, it just shows how non-genius the manufacturers of 9/11 were. But, then again, being a criminal doesn't take brains, it takes Power.
Okay, I have to go do a lab now, otherwise this would be longer and better formulated...
The Gist:
The Responsibility of a Leader with Power is NOT to Emulate, but to INNOVATE.
-XJ
Words are arbitrary among humans, however, meanings are not, and it is arguable that whether we choose to call anything by any name, in any tongue, a concrete existence, perpetually reaffirmed by our senses, confirms that the object or entity exists universally. The sun inevitably continues to exist, and exists universally, regardless by what name it is or has been called by. The fact that it is Universal, means that it exists. It is the same as saying, "Two men from two different backgrounds, from two different continents, from two different time periods, both came up with the same idea without any influence from each other." This could be called, 'indirect convergence': the 'acknowledgement' (better word could be used) of an idea by two non-connected sources, proving it's either universal 'Truth-ness' or existence.
Thus, RIGHT can be seen as something that is Universal, and one definition that culminates from thoughts on indirect convergence is that RIGHT is something that 'promotes survival' (Note: just because someone is doing the RIGHT thing, doesn't mean they are telling the Truth). It is vague; it could lead to a whole other argument or postulation I've already done, so I will leave it at that.
And we get to the point. Obviously, the leaders of the country in question did not do the RIGHT thing. And by this, I mean, they are UNORIGINAL. I am reading a scholarly book about 9/11 and one of the sections is about "Machiavellian State Terror". Why would "enlightened", "powerful" leaders emulate the works of a past philosopher...? It is important to note, something that is universal or Truth will remain Truth no matter what name is given to it. I've only loosely researched it, but there is a 'supposed document'. IF there is a document, 'Truthing' that "Machiavellian State Terror" was, indeed, an objective, it just shows how non-genius the manufacturers of 9/11 were. But, then again, being a criminal doesn't take brains, it takes Power.
Okay, I have to go do a lab now, otherwise this would be longer and better formulated...
The Gist:
The Responsibility of a Leader with Power is NOT to Emulate, but to INNOVATE.
-XJ
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
The Contract of Man to his Society
Why do i do the things that i do, what is the ultimate force that is pushing me to do these things...? i have come to the hypothesis that human behavior is not controlled by them, instead their behavior is determined by an outside force, the same force that acts on all of us. Because obviously, i dislike doing some of this college shit, yet, i continue to do it anyway....? IF i am not controlling myself then what is...?
Jack: but you are controlling yourself. you're controlling yourself to do what you dislike because in the end you will be better off.
John: that's good Jack, but who defines 'better off'...? "Better off" for who...?
i hypothesize, that some persons' real motive in life can be masked over by a film of "the outside force"'s motive. in other words, we do things, we are driven to do things for this 'outside force' first, before dealing with our own wants.
What is the ultimate factor that makes a man do what he dislikes? And don't tell me you absolutely enjoy working at a fast-food restaurant, when YOU KNOW that you have a creative mind that could be used for other things in more positive ways... like overthrowing the Big Z, which i am sure, this has something to do with.
Postulation ensues, and most assured, some new insight will be encountered. I believe it is a network, everything connects to everything else. So i'll see what i can come up with.
i need a dry erase board and some markers...
-XJ
Jack: but you are controlling yourself. you're controlling yourself to do what you dislike because in the end you will be better off.
John: that's good Jack, but who defines 'better off'...? "Better off" for who...?
i hypothesize, that some persons' real motive in life can be masked over by a film of "the outside force"'s motive. in other words, we do things, we are driven to do things for this 'outside force' first, before dealing with our own wants.
What is the ultimate factor that makes a man do what he dislikes? And don't tell me you absolutely enjoy working at a fast-food restaurant, when YOU KNOW that you have a creative mind that could be used for other things in more positive ways... like overthrowing the Big Z, which i am sure, this has something to do with.
Postulation ensues, and most assured, some new insight will be encountered. I believe it is a network, everything connects to everything else. So i'll see what i can come up with.
i need a dry erase board and some markers...
-XJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)