I got to thinking about this while wandering 
around in Dublin with a brother who tends to
be a tad...uh...reactionary when the essential
goodness of America is questioned. :-)

He kept quoting the political messages and 
slogans he believes in, and that tend to shape 
his reaction to world events. Me, I had just
finished reading some Tibetan texts that spoke
of the inevitable karmic effects of indulging
in certain emotions. 

The theory was that, no matter what the cause, 
the *karma* of choosing to "wear" certain emotions 
is predictable, a Done Deal. That is, indulge in
anger, and the outcome of "wearing" the mindset
of anger is predictable (and not positive), *no
matter what caused the anger*. Same with hatred,
to an even greater degree. Same with fear or self-
pity -- those who indulge in that mindstate reap 
the...uh...benefits of seeing the world through 
fear-colored or "poor me"-colored glasses.

As opposed to the emotions that the Tibetans feel
have a positive effect -- for the world and for the
person "wearing" them. Love, joy, a sense of hope,
caring for and taking care of one's fellow man, 
the desire to *give* to the world (as opposed to
*take* from it), that sorta thang.

So I came up with my own half-assed theory of 
how to tell what the real *intent* was behind
any political post on the Internet or what the
real *intent* was behind any political speech or
ad. It's pretty simple -- just determine the 
EMOTION that the post or speech or ad is appealing
to. What emotion does the speaker want you to FEEL 
after reading or hearing it?

I highly recommend it as an exercise in "seeing."
Just read some of the posts here, or the speeches
being tossed around in the political arena, and
*especially* the carefully-crafted ads that appear
during election time. 

If you sit back and determine that the poster/
speaker wants you to feel outraged and angry when
you read/hear what they post, then their *intent*
is clear, and to some extent the inevitable karma
of their approach is equally clear. Anger begets
more anger; chances are that the person who appeals
to this emotion is *comfortable* being angry, and
thus *intends* others to be...and stay...as angry
as he is. Same with hatred, but to an even greater
degree -- those who find it easy to hate tend to
cast their speech in terms of "justified hatred."
And the easiest of all "messages" to suss out are
those that appeal to fear; it's pretty clear that
the speaker wants you to *feel* fear after hearing
the message. Such people are comfortable living 
in fear, and they want others to live there, too,
because a fearful people are an easily-controlled
people.

And, once you've developed this trick of viewing
the political rhetoric of the world in terms of
what EMOTION it appeals to, notice how *rare* it
is that anyone appeals to the higher emotions --
joy, love, caring for one's fellow man, etc. To
his credit, Maharishi sometimes does this, although
he tends to muddy the message up with appeals to
fear and self importance a lot. But most of the
other "pundits" of the world seem to have settled
for appeals to righteous anger or downright hatred
and most often fear in their attempts to reach the 
people and "inspire" them to do what the "pundits" 
want them to do.

Me, I'm waiting for someone -- anyone -- who can
cast his political message in terms of a positive
message, and who rises above the "easy path" of
casting it in a negative light. It's *easy* (and
*lazy*) to present one's political "solution" in
terms of the "bad guys" and try to stir up anger
and/or hatred against them. But if you look at
history, these types of people rarely have anything
positive of their own to contribute once they've
gotten rid of the "bad guys." IMO, it's because
they've given little to no thought to what it
means to be a "good guy," and to actually have
some positive solutions. It's *easy* to blame,
and so these lazy fucks just blame. They *need*
the "bad guys," because they have no real positive
ideas of their own to present.

I'm waiting for the politician, whatever their
party affiliation, who seems to remember that there
*is* such a thing as positivity, and who casts his or
her speech in a positive light, appealing to the
positive and life-supporting emotions of the public
he/she claims to want to help. Unfortunately, it
looks as if I may have to wait a long time...







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to