--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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... > Hmmmm. As always, something worthy and thought provoking from Barry. Examined in this light, maybe Keith Olbermann didn't hit it as far out of the park as I thought. (Still think he should run for.....hell, something.)
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/
