Yes OM 'Influenced' is the word here I think.
On 7 Oct, 00:14, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Beyond the all too common “Yes it is.”, “No, it isn’t.”, “Define your > terms.”, “It is all relative.”…and associated ‘humor’, the question is > of note. > > There are almost countless levels to the issue. In an attempt at > narrowing the question down a little, I will suggest that torturing a > person is one method of producing ‘successful’ compliance. Also, in > many cases the existence of ‘their will’ seems to be absent to the > point where suggestion can produce exhibited behavioral change. > Hypnosis and other forms of trance production might fall into this > category. What about subliminal suggestions? This was a big topic a > couple of decades ago. Recently, one hears nothing about it. Is this a > result of lobbying efforts of the masters thereof? I suggest that if > advertising didn’t “work” (produce behavioral change), it wouldn’t be > used. Overall, the manufacturing of consent is an interesting topic. > > One case has fascinated me for quite a while. Charlie Manson. “…He was > convicted of conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders, carried > out by members of the group [the Mansion Family] at his instruction…” > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson > > It was around this time, as best as I can remember that the notion of > ‘conspiracy’ arose in US jurisprudence. Until that time, I seem to > remember that what a person said or said alone was not a crime. Here > we have one person telling other people to do something. They did it. > He didn’t do it. He was convicted of doing it. So, apparently in the > US law, one can have the power to cause others to do things whether > they want to or not. At the time, I thought this conclusion left out > the notion of self responsibility. Are we not responsible for our > actions? The common question of ‘Would you jump off of a cliff if told > to do so?’ points to this concept. > > As far as I can tell, it is generally accepted that people can be > influenced against their will even though often there exists the > apparently conflicting notion of being responsible for one’s own > actions. > > This is a knot that appears to be Gordian in nature. Yet, when one > includes the notion of a unified, omnipresent ‘mind’ that we all > access, the untying becomes easier. This is a topic we have already > addressed at length. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
