“Yes OM 'Influenced' is the word here I think.” – Lee So Lee, apparently you agree that people can be and are influenced, right? If so, are ‘we’ influenced in a way that can go against our principles?...even against our will? This to me is an interesting area of inquiry. Again, my thesis is that IF this is the case and it appears to be so, how can actual self responsibility enter into the situation? How can a person be deemed to be independent and able to make self determinations and then be responsible for their actions when we have already established that one can be influenced against their will???!!!!!
My guess is that there are differing levels of understanding and that different people, perhaps even at different points in time, manifest at different levels. Here, the suggestion is that some people are quite suggestible right now and others are not. Later, this might change. Again, this is an area that most aspects of law and of ‘common sense’…that is how many approach the notion of self responsibility do not appear to be congruent in the least. On Oct 7, 4:50 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
