We´re in a lot of trouble!

And what makes you think that a "dark age" is coming? Why would having a book make you look suspicious? Do you realize that (at least in the 'free world') that statement has consistently become less and less true in the last few hundred years? What are you basing this on?


You've never been laughed at for reading? That happened to me and just about everyone I've ever known through school. Even if they weren't voracious readers, reading for assignments would inevitably draw laughter and ridicule. It was a conditioned response, brought on by a nonstop barrage since the 1970's of the same archetypical characters paraded on television. They've essentially rewritten the Jungian standards to redefine how we view ourselves and each other by way of the all-important inner mythologies the combined subconscious helps us connect to. I mean nerds had a standard uniform in mainstream media until Urkel played it out hard.

Sure it's not something as drastic as getting arrested, but, think about how many kids stop reading when they're 8 or 9 because everyone makes fun of them for it. Just as bad, if you ask me.

There's a good Bill Hicks bit about this, as well, RIP. Here's the link, and beware, there is some raw language.

reply to post by joecamel


THAT was hilarious. Problem is though, without the waffle waitress and the guy behind the counter in the store, he would have to make his own waffles and his get his own coffee. That's also a mindset that seems to be wreaking havoc on the country... that people who work in service jobs are idiots. What if the waitress wanted to know if he was reading for a class he was in and was trying to be friendly? It's assumed she thinks he's a nerd and is chastising him for it. Most waitresses want to make tips not bite the hand that feeds them

reply to post by joecamel


yes , we are in trouble - when people quote a commedy sketch as fact

OP is right, to some small extent.

I have books available to me which were originally written (I have copies, not the originals lol) perhaps thousands of years ago (For example; a revised edition of Aristotle's "Philosophy of Politics", written by a medieval scholar), and i am constantly astounded at the ideas and principles that are communicated to the reader.

Say what you like, the internet lacks a certain... rarity to it, the kind of inspirational thinking that leads to true social change.

Hmm...

Originally posted by pai mei
I predict a new dark age soon. Anyone with a book in his hand will look suspicious, I think this is happening already...
...A dark age is coming : oil is running out, how do you think all these people who never read a book will behave ? I say they will behave like the medieval peasants.

I am glad I don't agree with you here, it must make life miserable to think this way.
What I have learned from reading about ancient civilizations is the opposite of what your saying. The great zodiac wheel that moves with the cycles of wisdom and understanding are moving away from a dark age. This movement is cyclical and we are now ascending towards a golden age.
If perspective makes all the difference then try and turn around, see things from this angle for awhile.

Originally posted by joecamel
You've never been laughed at for reading? That happened to me and just about everyone I've ever known through school. Even if they weren't voracious readers, reading for assignments would inevitably draw laughter and ridicule. It was a conditioned response, brought on by a nonstop barrage since the 1970's of the same archetypical characters paraded on television. They've essentially rewritten the Jungian standards to redefine how we view ourselves and each other by way of the all-important inner mythologies the combined subconscious helps us connect to. I mean nerds had a standard uniform in mainstream media until Urkel played it out hard.

Sure it's not something as drastic as getting arrested, but, think about how many kids stop reading when they're 8 or 9 because everyone makes fun of them for it. Just as bad, if you ask me.

There's a good Bill Hicks bit about this, as well, RIP. Here's the link, and beware, there is some raw language.

I never said a thing about kids being teased for reading. I said that I don't see people getting 'suspicious' looks for carrying a book. I'm not disagreeing with your point, it's just not what I was talking about.

reply to post by Daniem


There was time not long ago when people didn't read, newspapers didn't exist and everyone in the West learned their place in life based on birth or if they were lucky, to pursue a life in clergy.

Then Enlightenment and Revolution came, well at least for the Merchant class. The common peasants well were and are still treated like commoners.

One of the most interesting moments I had in college last semester in American history class was when I learned why Public education was established in the United States in the 1800s.

Two words: Increase productivity

We were an industrial society and we needed to increase production. So public education was established to make better workers.

So this crap has been going on long before TV. Organized religion has been doing a fine job of zombifying in the West for around 1600 years. Public education and TV are just newer methods of the same.






[edit on 14/6/08 by MikeboydUS]

Originally posted by Daniem

No accident that the population has become a mass of lobotomized zombies:
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Daniem]

id rather a bottle in front of me
than a frontal labotamy

:w:

I must say,

In the past, specifically couple of years, as I have been expanding my consciousness mainly by being open to new ideas, doing research, doing tai chi / chi kung and meditation, fasting a little etc etc, I have finally realized just how "programmed" or "controlled" or even "subdued" the U.S. public is to what comes out of the television and is regarded highly by fellow programees.

Wow that was one sentence! Do I get an award for biggest run on POS sentence on ATS? But anyway, I very rarely watch TV, and this is how ive noticed this. I watch TV less than 1 hour each day average, half of the days in any given year? none at all. While people such as my parents for example are heavily into their television shows, and use the TV as their main source of entertainment. If they aren't doing a task, they are each watching their own respective teleivisions.

And yeah, my mother is obviously programmed to a great extent by the television. Some of it is for the better, but the vast majority of it is for the worse. Then you have teens and young adults basing their entire notion of the social reality of the country or world even on what comes out of a few TV channels, mainly MTV. If it's okay to have sex on the first date on MTV reality shows, you can bet it'll be the hip thing to do.

The consumerism aspect really scares me too though. In store such as Wal-Mart or a shopping mall, especially during the holiday season but at any given time really, certain people will almost walk right over you in their seemingly mindless pursuit of the product they are moving toward to purchase. If you're in the way you'd better watch out! The way I dart about Wal-Mart is like Spiderman to avoid roaming carts.

I know some will always say, are you sure you arent brainwashing yourself via the internet and all this conspiracy crap and spirituality crap, and the research of God / religion ... ? Which is a valid question, but the reason I say the answer is No is because of the way in which I live. I can't go into all the details of my lifestyle it would take forever but suffice to say, without being an outright bum, I live pretty humble and have only a few, but strong, pleasures. Most everything else out there designed to trap people into cycles do not phase me, it is always that one or two things .. well I cant get too much into it without divulging sensitive information.

Originally posted by runetang
Wow that was one sentence! Do I get an award for biggest run on POS sentence on ATS?

Not a POS sentence at all; quite lucid. That makes me think of an interesting point: has anyone noticed that the average sentence length in written, and perhaps spoken, communications has been reduced drastically, since perhaps the start of the 20th century? I read books and documents from the 18th and 19th century, and, wow! those guys could ramble on and on, getting into intricate subclauses, tangential explanations, expressing many parallel points in a single rambling, yet still coherent sentence.

I think that's related to short attention span, and advertising. Sound bites. Short, simple phrases. Easy to remember. Have we lost something, if we can no longer expect the reader to follow a complexly expressed concept? When delving into more complex sentences, there's a 'stack' of syntax. You've seen the graphs of sentence structure. Some of those old-timey sentences could stack stuff 5, 6 levels deep! Rarely does the television express anything so complex. I think the general capability of the average reader, in that regard, has been reduced.

certain people will almost walk right over you in their seemingly mindless pursuit of the product they are moving toward to purchase. If you're in the way you'd better watch out! The way I dart about Wal-Mart is like Spiderman to avoid roaming carts.

I've noticed that, too, and not just in shopping centers, even on the sidewalk. Some people just walk like the expect you to get out of their way. One day, I noticed a group of people (family) walking abreast, taking up the whole sidewalk, heading towards me. The teenage girl walking directly at me seemed oblivious, even though she could clearly see me. Rather than stepping into the gutter, I decided to walk on the same path I was on, and sure enough, *smack*, I walked right into her. I apologised and smiled. She looked a little stunned. I felt oddly liberated by the experience.

Originally posted by Ian McLean

I've noticed that, too, and not just in shopping centers, even on the sidewalk. Some people just walk like the expect you to get out of their way. One day, I noticed a group of people (family) walking abreast, taking up the whole sidewalk, heading towards me. The teenage girl walking directly at me seemed oblivious, even though she could clearly see me. Rather than stepping into the gutter, I decided to walk on the same path I was on, and sure enough, *smack*, I walked right into her. I apologised and smiled. She looked a little stunned. I felt oddly liberated by the experience.

That is hilarious!

I know what you mean about the simplified sentences; the teachers really push that in grade school. I am an avid user of the semi-colon even if I misuse it sometimes, it still is a useful tool; you can do so much with a semi-colon. Lol, okay I feel slightly retarded for doing that.

If only three percent of us read books then how are publishing companies staying in business?I think it is that books are not as popular as TV. Books were a medium from the past, as TV was the new medium which is now being replaced by the internet. So in reality if more people are starting to use the internet then more people are reading.

Take this website for example; just look at how much ATS has grown and how fast....the number of members.....thats a lot of reading is it not? I think it is definitely whats the fad or most convenient for most at the time though.

I myself watch maybe 1 hour of TV a week.It's not because I think it's brain washing me... I can still change the channel if I want to; it's because there is nothing interesting other than The History Channel,and some discovery channel shows . Other than that it seems to be nothing more than idiotic reality shows. I don't watch TV to see into someone else's life.....I get that all day at work and home....I want to watch TV for fantasy and the farthest from reality...thats what it was mainly meant for(Entertainment).

The brain washing part of TV come from the news
media in my opinion...and yes the majority of it is on the TV.


[edit on 05/16/2008 by CaptGizmo]

[edit on 05/16/2008 by CaptGizmo]

[edit on 05/16/2008 by CaptGizmo]

whatever slice of society you are surrounding yourself with is going to be the core basis [context] of your reasoning.

if you are living in a "box made of ticky tacky," in suburbia, AND if you are freed from the grasps of society's mind control, you would probably find yourself being more alone and probably more bitter in your thoughts.

i live in a crappy apartment in a really mellow city and work at a used bookstore. i consider myself awakened to the pitfalls of mass culture, and i find that i am surrounded by those who empathize with me.

do not kid yourself. MANY MANY people read [even books that drip substance], and some of us find peace knowing that we are not alone in thought. others find peace thinking they are unique in their current "slice of society," basking in feeling superior or having an excuse to loathe the world around them.

like others have said...reading books does not mean you are anything more than what you are. any of the Arts can get us to reexamine our life and the universe in which we participate in.

reply to post by greatpiino


True, a non fiction book needs credibility, the same way a site that presents the 9/11 inside job needs it.
About books and morality, yes people can be very moral without reading them.
But in today's world there is nothing to guide people, books are good. Not just 1 or 2, but as many as you can, so you can understand stuff better and make up your own mind.
Reading 1 book and taking it as a guide is bad, reading many is good

If oil runs out and there is economic collapse and no more food in the supermarket, I will not be surprised by what other people will do, or by the collapse itself. But most of the people who never had an idea this could happen will panic and behave like those medieval peasants.

Just my presumption. If everyone would know, and in case of disaster would say "we know this has happened before to others, we know what they did, we are smart we will solve this", it will be better I say





[edit on 15-6-2008 by pai mei]

Info:

The "we`re in alot of trouble" (www.youtube.com...) quotes are taken from a oscar winning drama movie called "Network" from 1976.
www.imdb.com...


For those interested; the movie can be seen here in 2 parts
v.youku.com...=.html
v.youku.com...=.html

I think the "we`re in alot of trouble" clip was used in "Zeitgeist" also. I knew i had it from somewhere.

Threads like this just get ATS users to go, "Hey!" and "See? I knew it!!"

I imagine ATS users are a little better read and informed than the average person. Obviously, users have made Information a priority.

Print isn't dead. We still paint pictures. We still roast things over fire. And we still love to laugh.

I've always doubted the apocalyptic or cyber-mega-urban future scenarios. I still do. Maybe I'm just a starry-eyed dreamer, though.

I've found that, as with most things, getting a diverse set of information POVs ona given subject is achievable with some effort. And you have to learn the priorities of your particular info-editing agency. I'm often clued in about arising topics of interest by the sudden appearance of gaps in or difficulty in acquiring information on them.

Only lazy stupid people are buying any of the crap they hear. Consequently, the big-ass spin machine is getting lazier and lazier. Maybe becasue they've found it requires minimal effort to placate MOST of the population. However, those docile cretures aren't the ones they need to worry about.

reply to post by banyan


hey! you're being elitist over the elitists! Not fair!

But really, reading a clump dead tree isn't special, but there are tangible reasons for people to feel a little pride in the fact that they use print. You expressed a degree of satisfaction with your own conclusions about books or should I say, Books. Being an avid reader is like having an athletic build or toned, lean body... only it's mental. Readers use their brains and are more likely to use their brains.
www.post-gazette.com...

And choosing print over digital or any LCD stuff, well, it's just better!

"...because less than 15% of you read newspapers"

I don't understand why newspapers get a free pass. Newspapers are essentially the internet of our parents generation. News in small, digestible amounts, ads and opinion. It isn't any more enlightening than the internet and it is a far more controlled source of info than the internet. I think I have a better grasp on social issues in the world today than I ever would have had if I were to rely on the newspaper.

I think books serve a valuable purpose and that many people (myself included) don't read enough. I don't think that not reading the newspaper should be held against someone. I guess maybe the article isn't so much about reading newspapers as it is about being aware of current events.

Originally posted by KMFNWO


hold an object representing 4 in one hand. Hold an object representing X 0 in you other hand. X 0 is nothing so you have nothing in your other hand. Put the two hands together and what is left? 4. Therefore you can see clearly that 4 X 0 = 4

[edit on 14-6-2008 by KMFNWO]

Wow! You really don't undestand math. 4 things, add nothing to it, is still 4 things, as you're not adding anything to it.
Your first problem is that you are multiplying two different objects. To be able to multiply, they have to be the same type/denominator. Multiplication is just short-form for addition.
If you had 4 empty hands times an empty hand, you'd be left with an empty hand.
If you had 4 x 2, the 2 represents 2 sets of 4. That's 4 + 4.
People were right about dumbing down...

Originally posted by djerwulfe
I'm often clued in about arising topics of interest by the sudden appearance of gaps in or difficulty in acquiring information on them.

That's an interesting thesis: instead of "follow the money", "follow the vacuum". Nefarious influence and privilege have removed themselves so far from the public perception, that they no longer leave obvious trails -- often all we can see are the marks in the dust where tracks have been swept over.

Another thesis is: "put the babble in context". Various 'hot button' issues become the polarizing 'talk of the town' in the media, and tend to obscure rather than reveal. This can be hard to see though, because sometimes the babble is serving to muddy the waters of the argument, and other times it serves as a distraction, or subtly carries an implicit shift of the underlaying context. Most often, it's a mixture of both, and the trick is determining the motive and proportion of each.