BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Sheeple and scum and humatons, oh my!

  
  

Page: 12(3)456

 
 
illmatic
08:32 / 09.04.06
I don’t know where my understanding of the term “false consciousness” comes from. I remember first hearing it in my A Levels, many moons ago and my conception of it has filled out since then, God knows where from. I just looked up this Wikipedia article and I’m satisfied I have a adequate understanding of the term.

Funnily enough the article linked to states that The notion of false consciousness has been a focus for some of the strongest critiques of Marxism, since in this instance high Marxist theory can appear to be implicated in the worst excesses of the Soviet experiment. Within the USSR, the state deployed the concept of false consciousness to justify authoritarian measures against the working class.

.. which is one of the reasons people think the term is bollocks. People have critiqued the term above as it puts the critic, the one employing the term, in a privileged position where he can justify looking down on vast swathes of the population. Saying, as you do, “oh, well sometimes I’m a victim of this too” doesn’t really excuse this position, as you’re assuming that you snap back to your own position of objective historical consciousness by default i.e. being right (“sometimes I’m wrong , and so am not really criticizing the little man - but most of the time I AM RIGHT and they are all teh deluded sheeple” etc). This whole thread is rooted in critiquing this position.

Now, why do I object to the alleged parallels between false consciousness and self-remembering? Because the connection isn’t “concrete” as you state as the two concepts take place in two completely different realms – one is an abstract , political theory, the other one is something is experiential. Not the same thing. Now, call me crazy, but I think the best way to understand something experiential is to actually try and experience it . As I said above:

If you really want to understand anything about these states they should be experienced on their own terms i.e. if you want to understand self-remembering a) read Gurdjieff (or his commentators) and then b) actually practice some of the disciplines he suggests

I object to the parallels because I think it muddies the waters and prevents clear understanding and discussion. I also said - and I’m getting bored of repeating myself - I still don't see the point of what you're trying to do. All I can see is that you're drawing loose parallels between two areas that excite you. Why? What do you hope to achieve?

That criticism and question still stands. I’m interested in this stuff because it makes a practical difference in my life, in a way that joining the dots with Marxism doesn’t. As I said, I don’t see what the point is, beyond pattern recognition. Perhaps you’re hoping people will say “Wow, Bruno, you’re really clever?” Ouspensky pointed out that people will try and understand these concepts and experiences in terms of what they know, thereby completely missing the point.

I am reserved about talking about personal experience for various reasons

Well, the best posts in this forum are from those who have their own experience to draw on, and aren’t just recycling lazy dogmas and secondhand ideas from books. The level of detail and self-revelation is up to you. I agree it’s good to keep quiet about certain things, but allowing experience to inform your posts isn’t a bad thing, and it tends to shine through. Finding a way to balance what you’re writing about without revealing every intimacy is interesting in itself.

I think they often prove very little (I could be bullshitting you)

You could be doing the same by offering up this set of reasons not to.
 
 
Bruno
16:44 / 09.04.06
Mr Carnival: I don't disagree. One time I was shouting while walking in darker sidestreets all on my own and I saw a young girl walking towards me and I stopped because I didnt want to intimidate her. But on a busy street I think it is OK to talk loudly or shout to oneself. People see much worse than that.

Re the schizophrenic mate, I can sympathize, but with that kind of thinking I can start arguing things like 'women shouldnt wear sexy clothes because X is neurotic and it really bothers him' or 'middle eastern men should bleach their skin and shave because Y is paranoid and they really scare him'.

I think being courteous when one doesn't really mean it is hypocritical (I dont mean that you are a hypocrite, only you know that). Inner demons are there whether we like them or not and hiding them/repressing them tends to do more harm than good.

Your 16:59 post was thought provoking and made sense, your post at 15:48 just irrationally lumped me into the Matrix Warrior sheeple stereotype. Why???
 
 
Bruno
16:58 / 09.04.06
.. which is one of the reasons people think the term [false consciousness] is bollocks. People have critiqued the term above as it puts the critic, the one employing the term, in a privileged position where he can justify looking down on vast swathes of the population. Saying, as you do, “oh, well sometimes I’m a victim of this too” doesn’t really excuse this position, as you’re assuming that you snap back to your own position of objective historical consciousness by default i.e. being right (“sometimes I’m wrong , and so am not really criticizing the little man - but most of the time I AM RIGHT and they are all teh deluded sheeple” etc). This whole thread is rooted in critiquing this position.

Sorry man but your logic here is very weak. ANY critic of anything is “in a privileged position where he can justify looking down on vast swathes of the population”. And there is nothing wrong with this, because a lack of critique leads to passive acceptance of the status quo, conservatism, rigidity, stasis, death.
What IS wrong is pretending to be totally objective and outside the entire process; pretending that for some reason I am totally immune to the influence of ideology/hegemony/false-consciousness; thinking I am always right (that is also conservative and static). Criticism is good, as long as one is also willing to accept it too.
Frankly your criticisms of me seem to be aimed at some imaginary stereotype you have concocted rather than at what I actually type.

Taking the first post (Withiel where the fuck are you? Why start threads without posting on them?) a question was raised which I consider to be fundamental. How to resolve the difference between the point of view where “I am AWAKE, CONSCIOUS, MESSIANIC, PRESENT, AWARE and 99% of everyone else is not” and the point of view “We all are what we are and could not be another way, accept everyone else exactly how they are. Accept there is no progress towards being more awake, social conditions cannot improve”. Both of which positions are bollocks for me. Humans are social beings and we grow, evolve, become conscious, together. But at the same time it is an indivudal process.
So the whole thread is not rooted in critiquing the “I am buddha you are sheeple” position but in trying to understand the dynamics between the two positions. That is my interpretation anyway.

Now, why do I object to the alleged parallels between false consciousness and self-remembering? Because the connection isn’t “concrete” as you state as the two concepts take place in two completely different realms – one is an abstract , political theory, the other one is something is experiential. Not the same thing. Now, call me crazy, but I think the best way to understand something experiential is to actually try and experience it .

Illmatic you are a master at projecting stereotypes onto me. I have never criticized experience. Any theory which is not followed by practice is narcisistic crap. That doesn’t mean that any theory is narcisistic crap. The critique of capitalism is not abstract, it has a focus and a purpose in practice - transcending capitalism. To quote Withiel:It must be said that for certain periods of my life, I have felt like a humaton….Or I'll notice myself absorbing media uncritically, and ending up holding disturbing reactionary positions without meaning to. I will second this experience. And in light of this experience, I say that the PRACTICAL VALUE of criticism of capitalism is as a tool to avoid being influenced by its ideology.
(where the subject sees other people as things and not people. Where quality is replaced by quantity. The so-called ‘laws’ of the market influencing every facet of life. A lack of empathy, basically schizoid in nature. Rigidity in character. Self-worth judged in terms of material possessions or their symbolic equivelents.)

I still don't see the point of what you're trying to do. All I can see is that you're drawing loose parallels between two areas that excite you. Why? What do you hope to achieve? That criticism and question still stands. I’m interested in this stuff because it makes a practical difference in my life, in a way that joining the dots with Marxism doesn’t.

Because while the Temple is progressive in criticizing cultural appropriation, covert racism and sexism, it is characterized by an almost total lack of criticism of capitalism (which seems to be accepted as ‘human nature’) except for a very superficial sentiment that ‘big corporations are bad’. Prove me wrong.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
18:11 / 09.04.06
Your 16:59 post was thought provoking and made sense, your post at 15:48 just irrationally lumped me into the Matrix Warrior sheeple stereotype. Why???

Because the comment I was responding to made me really bloody angry, I guess. When I came back a bit later I was still angry at the idea, but better able to express what I thought was wrong with the practice.

And I disagree passionately with the idea that feeling threatened by a person who is shouting agressively is the same as feeling threatened by the presence of a person of middle-Eastern appearance or a punk, say. Responding with fear or anxiety to an aggressive behavior is not the same as responding with fear or anxiety to your own prejudices. It's not prejudiced or unreasonable to regard an adult person walking down the street screaming obscenities as a threat. Personally I put quite a lot of energy into supressing my desire to behave in a hostile, aggressive or irrational way in public and I'm slightly nauseated by the idea of someone self-centered enough just to let rip regardless of the way their actions impact on others. I'm not talking about hypocritically making nice with people you hate, I'm talking about basic human decency towards total strangers who've done nothing to you.
 
 
illmatic
19:31 / 09.04.06
ANY critic of anything is “in a privileged position where he can justify looking down on vast swathes of the population”.

Not true. One can critque with any project with some thought and sensitivity which making fundamental judgments about them, which is not the case when using a broad and blunt tool like "false consciousness" in a Marxist sense. Can you not see that there is something very specific about the idea of "false consciousness" that lends itself elitist thinking? See the links with Stalinsim above. This thread is concerned partly with a "pop cultural" manifestation of the same bullshit.

And there is nothing wrong with this, because a lack of critique leads to passive acceptance of the status quo, conservatism, rigidity, stasis, death.

And I'm critquing your critque because it's based in outmoded Marxist thinking. I believe that the idea of "false consciousness" is bullshit, because it doesn't put you on parity with the people you're judging. I think it reduces people to easily understood ciphers, and leads to one's understanding of them as being less, not more complicated. I'm not really interested in any position that doesn't lead to me understand people in more complex terms.

Illmatic you are a master at projecting stereotypes onto me. I have never criticized experience. Any theory which is not followed by practice is narcisistic crap.

Well then, will you not accept that the best way to understand a practice is to actually do it rather than blurring its boundaries into another theory? Which is what you have been doing?

the Temple is progressive in criticizing cultural appropriation, covert racism and sexism, it is characterized by an almost total lack of criticism of capitalism (which seems to be accepted as ‘human nature’)

Bruno, how much of The Temple have you actually read? Can you point me to the posts where capitalism in blitely accepted as part of human nature? There have been any number of projects in The Temple where people have wanted to use magick to solve the worlds problems (the most recent being "Operation Coincidence Driver"). All of these have had some sort of critque of capitalism at heart (however poorly expressed). Loads of other threads spring to mind ("Corporate Egegore", "Peace Mango", "Transducer", the "Global Workings" thread).

However, most of these projects tend not to work for a variety of reasons, a combination of personality clashes, and the difficulty of organsing and clarifying intentions over the internet. The general consensus seems to be that if you want to change the world, start with your own life and the lives of those around you. Now, I don't think you need Marxist theory to do that, and in fact, it might actually get in the way. If you wish to erect a huge theoretical edifice fusing critque of capitalism with magick, then I suggest you try the Headshop.
 
 
Quantum
14:25 / 10.04.06
"(the Temple) is characterized by an almost total lack of criticism of capitalism"

As Illmatic suggests, that's because we have the Headshop and Switchboard for that, the Temple is for criticising magic. If you want to start a thread titled 'Smash capitalism using magic' then feel free.
 
 
illmatic
14:59 / 10.04.06
Quants, I don't think it would be completely out of place, but there's a major tension between theory and practice here, and I suspect in any kind of critque, theory would vastly outweigh the actual practical side of things. Seeing as far too many people involved in the occult like to theorise endlessly without ever actually fucking doing anything, it's not the kind of project I grow wildly excited about. (The "Marxism and Magick" thread is very like this).

The other big problem here is when someone does try and fuse the two we can end up with this "they are all unenlighted masses with their thoughtless consumption" guff which we have all come to know and love (which I think Bruno is still buying into this with the idea of false consciousness). I'm sure some other angles are possible - perhaps coming out of Buddhist/ecological stuff? - but I'm not very well read here (waiting for one of Joanna Macy's books at the moment actually).

As an afterthought, some of the best anti-capitalist stuff involving magical thinking I've seen have been more works of art than actual "critques" - and as such, they can be very inspiring. Not to sure about their theoretical rigour, and not that bothered to be honest.
 
 
illmatic
17:13 / 10.04.06
Because there's never any critque of capitalism round here.
 
 
Bruno
08:19 / 11.04.06
Illmatic I have some questions:
Firstly, the actual link with self-remembering which I suggested was not with 'false consciousness' but with 'historical consciousness'. I asked you if you are familiar with both terms but you only concentrated on the former. What do you think of historical consciousness?

Secondly, 'False consciousness' is something like the metaphor "people are sleeping". I believe Gurdjieff used this metaphor or am I wrong. I think any system of initiation or enlightenment implies this in some sense. This is represented in the science-fiction-myth of the sleeping people in the Matrix. It is also the basis of Plato's famous parable of the cave.
I agree that the term 'false consciousness' is a broad and blunt tool and maybe not particularly helpful in analysis, unless we agree on some common ground as to what is indisputably false. If I believed the world is flat and executed people who disagreed, can you deny that this is false consciousness? If I said Holocaust Denial is a lack of consciousness would you disagree? If I said violent misogyny is a lack of consciousness would you disagree?
I tried to explain this before with my example of the barber, and in the same post with the example of the widespread lack of consciousness in the US when people were in favor of their government killing civilians in Afghanistan. Could you reply to these points?.

Thirdly, Marxism is elitist in the sense that it is a language that takes a fair bit of study and thinking to get into it. Like Kabalah maybe. The term "Marxism" is problematic in itself, it implies a character-worship of Marx. Maybe "Critical Theory" (or just plain critical theory) would have been a better term to use, but it tends to be over-academic and downplays practice. It is a way of criticizing existing conditions from a broader historical viewpoint. Its a methodology which has been used in diverse fields such as anthropology, feminism, linguistics and general critiques of hegemony and power.
Marxism is not an absolute truth, it is just a model of reality. Could you give me some concrete reasons why you think it is 'outmoded'? Especially since you have admitted you know very little about it!
 
 
Bruno
08:27 / 11.04.06
Bruno, how much of The Temple have you actually read? Can you point me to the posts where capitalism in blitely accepted as part of human nature?

A very small proportion really.
No I can't. I will look for them again.

I will re-read/read the threads you mentioned and think about it.
 
 
Bruno
09:09 / 11.04.06
Mr Carnival:
Because the comment I was responding to made me really bloody angry, I guess.

Personally I put quite a lot of energy into supressing my desire to behave in a hostile, aggressive or irrational way in public and I'm slightly nauseated by the idea of someone self-centered enough just to let rip regardless of the way their actions impact on others.

Do you often use the internet to vent your agression then? I'm not saying I havent done it. But I think it's a bit irresponsible, especially for a moderator.
It's also very unsatisfying!
A punching bag is a good investment.

I used to have dreadlocks and shaved them. Now I can talk with old people without them looking at me like I am a freak, I can find jobs easier etc. I can go for a drive with a friend who has a big lump of hash in his pocket without worrying that he might get arrested because his mate looks suspicious. Mothers no longer clutch their babies closer to them as I walk down the street. It is similar to what you said about the purple mowie. But I still think it is ok if people have dreads or mohawks, its their right.

I still believe that walking down the street shouting is not PARTICULARLY harmful. People see all kinds of shit on the street in London, it is not a very big deal to see an angry young man talking to himself. If it makes some people nervous and insecure, well, what to do, a bit of chaos tends to do that. I could focus much much more negative and hamrful energy while still acting "civil", and many people do this often! Inner demons become stronger when repressed, they are also harder to observe that way.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:21 / 11.04.06
Do you often use the internet to vent your agression then?

I never "use the internet to vent my aggression." I express valid anger at times, provided I believe I can support that anger with reasonable argument, as in this case. Please don't attempt to play the 'vicious thug/hysterical twit' card simply because I expressed anger.
 
 
Bruno
09:31 / 11.04.06
Please don't attempt to play the 'vicious thug/hysterical twit' card simply because I expressed anger.

I didn't mean to imply that you are either of those.
 
 
Spaniel
11:20 / 11.04.06
Then what were you doing?
 
 
Spaniel
12:30 / 11.04.06
To expand a little, IMO, your comments to Mordant read as accusatory. Mordant states explicitly that she doesn't use the board as a place to vent, conversely she often suppresses the urge to post when angry. It seems to me that she doesn't need to reflect on her posting style either as an individual or a moderator* at least as far as posting angry is concerned. In fact I would go as far as to say that Mordant is an exemplary member of the board in that she clearly tries, often in the face of opposition, to keep the standard of posts to the board high.

*does anyone else want to head butt the wall when people's moderator status is invoked unnecessarily?
 
 
penitentvandal
13:26 / 11.04.06
Actually, I started wanting to make friends with the bricks a loooong way before that. This was shaping up into quite a nice and much-needed thread and then all this 'false consciousness' business started.

Here's a mad idea: let's agree that the issue of whether or not 'false consciousness' and the Gurdjieffian notion of people being 'asleep' are the same is an interesting one, but the discussion of it is starting to lead the thread slightly off it's main point. The main point being that magickal experience tends to suggest that most people, including ourselves, are quote unquote asleep at certain times in that they are not fully conscious of things, but that this is not the same as the Matrix Wanker assertion that all people are asleep all the time and only we are awake and therefore better than them.

And then let's get back to discussing that.

From my own point of view I would say it's very dangerous to confuse being 'awake' with a political position: someone who habitually acts from a left-wing point of view without actually considering the issues is just as 'asleep' as someone who habitually acts from a right-wing position, in my opinion. But far more dangerous than this confusion is the trap of believing that because you are enlightened you are special and somehow better than everyone. I've genuinely believed that, in the past, during some rather benighted stages of my magical learning, but I find as I learn and experience more about these things I become more aware of the importance of compassion. I don't think, now, that people are sheep. What I think a lot of people are are afraid, and I think that's what we need to change. And, unfortunately, I don't think it can be solved by wearing a leather jacket and shades, or shouting gibberish in the streets. I think exposing more people to magick and reichian techniques, drugs and therapies which help overcome chronic fear and anxiety, as well as creating the economic conditions that help remove them, can change things. And I do think it suits certain people in power to keep people frightened, but I still think we can fight them.

And also, I wish I could swim, like dolphins can swim, et cetera.
 
 
illmatic
14:36 / 11.04.06
Good post VV. I am a bit tired at the moment (OHMIGOD HEIS ASLEEEP!!111!!) so I'm not going to come back to Bruno's points or yours right now. In broad agreement with you though.
 
 
gale
14:43 / 11.04.06
In addition to being afraid, I think many people are very angry, are angry most of the time, and don't realize they are angry. I have a 40 minute commute, and the hostility of other drivers toward one another was really getting me down. Why are they so angry? Do they know they're angry? Are they just incredibly rushed? Is that why they're angry? Is it the news media? Advertising?

So, for the past several months I have been paying attention to people's behavior when they are doing things like shopping, driving, waiting in line, etc. When I look at people's faces, many of them look angry--as if that's their default expression. Not all, by far, but many. That, along with perpetual fear, is disturbing.

I agree that everyone must spend time on autopilot. That's why Israel Regardie, for example, suggested spending some time in your body each day, but not all of the time. The same with Crowley's adorations of the sun. Four times a day, come back to your body and acknowledge the sun's position (VERY simply put!).
 
 
illmatic
18:40 / 11.04.06
With severe apologies to Velvet Vandal. Hopefully this is my last post on this subject.

What do you think of historical consciousness?

It’s a term that makes sense if you accept Marxist categories of analysis. As I don’t, it doesn’t hold a lot of meaning for me.

I tried to explain this before with my example of the barber, and in the same post with the example of the widespread lack of consciousness in the US when people were in favor of their government killing civilians in Afghanistan. Could you reply to these points?

I dislike the concept of false consciousness because (amongst other reasons) - it is a broad and blunt brush, as you concede. As illustrated here If I believed the world is flat and executed people who disagreed, can you deny that this is false consciousness? If I said Holocaust Denial is a lack of consciousness would you disagree?

So these are both the same phenomena? They can be both explained using the same term? They can both be explained as a “lack of consciousness” in particular? I think that’s far too simple and lets our hypothetical holocaust denier off the hook far too easily - and we don’t end up with any real understanding of why he has arrived at the opinions and beliefs that he has. Are Marxist categories of class consciousness necessary to explain this? Or are they going to muddy the water? I suspect the latter.

Similarly with your example of the barber - a term like “false consciousness” doesn’t too my mind help me to understand him in his complexity, or what might be underlying his responses – instead, it makes him simpler, easier to understand. We don’t have to consider how his opinions might have been formed, how they might be contradictory, how they might differ from other people in the same position etc etc. You stop seeing him as a complicated human being like yourself, albeit one with a different opinion. And, of course, you are still in the privileged position of the one who understands him better than he does himself! (BTW, I have some similar reservations about statements like “most people are scared” and “most people are angry” – I’d rather say most people are complex, or most people are worthy of respect – but they don’t come laden with the ideological and intellectual baggage that FC does).

Could you give me some concrete reasons why you think it is 'outmoded'?

Referring specifically to “false consciousness” can you give me an example of where it is current? What current theorists and thinkers are using this idea? None, as far as I’m aware – correct me if I’m wrong.
 
 
Sam T.
20:36 / 11.04.06
What Velvet says.

(Yeah, I'm not adding much, I know. But I think I have the right to, because if you trackback everything, this thread happened because of me

I've painfully tried to follow the debate on false consciousness, and I still don't have the slightest idea what the two of you are talking about.)

(I did read the beginning of 'Meeting with remarkable Men', and also 'Belzebub...' from Gurdjieff et al. I sometimes agree with him, but then sometimes this is... far out to put it midly. Am I missing a layer of signification? Is he putting you on? Does he want to twist your mind by mixing truth and falsehood? Do you, at least, find out in the end? This seems to have a strange kind of direct effect, as he claims in the intro.

Fun read, anyway.)
 
 
illmatic
21:00 / 11.04.06
I've painfully tried to follow the debate on false consciousness, and I still don't have the slightest idea what the two of you are talking about.

Does everyone else feel like that? Basically, I'm slagging off the Marxist idea of false consciousness as put forward by Bruno and he's defending it, sort of. Bruno, now maybe you see why it is a bad idea to "mix the planes"?
 
 
penitentvandal
21:55 / 11.04.06
I have found the false consciousness stuff a bit brain-bending, yeah. I haven't read a lot of Gurdjieff (my knowledge of him comes second-hand, through Anthony Storr, Patrick Harpur and *koff* RAW *koff*) and then trying to graft that onto quite technical points of Marxism is kind of difficult.

When I say I think people are afraid, I'm not trying to be critical of them, it's just an observation. And I'm certainly not saying I'm better than them because I'm not afraid either. I think part of the benefit of magickal training is that you learn how to cope better with fear. You learn not to let it control you.

You can achieve this with other systems, of course.

I think the generalised anger you see in people stems from fear, too. It's a defense reaction. We're frightened, so we front up to everyone like we're the baddest mofo around and if they fuck with us they'll fuckin DIEEEEEEE.

I used to do this myself, actually. Whenever I walked past a guy on the street who intimidated me, I'd snicker, give 'em a withering look, go 'dear oh dear' or whatever. Sad, pathetic, primate behaviour. (Barbelith News: velvetvandal Revealed to be Prick Shocker!) I try not to do this now, but I still do catch myself in it occassionally. The odd thing is, I didn't start out wanting to be like this: I used to be quite the young hippy, but I guess somewhere down the line I got scared like a lot of other people and went over to the other side, as it were. Recently I've decided to give up this urge to be hard and dominating, to be happy with control of my own life and to allow others control over theirs without judging or criticising them.

I think I should read more Reich to get a proper bead on this, as it sounds a bit like his idea of character armouring, but not having read Reich I need to be sure about that.
 
 
petunia
22:08 / 11.04.06
Sam -

I've not read any Gurdjieff, but Osho had a lot to say about him. Apparently a lot of the Gurdjieff centres throughout the world actually use Osho's writings his versions of Gurdjieff's exercises rather than the original stuff as Osho tends to be a lot more accessible and explain things more straightforwardly.

The quote at the top of this page Is quite a good summary of Osho's views on self-remembering.

A google for osho and gurdjieff brings up a lot of stuff, tho you'll have to trawl a bit to get the meaty stuff. I'm sure i've read a few of Osho's books which talk about Gurdjieff, but can't remember which they are - he makes frequent and fleeting references to him in a lot of his books.

I can remember him saying at some point that Gurdjieff wrote 'All and Everything/Beelzebub's tales' using his disciples as proof readers. As Osho tells it, G. would write a chapter, then get his disciples to read through it; he'd then ask them about it, and if any of them had made sense of it and understood what he was trying to say, he'd go back and rewrite until none of his disciples could understand it; only then would he proceed to the next chapter.

I'm not sure how true this story is, but it points out the way Gurdjieff used to work. Osho says he would like to hide the truth so deep that it became near impossible to find - which would make it all the more worthwhile if you did find it..

So yeah, i guess a lot of Gurdjieff's stuff is putting you - forcing you to think it through your own way.

There is an obvious problem, as many have mentioned on this thread, of reading these people (Gurdjieff, Osho etc) who are specifically trying to raise human consciousness (tho not in the marxist sense as i understand it; they have little to do with materialist views of consciousness) and get people to see their 'true selves' or whatever you call it...

Osho speaks of 'mob-ocracy' in some of his political talks, and we are easily tempted to agree and end up becoming another voice for the Sheeple/humaton/matrixwank rhetoric, but this rhetoric is itself just a reactionary response - it is engendered and only possible by seeing people as Other, as stupid and naive and whatever.

If we look at the messages a lot of these mystics/consciousness raisers/whatchyacallems, we get the impression that 'true consciousness' (is there is such a thing) relies on being aware of who you are, and who you are is inevitably a part of 'that which is everyone'.

To admit/agree that there are 'sleeping sheeple' who need to wake up is to admit that we ourselves are asleep - this fact remains whether we are 'awake to true consciousness' or not - a buddha is a part of the all; a part of the all is asleep; a part of the buddha is asleep.

If we show anger, hatred or frustration towards other people for unthinking action and general 'sleepyness', we are really just showing that we are frustrated with our own actions; our own sleepiness/sheepleness/false consciousness and are failing to take responsibility for our own part in All of This...

If we look into the world and find people who are acting out of impulse, or out of belief, or out of ingrained 'indoctrination' or sexual repression or.. or... the only thing we can do is look and find the times and places where we act in the same way. We can start to remember ourselves and start t become a shining example to other people who might think "what is it about X that makes them seem that little bit more alive?" just like we do about Gurdjieff/Osho/Neo.

Seems a lot better than just wondering around in a full length leather jacket bitching about how Peeople Iz Teh Sh33p and they're everything wrong with the world...

And really..

Look at cats and kittens:

Is there really that much wrong with sleep?

God i loooove making cheesy 'i want to teach the world to sing' posts!
 
 
Quantum
15:02 / 12.04.06
All this talk of Marxism has me thinking from a political point of view. Almost everyone spends almost all their time 'asleep', and the 'Awake' ones are NOT the revolutionary rebels, but the people in power who consciously act to keep almost everyone unconscious and disempowered, angry and frightened. Those who promote a climate of fear in order to maintain control are most 'awake' in that they are more truly aware of the factors involved in our everyday life and act to suppress people's autonomy, power and empathy.

The Awakened are not Neo, they are NeoCons.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
15:17 / 12.04.06
They Live?
 
 
penitentvandal
15:31 / 12.04.06
Roddy Piper could totally kick Neo's arse.

I don't think you can say it's just the bastards in power who are 'awake' - you could become aware of how it all works but decide to try and help other people become free instead of enslaving them, surely?
 
 
Quantum
16:20 / 12.04.06
People could and do, but a few matrix warriors ain't going to make a sparrow's fart of difference. Unless and until the sheeple/humatons/proles/masses/drones/everybody-who-isn't-me take their power back en masse, it's an elitist fantasy. The first step to 'awakening' everybody is surely to get everybody co-operating to make the world nicer and being a part of your community. In fact, that would count as victory in my eyes.

Plan B is to get a cult of psychics with Teh Madjik HedXplody and go V4V on the establishment's arse and blow shit up.

Some people tried that in New York, Madrid and London recently, and it doesn't seem like such a good idea to me.
 
 
penitentvandal
16:37 / 12.04.06
Funny, that. Didn't know Al Qaeda used psychics.

I think, Quantum, that you're falling into the trap of seeing the Matrix Warrr-yah 'humaton' paradigm as the only model of the 'asleep/awake' dynamic in mysticism. And you're right to say that that's limited. But there are other models, and other ways of fighting for freedom, than putting on the leathers and doing the kung fu with the balls. I actually think your idea of what people should do is a much better and more positive one.
 
 
Sam T.
17:52 / 12.04.06
Even if we could psychically kill all the ruling bastards (which would be way better than blowing off innocent bystanders :-), how long do you think it would take for exactly the same kind of bastards to, hu, rule again?

Not that it ain't a tempting idea.
 
 
Quantum
18:55 / 12.04.06
Tempest- have you read Animal Farm? The pigs free the sheep(le) and then take over where the humans left off- sounds similar to what you're saying.

Didn't know Al Qaeda used psychics
My tongue was firmly in someone's cheek, I was mocking the Vendetta tendency. (aside- 'We now know that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the London bombings in July 2005.') I just meant terrorism in general is pretty shitty, but it's easy to see the temptation to blow shit up (not innocent civilians of course, just the evil Man, y'know, like the movies) and we have to be conscious of what a mistake it is.
To point at the Matrix, the good guys kill loads of innocent people and it's glamourised as a vehicle for social change. Let's not do that, let's get more involved in our community and promote empathy and love, evolution not revolution, give peace a chance, channel our anger into positive action, < insert hippy slogan of your choice here >. Let's be Awakened Okkult NeoWarriors that help old ladies across the road and lend a friendly ear when it's needed, let's be builders not destroyers, Joyists not terrorists.
 
 
penitentvandal
21:22 / 12.04.06
Hear, hear! MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHH!
 
 
Sam T.
21:42 / 12.04.06
What Velvet says.

  
 
Sam T.
22:00 / 12.04.06
Great book, by the way. And call me Sam, please. I'm changing that next moon.
 
 
Sam T.
07:59 / 13.04.06
I've read some stuff from Osho, and mostly, it had an effect on me. Didn't know the two were so related. He's certainly way clearer than Gurdjief, but that's not very hard.

I saw, in a french tabloid, that there is an Osho center in India. The covering was slanted towards 'supermarket of the religious experience' and 'everybody should do an HIV test before being admitted because they fuck like hell between meditations'. A self service sect, where you get in for a few days.

Sounds good to me. I mean, usually, this kind of organization asks for all your time, life, whole of your money, and first born child. And only the high gurus are doing the young devotees.

This looks like a considerable improvement.
 
 
Quantum
10:46 / 13.04.06
"A Welcome Package which includes: Entrance sticker for one day, Welcome day participation, HIV/Aids test, entry card & photos is available for Rs 1.250"

Wait, so you get an HIV test included in the welcome pack? Crikey. That's not like any meditation classes I've ever attended, I didn't realise the transition from mind to no-mind demanded prolonged fucking. Does sex with strangers help cease the internal dialogue and aid concentration? Or is the meditation an excuse for an orgy?
 
  

Page: 12(3)456

 
  
Add Your Reply