Intellectual Warfare
Going on the offensive in the intellectual wars over the public’s ideologies is both dangerous and potentially extremely rewarding.
If we are to convince others around us to follow us, and in the process leave behind everything they used to know, those we wish to convince will need to know they will be OK. Love is the ultimate tool to ensure someone else feels OK. If we are going to begin tearing down others’ mental frameworks, they need to simultaneously know that something more beautiful and realistic and loving will take its place. Most of all, they just need to know they will be ok. It’s rare to find an individual who will peruse truth no matter the consequences to him/herself, so the general public must be persuaded to find the truth with promises of love, peace, and understanding. Promises which, if they do sincerely begin to seek truth, they will find fulfilled.
Therefore, as we broadcast our “destructive” messages aimed at the general population’s false ideations and beliefs, we must simultaneously communicate a sense of love and belonging. Otherwise, people will fear us too much to become one of us “truth seekers.”
If we do pursue this avenue, what messages will we communicate first? Is there anything concrete we could all agree on?
What channels of communication will we use? How much money can we come up with? How much money are we willing/able to expend on this endeavor? What is the most cost-effective way of influencing our cultures?
Perhaps an advertising assault is just what the world needs to wake up.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ferran Sanz Orriols on
-
why should I be gentle with someone who starts a thread on intellectual warfare?... a thread where some books can be quoted while some other books are forbidden?
you can find in this website examples of me writing in gentler ways, if they have not been deleted
you said you were to attack, so it's quite natural that someone says: "Ok, c'mon, I'm ready to defend"
the difference is simple: education means helping to bring outside what is already inside (this is the ethymology of the word)
you have written about putting something in, conditioning, which is quite the opposite
my opinion is that you ought to prepare yourself better before going to war
-
Permalink Reply by Seth Edwards on
-
I have said nothing of conditioning others, I would however like to assault outdated beliefs and erroneous ideas that are demonstrably false. But all is well. Your opinions are certainly welcome here, a sincere thank you for the input.
-
-
maybe you were not aware of it, but as long as you want "followers", it means conditioning
you didn't even seem aware of the fact that when someone assaults will meet defence
please assault those "outdated beliefs and erroneous ideas", it's quite probable that I will defend some of those
let me state that, in my opinion, modern science is the most unreasonable view of life and the universe that I ever met
-
-
You seem to be harping on a few ambiguous phrases within my post, but the post was meant to be looked at in its entirety. When I say "followers," I mean that these new people will "pick up the torch" so to speak, and begin to think for themselves. I don't mean that they will literally be our followers, and us their leaders. As I said before, my mission is merely to chip away at broken beliefs. Since I have not stated what I'm specifically attacking, anyone "going on the defense" would have to be rather pretentious assuming that I'm going to attack something they believe in. But I will say I was hoping to influence a very broad audience, which should give you some kind of idea of the general nature of the "attacks."
The forum is the think-tank, not the actual battleground. The battleground I'm hoping to find would be that of advertising and mass-media, in which case we would never directly deal with peoples' defenses.
-
-
exactly just as pretentious as the attacker, in my opinion.... here's someone who says he knows better (whatever it might be): you
so someone else plainly disagrees: me
you can't have one without the other
so, the general nature of any attack... is that it is an attack!
so, your idea is to attack so tricky that you don't meet any defence, of course... nothing new under the sun
-
-
-
What do you disagree with? I have given no opinions about what I will be attacking. It seems the only thing you disagree with is the word "attack" itself, which makes no sense, because you are clearly trying to be offensive in your replies. If you really thought attacks were evil you would practice what you preach. I think maybe you're trying to prove some kind of point by being a "defender," but I'm not really sure. Since there is nothing to defend yet, it seems very fabricated.
I use the word attack because its more interesting that saying "relaying information that would negate old outdated beliefs." It looks as if you are too attached to words themselves to actually think logically (which, to be fair, most people are) for "attack" in this entire context means the exact same thing as trying to convince someone to see things differently.
But to feed your fire, some of the ideas I'd really like to relay would be "your ego is a lie," and that "your personality is nothing more than a system of patterns you didn't even personally create." I would like to effectively say, "we all live in our own little bubbles of illusion, and we should make it our collective mission to destroy those deceitful bubbles."
-
-
-
I do disagree with attacking, haven't you noticed?
if this thread had started with a title like: "let's present better ideas to the public" or similar, there'd be nothing I'd say against it
................
now, who are you to say that my ego is a lie? who are you to know my personality better than me?
I say that all your pretensions of knowing anything better than anyone are a lie, this is the reply you deserve
-
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
Ferran >> "if this thread had started with a title like: "let's present better ideas to the public" or similar, there'd be nothing I'd say against it"
Ok, the issue is only with the title.
=======
Seth: >> "we all live in our own little bubbles of illusion, and we should make it our collective mission to destroy those deceitful bubbles."
I like this. It is similar to shedding all of one's attachments. Rather Buddhist of you <g>
-
-
-
John, of course it's not "only" with the title
the title sets the mindset of any thread, the words of the title have a meaning
I wonder why people find it so hard to understand that to attack is offensive
-
-
I don't want my post to be three-thousand pages long. If you wish to have a reply to anything else along these lines, start your own discussion. We're done with it here.
-
Permalink Reply by PuzzleSolver on
-
"I don't have anything to do with any beliefs... people prefer to believe and follow simply because thinking, studying with some depth and practicing are quite harder"
So what is the use of having followers if they are unable to think for themselves and only quote from books? What is the use of having those books if only for making it easier to follow?
The thing we are shooting for here is not something that is already stamped in on a persons framework of thinking, that's why it's not used. "Education is bringing outside what is already inside" So if we are spoonfed everything, what makes us any better than sheep that follow in herd to a sheep-herder?
This isn't just about "education" and it's not about quoting from books, because people that are stuck with in that framework of mind can always find a million ways to argue why their book is the best and why their book should be read, look at all spiritual warfares that span this Earthly globe. Do you not think if a miracle were to happen where people had no books they would have to dig inside of their true nature for what they already know? You might probably think, Well they'll just write their own books again. Yet again we would be back into the spiritual or intellectual warfare. True enlightenment is gained from where then? Is enlightenment not gaining from insight? Enlightening from the in rather from the out?
What is really needed to have that? And I ask that humbly because I don't know. I ask, is it from a book? what about a class? Would it not be better to find the ground works of how it all comes down to being true, or should we believe everything that is said in a book because millions of people have already believed it? All in all this shouldn't even be about books, the question at hand is can we as a whole... or better yet can each individual (Can You) think and make truth not only from outside of you and everything you have learned from every book people have read...but from inside and spread that out to everyone? We all have our sources, those things that we just know. Is it possible to awaken that knowledge from using ourselves and knowledge or insight from the divine so it is only truth? That is the task at hand.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Theosophy Network.
Powered by
