Conference hydra::dejavu

    I've _not_ been surprised at the latest "revelations."  There has
    always been a reasonably solid number of people who have shown interest
    in the paranormal, and there have been many, many charlatans who
    have been victimizing people for ... well, centuries.
    
    After World War I, there was a strong upsurge in Spiritualism --
    not just the religion, but the whole schmear of what is sometimes
    called "spiritism."  It got so overloaded with fakers that Erich
    Weiss, better known as Harry Houdini, went on a crusade to expose
    these folk -- however, while he was doing so, the magazine _Scientific
    American_ was offering a prize of some thousands of dollars for
    proof of an actual medium (Houdini clashed with the secretary of
    the committee, a Mr. Bird, who was pushing the case of a Boston
    woman who claimed, under the name of "Margery," to be a medium).
    
    There have been luck charms, ouanga bags, talismans, fetishes, and
    so forth for sale for _years_ by places ranging from practical joke
    shops to specialty shoppes in occult matters.  I received some years
    ago a catalogue from a place that called itself an occult shop:
    the thick multi-page catalog's descriptions of the items for sale
    showed that the sellers hardly had the slightest idea what they
    were selling (examples: they said "occultists" preferred to call
    the ritual robes they sold "tabards."  A tabard is something else
    entirely, and not very occult.  They called one Egyptian god
    "Thoth-Ibis" rather than Thoth (whose _symbol_ is an ibis or
    ibis-headed man; and so forth).   
    
    There's a principle in economics called Gresham's Law: Bad money
    drives out good.  Any increase in public awareness of things occult
    will tend to attract charlatans, and in _this_ cycle, the good stuff
    will be swamped by the junk.
    
    Re occult-versus-religion:  "religion" is a loose word that covers
    a lot of territiory.  The European witch craze was a case of a form
    of religion clashing with an aspect of the occult.  A "major clash"
    these days, however, seems unlikely, though there will be incidents.
    
    Is the current wave "good" or "bad"?  Too early to say.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    To clarify .0:
    
    Just to be a little more clear on my use of the word "commercialism"...
    I am mostly referring to the use of television to market paranormal
    subjects to the masses.  Since t.v. can bring this information to
    the individual, as opposed to the individual going out and looking
    for it in groups or shops, I think the effects can be far more
    profound at this time in history.
    
    Jerri

    Re .2:
    
    Regrettably, while television can indeed "bring ... information to the
    individual ... as opposed to the individual going out and looking
    for it ..." often television's handling of said information is super-
    ficial, arbitrary, and only partially correct.  The television phenom-
    enon of the "docudrama" is a perfect example of this: where a televis-
    ion scriptwriter embellishes facts with fiction to increase the
    emotional impact on the viewer.   A perfect "paranormal" example
    of this is the syndicated series, _In Search Of ..._ produced by
    Alan Landsburg.  Look at the disclaimer that he apparently was
    pressured to put with the show (that what was being presented was
    only one of a number of possibilities) with the show's "authorotative"
    content and you'll see what I mean.
    
    Of all the paths top enlightenment, I'd put television exposure
    _way_ down on the list.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    RE: .0  Where is all of this going:
    
    Some thoughts come to mind.
    
    1. The networks are always looking for something that they can get
    people to watch.  If they thought they'd get a big enough audience
    by dramatizing a book by Jerry Falwell, they would.  It's just that
    the "occult"'s number came up.
    
    2. Serious occulters will probably go further underground.  You
    really can't concentrate with all that noise.  The "curious and
    the kooky" will never find them.
    
    3. Maybe everyone will go out and buy ouija boards and get possessed.
    
    In other words, I can't see anything good coming of it.  It seems
    television reporting (as a whole (hole?)) is more interested in
    reporting *something* than understanding it and getting it right.
    
    Oh, yeah.  "The closer you are to a news item, the more false the
    reporting of it seems.  The further away from a news item you are,
    the more you believe the reporting."
    
    Doom and gloom, :-)
    
    Tom
    

    Begging your pardon.....
    I'm new to the community, and have been absolutely fascinated by
    the 'DEJAVU' file.  
    
    But to make a point on this subject, I would have to say that the
    famous actress, Shirley MacLaine, has only begun to open audiences
    eyes as to the realness of occult happenings.  It can happen to
    any of us.  Keep up the good work Shirley!
    
    ...long time coming.
    
    D.M.F.
    
    

    Re .5:
    
    I tend to agree with Tom.  Gresham's Law _does_ work in the occult
    field, and the serious students may well "go underground" [but
    figuratively, not symbolically :-)] if the trend continues.  That
    would be a shame.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

Re: .3

> often television's handling of said information is superficial, 
  arbitrary, and only partially correct.  

Yes, I agree with this.  This is why I have been wondering about the 
possible effects to people in general, and it's why I started this note.
I think most people watch a lot of t.v. and are subjected to this kind
of information.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought "television bringing it to the
individual" was a "good" thing.  I, personally, think television rots
your brain. :^)  I don't want to say that I see negative results in the 
future coming from all of this, but I see a lot of people being affected,
and I think it helps to be aware of HOW they are being affected.

> Of all the paths top enlightenment, I'd put television exposure _way_ 
  down on the list.

I'm not sure I understand this.  Are you saying that you don't think t.v.
is a problem?  Or that it's not a good tool for enlightenment?  If the
latter, I agree.  I wasn't sure if I was being unclear in my previous
notes, and if you didn't know this is what I was talking about.  I think 
I was being somewhat vague, but I feel that t.v. is misinforming people.

There are a lot of people looking for an "answer", and if it were possible
to find, they probably wouldn't recognize it...simply because they don't
have a very good idea of what they're looking for.  If the most powerful 
thing they come in contact with is the television, their views are going 
to be shaped by that.  Whether t.v. is black-balling something valuable, or 
recommending something ridiculous, people are going to go off on tangents.  
With t.v. affecting so many people all at once, it seems to me that there 
might be a lot of these tangents taking place.  Not that this is something 
devastating...but it certainly could kick up some dust for everyone.

I'll use Shirley MacLaine's recent publicity as an example because a lot of 
people are familiar with it.  I liked Shirley's book "Out On A Limb".  I 
found value (for myself) in the book, and then I was done with it.  The t.v.
movie "Out On A Limb" was entertaining in parts, and I can see how it would
have a lot to offer people who hadn't read the book.  However, although it
was supposed to be an account of a true story, the movie was a lot different 
than the book.  The movie, in combination with reading Shirley's next book,
Dancing in The Light (which I didn't enjoy at all), made me doubt some
things Shirley had to say.  In an interview, someone asked her why she is
involved in so many different paranormal activities, and she said something
like, "I know it's not necessary, but it's fun.  I like the experiences."  
That statement helped renew my respect for Shirley.  In my opinion, she's
just on her own trip and as long as she recognizes that, she's safe.

But my point is that a lot of people really seemed to get caught up in
"Shirley's trip", instead of taking her valuable offerings, and then 
continuing on their own path.  Shirley doesn't know what's best for 
everyone's growth, and hopefully, she doesn't claim to.  She's just having 
a good time with her experiences.  Her set of experiences is not the ONE
set path to follow to become more aware.  But I think a lot of people 
think it is.  T.V. really hyped it up, and in the process, a lot of people 
went off thinking they had to do what Shirley did.  

Some people feel secure when they think they've found or know of an "answer" 
or a "purpose", and because of this, they will defend it as the "best" or 
"right" way, nearly to the end.  Time and experience usually heals this 
illness. ;^)   It has been my experience that whenever one trys to follow in 
the steps of another, they just get screwed up.  They can have the best of 
intentions...they're just dedicated to their "purpose" or "cause".  This is 
the way cults get started, and we all know cults can be very destructive.  
Just good people...misguided.

With so much interest in expanding awareness and gaining enlightenment,
there are a lot of "open" minds out there...  What happens when you take an
open mind (just a baby looking into the Universe) and fill it with garbage?
What happens when you take many open minds and fill them with garbage?  T.V. 
might be doing this on a mass scale.  I think it's a touchy situation.  

Jerri

    TV is definitly dangerous stuff, a cause of confusion.  I once
    did a study of the use of TV to hypnotise people, and had to conclude
    at the end that this was not the primary danger of TV.  (I went
    into the study prepared to expose this non danger as a danger.)
     It seems that people will instinctivly resist hypnosis when it
    is in their interest to do so.   The unconscious mind is hard to
    overwhelm, fortunatly.   The danger of TV as I see it is summed
    up by the word "saturation".
    
some overwhelming aspects of TV:
    	1) Rudolf Steiner once said that people were being damaged by
    		the photographic images used in advertising (before
    		the day of TV!)   The word magic is related to the
    		word image, the use of mental images being central to
    		magic.   The technocrats running the networks don't
    		seem to realize the difference between good suggestions
    		and bad ones.   Negative images can float around in
		an undisciplined mind for years.
	2) Fake events begin to seem real;  Does watching at lot of
    		dramatizations distort how we see people?   I am reminded
    		how Basil Rathbone always played the villian, although
    		he was a nice guy, while Errol Flynn played the hero
		while being a Nazi spy.   Do fake events fill our heads
    		with fake data that later may cause us to misjudge people?    
	3) Sheer saturation;  Events on TV are edited to come at you
    		at a faster rate than real events.  A few hours of TV
    		can expose you to more fake events than the rest of
    		the day had real events.   Your subconscious mind has
    		to make sense of the totality of what you percieve,
    		and is ill equipped to tell dramatizations from
    		documentaries. 
    
	    If most of the data a person takes in is fake, then that person's
    world view will be distorted by that bad data.  There is no cure
    but years of good data.
    	I have avoided TV for years and am appalled by how many people
    are unable to relate except through the common experience of "what we
    all saw on TV".    There was once a time when each person's experience
    was unique, but media events that "you just can't miss", are creating
    a huge pool of (fake) common experience.
    	I fear that the saturation of people's heads with mediocre or
    even false information uses up enough time to keep people from ever
    getting around to finding the truth.   I have always found books
    to be the best source of information, and television to mostly be
    a waste of time.
    
    	Just think of all the other things you could do with that time!
	Alan.

    Re .9:
    
    Sturgeon's Law says "Ninety percent of everything is c**p."  This
    is true of all media.  In television, the C-factor is higher, merely
    because it must be pumped out on a daily basis.
    
    One of the worst features is the so-called "Docu-drama," where actual
    events are used as a basis for a presentation, and the facts are
    then embellished.   Yet I've heard people say, "Well, it actually
    _happened_!"
    
    There are two problems with TV -- fake data (as in plays, etc.)
    and unclear understanding of _real_ data.  To stay non-esoteric
    for the moment, there are some who believe that the acts put on
    by professional wrestlers are real events, in the sense of injuries,
    etc.  If they try some of the same stunts (say, in self-defense),
    they may be astonished to find how reality differs from fiction
    [e.g., the "figure-4 leglock" is a tough hold to break out of, but
    the only way the victim can be caught in the hold is to cooperate
    actively].  Likewise, the understanding of things such as as lasers,
    spacecraft, aircraft, and the like are often far from reality [or
    what passes for it :-)] in the mind of the general public.
    
    So much worse when it comes to the paranormal.  Hoaxes abound, and
    these are reported with the same degree of seriousness as a natural
    disaster.  
    
    This is not limited to television, by the way.   [The note "demonic
    possession" gives an interesting study, if read from the base note.]
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Out of millions of people who may be watching a tv program, I would
    bet that there are at least several thousand who would have a sincere
    interest in a subject and who would be eternally grateful that that
    interest was sparked by the tv program.
    
    I've heard it said many times that even "the devil" may have a message
    for you from God.  Why worry about the medium, really?  Those who
    are supposed to hear something will hear it.  If they're not ready
    to hear something, it will more than likely sound "stupid," "too
    strange," or "boring" to them.  When people are ready to hear
    something, it often seems that even a hint of it is enough.  So,
    even hearing about something on a distorted 20/20 tv program may
    be enough to lead one to a satisfying, lifelong spiritual journey.
    
    In the spiritual group I'm part of, we often get a kick out of
    listening to the many off-the-wall ways people's spiritual interests
    were sparked:  chance newspaper articles, Merv Griffin show, local
    tv and radio shows, books falling off shelves (that seems to be
    pretty universal!), random posters in bookstores and supermarkets,
    accompanying a pesky friend to a program to humor her... countless
    ways!
    
    Just yesterday, I was listening to the Today Show, getting ready
    for work.  Apparently they're doing a week-long series on trance
    channeling.  Although the show tried to play it up as a passing
    yuppie fad, many people they interviewed were just in awe contemplating
    how their lives were changed after their exposure to it in the popular
    media.  I had the feeling that this was just the beginning of things
    for several of them.  One man said that he didn't even *care* if
    what was being channeled was authentic or if any of the "scene"
    was genuine; what he was left with was a profound, new connection
    with his inner being, etc.  Most of the people said things to this
    effect.

Re: .11

    True.  But just because some people can get the good out of something,
    doesn't mean that it won't be causing damage to many others.  It's a 
    difficult situation.  

    One could say that kids should be able to sort through all of the 
    garbage they're subjected to while growing up...and if they don't, 
    well, at least *some* of them were able to!  But many people are very 
    concerned with how things are presented to kids and feel that they 
    need guidance.  What about adults that need guidance?  We're all 
    growing minds, and we never stop being subjected to garbage.  We just
    pretend that we're beyond a lot of that when we're adult.  We're not.

    T.V. can be a valuable tool in sparking interest for some people.  It 
    can also be an immobilizing, hypnotic, destructive source for many 
    people.  A lot of people like to lose themselves to the t.v. because 
    it's a way to forget about the day's problems.  But they may be 
    totally opening themselves up to a ton of garbage in the process.  
    That's something people should be aware of.

    Alcohol, smoking, taking drugs, and whatever other things one can be
    "into", can all bring benefit or destruction.  I don't think we can 
    judge these things as being good or bad because of how some people use 
    them.  We just need to be aware and use good judgement for ourselves.
    However, we take care in subjecting ourselves to these other things...
    why not the t.v.?  I always laugh when I hear, "Violence isn't good 
    for kids."  What about adults?!  Blood, gore, and hate doesn't affect 
    adults?  It's crazy.  I'd like to see a serious advertisement saying:  
    "Warning, t.v. can be hazardous to your health."  It would be just as 
    legitimate as warnings against other mind altering methods.

    Now that there is such an interest for the media and viewers to discuss
    personal awareness, I think t.v. deserves just as much of our caution 
    as anything else we subject our minds to.  It's not just entertainment
    anymore.  It's telling us how to find ourselves and define our reality.

    We can avoid being affected by fake spiritual leaders because we don't 
    have to go searching for them...and if we did, we could stop seeing 
    them at any time.  But t.v. is a very intense medium that almost 
    everyone in our country has access to, in their own home, every day, 
    any time they turn it on.  Now it is being used to give exciting 
    personal awareness information (whether true or not) to excited, 
    searching audiences.  It is presenting someone else's reality in a
    very convincing and intoxicating way.  Some people will gain insight 
    from that.  Some people may get very confused and experience very much 
    the opposite.  I don't think any of us are totally immune to being
    tricked and confused.

    I think we tend to take the effect of t.v. lightly...and it may be 
    blasting more destructive messages at us than anything else in our 
    lives.  It can work both ways, and I think awareness of that is 
    valuable.

    I think *everything* works towards our goals of enlightenment.  Some 
    paths just cause more destruction than others.

    Jerri

RE: 9

(Set flamer to stun...)

I agree completely.  The possiblilities of television have been perverted
to a medium that, with prolonged exposure, can lower your I.Q.!  Think about
it.  The average sitcom, docu-drama, action-adventure program has so many
holes in the plot that you are forced to squint your eyes and ignore the
obvious inconsistencies just to get any enjoyment out of it.  After a 
while, you get pretty good at it until you stop noticing that things don't
add up.  Your attention span is also lowered because of the constant 
switching back and forth between commercials and "entertainment".

One of the first things that  I noticed while traveling in England and France
is that people all dress *differently*.  Not just from us (Americans) but from
each other.  They also get television for much less time every day than we do,
with far less commercials.  The connection is that no one is telling them how
to dress!  Pick 10 Americans and 9 of them will be wearing running shoes, blue
jeans and a shirt with something on the pocket.  They will also be overweight
partly because television commercials have taught us that no matter where you
are, what you are doing or who you are with you can, and should, be eating
something. (What, you're going out on the boat without a sixpack!?  Are you a
communist?) 

Watching the "news" is hardly any better.  Ever notice how T.V. news always
seems to be searching for some poor issue to jump on so they can beat it to a
pulp and then abandon it?  (What ever happened to all those starving people
in Ethiopia?  Are they all ok now or have we found another issue to bullyrag?)

No doubt about it, television should be taken with an eyedropper and a grain
of salt, at least.

John... 
(flame off...)
    

    Re: .14
    
    John, your flamer was set to hilarious...

    Your observations brought to mind many things I find funny about t.v.    
    The intended plot of most sit-coms can be figured out in the first
    few scenes.  News announcers always look so distressed and serious
    when reporting something supposedly horrible...or they tensely laugh
    and smile at the lighter-side of things.  Commercials also teach
    us to tell all our friends about the sanitary products we use...and
    to compete with all our friends on which products are better.
    
    All in all, I think much of t.v. teaches people to be overly-dramatic 
    and unrealistic.  I wish they'd bring back lots of old Saturday
    Night Live.  Now, THAT was a realistic show! ;^)

    Jerri