Name some.

Jeremy Narby.

The shamans Jeremy Narby paraphrased.

Me.

My Interpretation of television goes like this : " They removed psychadelics which provided colourful visions (like mushrooms,etc) from the populations, because mushrooms gave people a mind of their own- and constructed Television in order to replace the visuals with man created visuals that were geared to brainwashing the peoples into the societal system of which we are all too familiar of today. Thus media and fashion was created, as was "entertainment shows", to instruct people on how to be entertained and remain glued to a "sofa" for hours on end indoors, instead of being outdoors making active experiences ( far too dodgy for the government to handle).

- Thus the tv has become a kinda indoor police. Have you noticed how stern and serious tv news presenters are. Why do they talk wierd??...They are there to control and pacify you, it's all clever brainwashing.

- Before there was reality, and there was tv-- now there's "reality tv", so other people can live life for you. ARRGHHHH!!!!...wHAT ARE WE LETTING THEM DO TO US!!

---lET ME OUT OF the tv LUNATIC ASYLUM.....

I think you are right christian... its like Michel Foucaults Panopticon, but even more warped - Not only are people too scared to do anything in the physical sense, they are also too scared to think certain things, or certain ways (ie FOR THEMSELVES) - and would rather just be told what to think by the establishment. Its the easier option. Sadly it leaves many people open to very dark manipulation.

I just want to switch everyones TV off for a night and throw them some mushrooms...the world would UNDOUBTEDLY be better off for it.

I will stand by selective viewing though - there are some diamonds in that rough.

Me too !

-Thanks, Jdubs. i'LL agree that tv does have it's good days here and there, but inbetween the Internet fills the gap nicely, and allows me the opportunity to stimulate my brain, unlike tv does..

Not sure that like some poeple claim throwing psychedelic to everybody would do any good in society as we know it now, so with poeple like we have around now.
I really do'nt think this type of experience is beneficial for everyone or they'd need a BIG preparation.
It's not like eating lsd or mushrooms would enlighten the crowd.

I think not the whole crowd, but obviously some people.

Hahaha of course, what would we do here otherwise ?
Same goes as the responsability.
I like to share my "special plants and extracts" with picked up friends who show interest AND respect to this.
I had many more occasion to say "No, sorry." to somebody who simply want to try it like another way of getting dizzy.
I just don't want to take the responsability of entheogen abuse and poeple freak out cause they misevaluated the whole process in which they're getting into.
But of course it's for SOME poeple like us and others who didn't have the occasion or don't have it anymore.

Lol it was clearly a massive hypothetical. I am not seriously considering doing it A massive hypothetical, bordering on a joke.

obviously not, however there are still many poeple having blissful experience that tend to think after that everyone dosing would change the world for the best.
remember timothy leary.
Sorry to fail to notice you were having a laugh with this.
However this are good question takenin contest of very deep and structural societies changements into a sustainable world.
Microdose psychedelic could help many poeple without them need to succeed the integration F.E.

Back to the OP, smae goes with anything really, it's not what you do but HOW you do that really matter,
one can swallow every piece of information TV serves without judgement or try and do his best treating the information with some scepticism when it's needed and tak stuff for what it is: Subjective Data.
So this apply to Psych/entheogens etc... and Medias.

I dont know... I would never try and enforce this, I am just hypothesising...but I think the revelations mushrooms can impart are not to be kept to an elite few. When they were legal in the UK, everyone had a jolly old time... I think they could be a step towards universal human development, in fact. The more 'free minded' people, the better surely?

Some people will be too scared to try them, due to conditioning. If they were made more 'acceptable', it would be a better world - the x factor would surely lose ratings... maybe thats why they arent 'acceptable' - there seems to be a pattern emerging here...

The view that all of TV content is made consciously for brainwashing is way too overly simplified IMO. There are thousands of different motives behind different programs on TV, plus all sorts of people working on it with their different levels of contribution. I dont think we can generalize like this.

In any case I can say that personally, I feel TV has mostly negative effects rather than positive effects. Now let me explain why:

1- Advertising. With the few exceptions of TV use (such as pandora mentioned), everybody watching TV is being periodically bombarded with advertisement. While NOBODY will admit they are influenced by advertisement, the billions spend in this industry clearly show that people are definitely affected by it. It doesnt matter if you are conscious and if you wont buy that specific nike shoe or whatever, the fact is, all stimulus affects us consciously and unconsciously. All the advertisement stimulus makes us naturalize and internalize the fact that consuming from unsustainable brands is a natural part of life, plus it makes changes on chosen products in the long run (we tend to chose known brands over unknown brands often, for example, due to the mistaken supposition known brands have higher quality control).

2- Dumbed down content. Most of TV content is dumbed down, leveled by the lower common denominator. I often feel that most of the time if I would watch tv I would be losing my time with a lot of "fill" and very little content that actually really makes me gain something out of it.

3- The illusion of choice. Often people talk about how the power of changing channel empowers the watcher. That is a mistake, it is only a pseudo choice. Most choices are anyways dumbed down, as said above. Then, there is the fact that there is a LOT of time lost with useless "zapping", and all the "noise" stimulus one is being bombarded with while changing channels. Lastly, TV only gives an illusion of choice because all the content is pre-made, you cannot really chose anything, only chose between what is being fed to you. There is no real interaction. 1.0 technology

4- The influence of the vehicle on psyche. Independent of which channel you are watchig, specially for kids, but also for adults, all this zapping and pseudo choice affect how we interact with the world. We are, over the years, internalizing the idea that the content of life is already determined, and all we can do is chose between some options that are already there. This is not at all empowering, and its clear to me that there is at least some relation between people's resignated disatisfaction with the world's state, and watching TV.

I dont have a TV for many years, dont ever watch it. I rather chose the exact content I interact with over the internet, and interact with it as much as I can. The only time I ever turn on TV is when connecting my PC to it and putting the content I want.

With that being said, I dont think everything is evil about TV and with a very very careful conscious use I understand some people may get positive constructive things out of it. Personally I chose not to, havent for many years and wont in the future. I feel its bad stimulus for me. Each one to their own though

internet adds are bad enough. I dont own a TV. The only time I ever watch TV is if I visit my sister and she is watching some show..

Anything I want to watch I watch online or I just watch a movie on my computer. I watch alot of things but it is always something that I want to watch and I am not just turning on some television to stare at random shows and adds. When I had TV I had the outdoor life network and the science fiction channel and that was about all I watched.

I never even got into shows like family guy or the simpsons etc..I had friends that would sit in a sort of trance eating chips all night watching those damn shows..sort of numbing I find.

internet ads? Get adblock, I dont ever see internet ads.

Pressed post too early, and posted only the quote. Actual comment is below.

Yea I think the negative things are a by-product, rather than a concious manipulation tool. If TV is reflective of society at all, then in that way, it can be used to gauge the state of the country...by that gauge, the UK is in a pretty sorry state.

While I agree with your assessment in general, there are certain things about your individual points that I take issue with, or simply see as not being an issue.

1- Advertising. As you said to FE about internet ads... who watches advertisement? Everyone DVR's their shows or downloads them... if you are sitting and watching ads, you have to be seriously bored. Also, advertising does not have an effect on our unconscious decisions to like or dislike, trust or not trust a particular product or brand. What they are doing is staking out mental real estate. They are making you aware of their product or brand. Thus, when you decide to buy something, you will at least know of their option. You can't set out to purchase something you have never heard of, thus revenue will increase based on exposure.

Hollywood is obsessed with mental real estate. It is the main reason why they greenlight so many remakes, comic books, sequels etc. and LOVE a good franchise. People already know the names and the characters, thus the main obstacle in promoting a product is already overcome from the start. It doesn't matter how great your show, song, painting, dance, do-hickey, or thing-a-ma-jig is... if no one knows it exists, it won't sell.

2- Dumbed down content. Sure. In general, there is a lot of shit aimed at dumb ass people. But then, there are a lot of dumb ass people out there. It is a large demographic. You can find intelligent stuff to watch. In fact, there is more great TV coming out every week than I have hours I care to spend consuming it.

3- Illusion of choice. What illusion? You can choose what to watch or not to watch. You can also choose to create your own content. You can become a film maker or scriptwriter if you think you can do better. Besides, only idiots sit there zapping around. Most people I know pick the shows they want to watch.

I won't get into your #4 to much, as it is highly subjective and different from person to person. Personally, I find that watching a good show is not only empowering, but very social. Even if I watch the show alone, I am sure to talk about it with someone at some point. Having had such an abstract experience in common with tons of other people is a unifying effect. Who didn't talk or think about how Lost or the Sopranos ended? I love Roger from American Dad, and if someone in a bar mentions him, I will usually like that person too. Who wouldn't love a drug taking, con artist, alien on the run from the CIA?

Anyway, I think the pervasive comments here seem to suggest that people view TV as simply the box and whatever is on. They equate it to mindless zapping and pre-set programming. I have news for you though. If you watch a TV show on the internet, on a DVD, off a torrent, or on a plane... you are still watching TV. There are some TV writers out there who are doing amazing work. The level of fiction writing, plot twists and clever dialogue on some shows is truly remarkable. I don't advocate coming home and flipping on the boob tube. I DO, however, recommend that people check out some of the sick ass shows out there and enjoy what has become a renaissance in TV quality over the last 8 years or so.

Big generalization, specially if you are pretending to know it in an worldwide level. Most people I know that watch TV will have their eyes glued to the TV for at least SOME advertisements, plus discussing advertisement is part of general 'chit-chat', even amongst "cultured" people.



No you cant, at least not in the way you can interact with, say, internet content. Maybe with years of work, dedicating a lifetime to it, making it your carreer or hobby of great interest, you could get one or another film or script out there, but this is soooo much the exception that I dont think its really an argument in relation to what I said.



That doesnt relate to empowering at all.. You can say there's a social bonding (just like talking about ANYTHING in social context can create social bonding), but in what way is discussing some show really empowering? Did you understand what I meant with empowering?




Personally I dont. But anyways you are still not taking in account the important differences between content and medium (Mcluhan style...). Some criticism I made is related to the medium, others related to most content. When people watch TV with the TV box and typical channels and all the "fill" between content, is not the same as downloading/recording specific programs and watching the exact thing you want. Then of course we could argue if some or other specific program is good quality or not, but thats another discussion.

Lastly, as I said before, each one to their own.. If you are happy to watch your programs, go for it.. Just dont feel bad if I dont

I don't feel bad in the least if you don't enjoy TV. People denigrating the entire art form because they don't appreciate it, though, is a bit like old people talking down about the music of the youth. "This hipity hoppity stuff is just trash. Better to go to an Opera."

You seem to have a balanced opinion, but there is a knee jerk reaction from a lot of people who think it makes them seem high brow.

I fully understand the difference between medium and content. Still, a TV show is still a TV show in whatever medium you consume it. It was written by a TV teleplay writer, produced through the TV system, aimed at TV audiences, aired on TV etc. If you rent it on DVD or watch it on the internet, it doesn't magically change into something else.

I find some TV empowering because it inspires me to raise the bar on my own writing. I never said it was universally inspiring or empowering.

Lastly, anyone CAN create TV content. The cost of an HD camera now is next to nothing, and editing software is ubiquitous. Also, most cable providers still have community access channels that usually come with space and equipment for any crap that you might want to film. It has gotten less available in recent years, but it is still possible. YouTube channels are also a form of do-it-yourself TV. Anyone with a cell phone can record footage if they want.

People who want to try their hand at TV can get entry level jobs in the industry, even with little or no experience and no degree whatsoever. Even backwoods townships often have a local news channel. And, the fact that it might take years of hard work to become good at creating content doesn't mean it is not possible. It means that it is hard. Anyone can criticize TV, pointing to it as a worthless art form. Most of those people have never tried to make it though. It is like people saying Van Gogh isn't so hot. I could probably paint a sunflower better.

The fact that most shows are not especially interactive doesn't mean anything. TV is not the internet. It is a storytelling medium. You don't complain at a Broadway play that you can't decide how the next scene goes. You can't interact with books at all, but I don't see people putting them down as being mind-numbing. TV is more interactive than most fiction mediums. Fans can and do give feedback to the creators. Writer's rooms read these comments and incorporate ideas from the blogosphere. Series change and grow in a far more interactive way than film does. And, books are completely created in isolation usually.

I reject the notion that TV is only the old model of watching whatever is on. Do people do this? Sure. But I think a significant portion of worldwide consumers of TV content do so through laptops, iPads, smartphones, dvd's etc. A lot of people watch the Daily Show on the free streaming portal at comedy central.com, are you trying to argue that this is not TV?

I find that your over all opinion is valid endlessness. I just think your points are sort of inconsequential and not 100% accurate. But then, you don't watch TV so how could they be? The opinions about spice held by people who never extracted or used it don't hold that much weight either... even if they are sociologists or anthropologists.