infant consciousness superior to adults

[MacCruiskeen]

Except I didnt say that :p

Sorry, Penguin, I should have known better than to think that was you.

Still can't locate the actual author, though. (posting in a rush.)

[bks]

He meant me, and I actually take the point. I referenced movies because the article referenced the Clint Eastwood movie study.

It so happens in this case that watching a movie DOES capture the experience of absorption, save for the part of the mind that knows it is watching a show. Clearly babies don't know that, or as Mac says, know that they're NOT, nor (of course) do they care whether or not they are.

I, on the other hand, care a great deal that the shit I watch too much of is designed to appeal to my subconscious and infiltrate my preferences. I would not want a child's naivety. Ideally, what I would like is the experience of complete absorption, right alongside a complete imperviousness to the product appeals, saccharine sentiment an other forms of bullshit that leave a residue in the viewer.

[alwyn]

First of all, no baby is "incredibly aware of what's happening". They are merely hyper-responsive to their environments. They don't know the most basic things required for true awareness - they don't know a movie is a movie, for instance. They lack all context. Adult human beings bounce back and forth between the 'first attitude' of absorption in media and the 'second attitude' of critical distance from what they are observing. It's the second attitude, the attitude that children and babies lack, which makes it possible to resist what we are being exposed to.

First of all, do you have at least one child? Because if you don't, you are in league with the theorists. Firstly, the theory being espoused depends upon the individual child (and, to a great extent, the child's parents). Some ARE hyper-aware. Some are merely 'passengers'.

I could relate a tale about my own three month old, who, faced with a mother in extreme emotional turmoil, reached out and patted my face and said "OK, OK, OK". His first words.

Perhaps you are mistaking the development of the prefontal cortex with awareness, or what most people fondly term consciousness. The pre-frontal cortex is a filing system, for the most part. It helps differentiate between things. Not the captain of the ship, fer sure. There has been much written about consciousness; infamously, Carlos Casteneda, in his 'tonal' and 'nagual' gave a great delineation between the two. Some babies are much closer to expressing the nagual. It is up to the parents to help the child develop the cultural context, (which most people, again, MISTAKE for consciousness) without destroying the child's link with a wider field of consciousness. FWIW

[Penguin]

Perhaps you are mistaking the development of the prefontal cortex with awareness, or what most people fondly term consciousness. The pre-frontal cortex is a filing system, for the most part. It helps differentiate between things. Not the captain of the ship, fer sure. There has been much written about consciousness; infamously, Carlos Casteneda, in his 'tonal' and 'nagual' gave a great delineation between the two. Some babies are much closer to expressing the nagual. It is up to the parents to help the child develop the cultural context, (which most people, again, MISTAKE for consciousness) without destroying the child's link with a wider field of consciousness. FWIW

Yep.

For whatever can be said of Castaneda, I still feel many things ring true - like the tonal / nagual. And of course it isnt Castanedas invention or sole property in any sense...

In this matter I think we should be trying to eat the cake and save it too.

[lightningBugout]

My son, who is now six, I swear is clairvoyant sometimes.

Seems he was, too, even more, when he was younger.

And he used to describe his last lifetime to us. Now he says he was making it all up, "tricking" us. But I sure don't know how he could have come up with the stuff he came up with. Names, specific details that I honestly don't know how he could have even heard of.

I used to know a girl who, when she was about three, could describe auras around people. Different people had different colored auras. She also talked about her past lives.

I've had some powerful clairvoyant experiences in my life, too, although it's something I can't control at all. I can't turn it on and off. (wish I could!) And supposedly this sort of thing runs in families.

A psychic I know says very matter of fact-ly that all kids are clairvoyant until age 5.

[Jeff]

This is all beginning to remind me of an old blog post:

...

From "chaoszerg":

When i was a child my mom and dad apparently heard a voice talking to me while i was asleep at the time i had a imaginary friend so this frightened my mom because of the voice so we moved and it never happened again.

And "ShadowLady":

When my little brother was between the ages of 3 and 6, he had an imaginary friend named "Bill". I actually heard my brother talking to his "friend" and then his "friend" answering back. We had all kinds of weird things happen in our house and we always blamed Bill. My brother is 24 now and he still swears that Bill was real, that he could see him and hold conversations with him. FREAKY!

Finally from I Used to Believe ("the childhood beliefs site"), this contribution from "Frances Ames":

I was a very lonely little girl when I was 5 years old and lived on Toronto Island at Hanlan's Point. I wished real hard for some new friends, my age, to play with when we all went to the beach, a few hundred yards from our house. An old man came and said here is 2 friends for you to play with. They will grow as you grow. They will stay with you as long as you don't tell anyone their names. Well, I was so happy. I would build things in the sand and they would too. I used to talk to them and my mother would pester me and asked who I was talking with. I finally told mom who they were. Dingus and Tardar. They went away and never came back. My 5 yr. old cousin saw them too. He let me know that after we became age 60. He told me the old man's name was Pookie. True story.

In The Field, Lynne McTaggart writes that EEG studies of the brains of children under five show that they "permanently function in alpha mode - the state of altered consciousness in an adult. Children are open to far more information.... In effect, a child walks around in a state of a permanent hallucination." Alpha waves appear to bridge the conscious and the subconscious. For much of our waking adult life, we don't have a decent bridge.

If childhood is a naturally liminal state, then perhaps much of what's called High Magick amounts to the attempt to recreate its conditions. (You say Tulpa, I say Imaginary friend.) Or in other words, a subset of occult science may amount to the recovery of power nascent to childhood. And what, I wonder, does this have to say about the child victims of mind control and ritual occult abuse?

[OP ED]

"If we remember that the essential difference between what we call the real world and the world of imagination and hallucination is not the elements of which we build them up but the sequence in which the elements appear...then it follows that the sequences directed from without represent a limitation of the otherwise unlimited combinations of the selective forms released at random from within." -- Jurij Moskvitin

[RomanyX]

Finally from I Used to Believe ("the childhood beliefs site"), this contribution from "Frances Ames":

I was a very lonely little girl when I was 5 years old and lived on Toronto Island at Hanlan's Point. I wished real hard for some new friends, my age, to play with when we all went to the beach, a few hundred yards from our house. An old man came and said here is 2 friends for you to play with. They will grow as you grow. They will stay with you as long as you don't tell anyone their names. Well, I was so happy. I would build things in the sand and they would too. I used to talk to them and my mother would pester me and asked who I was talking with. I finally told mom who they were. Dingus and Tardar. They went away and never came back. My 5 yr. old cousin saw them too. He let me know that after we became age 60. He told me the old man's name was Pookie. True story.

From The Complete Guide to Mysterious Beings by John A. Keel (emphasis mine):

... the "man in the checkered shirt" had appeared frequently in the home of Mr. and Mrs. George Glines of Pensacola, Florida, starting around 1963. During a hurricane that year Mr. Glines said, "I was lying on the couch in the living room with just one dim light on. I had the feeling that someone was in the room and looked up and saw a heavily built man about six feet tall wearing a plaid sports shirt.

"I got up and took a couple of steps toward him. As I did, it looked like he took a step backward and disappeared. I turned on the light and he was gone. I checked the doors, and they were all locked. I didn't mention it until my son-in-law saw it, because I didn't want to upset my wife."

The Glines son-in-law, James Boone, revealed that the man had turned up in his bedroom in the same house. "I saw a large man," he said, "a laboring type person, standing at the foot of the bed. I couldn't see his face. When I started to get up, he went away."

Several witnesses heard knockings on the wall of the living room. They finally tore the wall out but could find nothing unusual. George, Jr., then only two years old, began to talk about his friend Puki whom he described as a very big man in a colorful shirt. Mrs. Glines reported that little George "told me that he couldn't see Puki's face. It wasn't clear."

Several relatives and friends heard footsteps in the house when there was no one there. In May 1964 the home burned to the ground. "Puki doesn't like the house all burned," little George told his mother. "But he said he would come back when it was fixed up."

Puck entry @ Webster's

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Jonah CIA Lehrer wrote:
"While maturity has its perks, it can also inhibit creativity and lead people to fixate on the wrong facts."

He should know something about "the wrong facts."
Comrades, you are chasing another thrown bone to mislead you.

This is yet another Mr. Science viral marketing of psyops telling us that things exploited for a long time are "newly studied" and encouraging us into a psyops-prone mentality of heuristic bias where we lose ourselves in CIA-Hollywood psyops products, where we "release the reigns of attention."

If you think having the mind of an infant is a sparkly romantic idea, you've been suckered by professional mind benders.

Jonah Lehrer's article (any relation to Mockingbird Jim Lehrer?) is one of the many many decoy spook articles meant to seem fascinating!... while carefully leading you away from related but unspeakable topics.



See my sig quote. Again.
Ole Jonah is leading away from the same thing American Idol was created to displace with the same KH.

The fact that Lehrer throws out a nasty memorable quote by a Peter Singer is typical keyword hijacking to go with the principle agenda of misdirection of the reading public.
(Cue Jeff citing his anti-KH posting rule regardless of the veracity of its ubiquity.)

HERE'S WHAT JONAH LEHRER (or his case officer) DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW:

http://ziglercenter.yale.edu/people/facultypages/singerd.html

Dorothy Singer, Ph.D.


Senior Research Scientist, Psychology
Senior Research Associate, Child Study Center
Co-Director, Yale Family Television
Research and Consultation Center
Co-Director, Zigler Center Electronic Media and Families Unit

Email:
dorothy.singer@yale.edu

Dorothy G. Singer is Senior Research Scientist Emeritus, Department of Psychology, Yale University. She is also Co-Director of the Yale University Family Television Research and Consultation Center; Fellow, Morse College; and Fellow of The American Psychological Association. She co-directs the Electronic Media and Families Unit of the Zigler Center. Her research interests include early childhood development and television effects on youth. She consults with parent groups, television industry personnel and government agencies concerning television and education. She has written and developed parent and teacher training materials for day care centers and media literacy materials for educating children to be critical users of television. In 2006, she was recipient of the Distinguished Alumni Award from Teachers College, Columbia University.
Selected Book Titles

Make- Believe: Games and Activities to Foster Imaginative Play in Children
Imagination and Play in the Electronic Age
The House of Make- Believe: Children's Play and the Developing Imagination
A Piaget Primer: How a Child Thinks
Edited Book Titles

Play=Learning
Children's Play: The Roots of Reading
Handbook of Children and the Media
Handbook of Children, Culture and Violence

Children, adolescents, and media violence: a critical look at the ...

"Preschool In order to assess the impact of violent television watching on aggressive behavior, Singer and Singer (1981) observed preschool children over the ..."
books.google.com/books?id=asY2jmXp0XwC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=Singer+and+Singer+Media+and+Children&source=bl&ots=V9ORGDrpeS&sig=YLJpy8JH8mqdS8aDrOYFwJ9U9zs&hl=en

Developing Critical Viewing Skills and Media Literacy in Children ...

"Singer, D. G. and J. L. Singer. 1994b. Evaluating the Classroom Viewing of a Television Series: Degrassi Junior High. In Media, Children, and the Family, ..."
ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/557/1/164

http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Children-Professor-Dorothy-Singer/dp/0761919554

Handbook of Children and the Media (Paperback)
by Professor Dorothy G. Singer (Author), Jerome L. Singer (Author) "We begin this handbook with the most extensively researched areas in the study of children and the media..."

I know people who started working with Singer and Singer's materials in April.

The first decoy of "Singer" was in this 4/14/09 decoy article also countering the 4/4/09-published nanothermite paper-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7999168.stm

Sewing machine hoax hits S Arabia
.....
The Singer sewing machines are said to contain traces of red mercury, a substance that may not exist.

[OP ED]

they're hijacking an eight year old $70 book?

yeah. probably not.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

they're hijacking an eight year old $70 book?

yeah. probably not.

I know some people who have just discovered that book.
And the psyops campaign to hide psyops has taken off recently.

I've already read Lehrer.
He's another smoke and mirrors guy fudging psyops like Malcolm Gladwell.
They are both misdirection artists.

That's why Lehrer's being published and promoted.

[Fixx]

Hugh, fuck off!

[MacCruiskeen]

The fact that Lehrer throws out a nasty memorable quote by a Peter Singer is typical keyword hijacking (...)

HERE'S WHAT JONAH LEHRER (or his case officer) DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW:

http://ziglercenter.yale.edu/people/facultypages/singerd.html

Dorothy Singer, Ph.D.

I know people who started working with Singer and Singer's materials in April.

The first decoy of "Singer" was in this 4/14/09 decoy article also countering the 4/4/09-published nanothermite paper-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7999168.stm

Sewing machine hoax hits S Arabia
.....
The Singer sewing machines are said to contain traces of red mercury, a substance that may not exist.

Where to start with all this? Where to end?

1. 'Singer' is a very, very common surname.

Some people of the name, Singer, who have entries in Wikipedia:

* Singer, Bryan
* Singer, Burns
* Singer, Charles
* Singer, Eric
* Singer, Fred
* Singer, Isaac (1811-1875), developer of the sewing machine
* Singer, Isaac Bashevis (1904-1991), novelist
* Singer, Isadore
* Singer, Israel Joshua
* Singer, Kyle
* Singer, Marcus George
* Singer, Margaret
* Singer, Peter, ethicist
* Singer, Peter W.
* Singer, Rolf (1906-1994), mycologist
* Singer, Winnaretta
* Singer-Brewster, Stephen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer_(disambiguation)

Maybe Isaac Bashevis (ever heard of him?) was also in on the plot.

2. Peter Singer is a very, very well-known contemporary (Australian) philosopher, one of the very, very few in the Anglo-Saxon world who has any kind of a public profile outside academia. I read his very, very well-known book "Animal Rights" more than a quarter of a century ago at university. It was one of the things, along with Stephen Clark's "The Moral Status of Animals", plus first-hand working experience of conditions on factory farms, that converted me to vegetarianism.

You have never heard of him - "a Peter Singer". Now, this is no disgrace in and of itself - we all have gaps in our education - but one of the really annoying things about your "KWH" all-purpose world-explanation shtick is that your iron certainty of your own rightness goes hand-in-hand with a blithe ignorance of many, many other things, topics, writers and books worth knowing about and thinking about. (I remember you had never heard of Mary Wollstonecraft either. Just for instance.)

In any case, to even suggest that simply mentioning Peter Singer in a popular-science article is a "KWH" of another, far less prominent, academic called Singer is in fact, and obviously, too ridiculous to deserve a reply. Nonethless, I've taken the trouble (again.) You might just as convincingly suggest that any citation of Richard Dawkins is a keyword-hijacking of my old dentist, a Dr. Bob Dawkins.

3. The photo of the Singer sewing machine was clearly supposed to be your coup de grace, but no-one can win an argument by shooting himself in the foot. For your own sake, and for everyone else's, I wish you would stop doing that. (Your poor feet must be in ruins by now.)

4. MOO = Monomania Occluding Objectivity.

Do yourself a favour, Hugh: Stop mooing, take a pause from regurgitating that cud, raise your head from your tiny patch of grass, and expand your horizon by reading some other books. The way out is through that five-barred gate. Why won't you take it?

[genericsyncretic]

Back to something related to the OP, y'know if that's ok with anyone in the thread now that's it's beginning to derail;

About seven or eight years ago I had an incredibly disturbing conversation with a four year old. He perfectly described an abduction experience that he seemed to believe occurred to him. Normally I would have brushed it off as some youthful flight of imagination, but the kid really had no context to be drawing from. His mother (my girlfriend at the time's older sister, I don't just talk to random toddlers) kept her children away from pretty much all media. She read to her kids, but they didn't watch a second of TV. Not even Nickelodeon or (CIA!!111!!) Disney. She wasn't some fundie, just someone who wanted a more pure upbringing for her kids at the time. Now I don't think little grey beings came and probed this kid at night, or that he was part of some govt. experimenting, but I do think he truly believed this happened. Maybe a case of that pure unfiltered mind seeing more of what was around him then the rest of us.

On to the KWH, there's something I've been wondering as long as I've lurked here (a few years now). I don't know how to phrase this without sounding condescending, and I truly don't mean it to come off that way because I honestly think you're right from time to time, but here goes. Is there anything that isn't an example Hugh? Like, could you make a thread of movies you really enjoy? I know there are a few examples of news media you trust, but it seems like everything else is just a decoy to you. Are there movies or TV shows that you like? An album that won't leave your cd/record/mp3 player? Or is your contention that nearly everything we as 21st century humans consume designed to obfuscate military/intelligence/business nefariousness? Put simply would it be easier to just start a thread called "here's what's not keyword hijacking" and assume that everything not on that page is a Psyop?

Again, I'm not looking to make an enemy though I certainly understand that it might come off that way. I don't know if I can really parse the signal to noise ratio in your posting without understanding what you see as the signal to noise ratio in mass media though.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

1) Anyone actually read Lehrer's book last year as I did?
Might be a good start.

2) The 4/29/09 article emphasizes children and movies.

3) The 4/29/09 article makes false statements about researching child's minds plus unscientifically encourages us to lose ourselves in movies.

4) duh.