Hence science is the new religion. It doesn't really make a difference whether I go to church or to a science lecture, in both cases, I'm supposed to bow my head and keep quiet, and at least pretend that I agree with what I am being told.Bundokji wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:40 amBefore going through the list you provided, i am wondering why psychologists/social scientists who spend time to invent all these terms (to make money for a living similar to TV celebrities) to measure people's sanity are not themselves pathological and spreading parasocial interactions? Their writings and publications provides a persona where wikipedia is one possible medium that sells an idea of "un-flawed independent character" which causes the reader to develop illusions of intimacy, friendship, and identification with the ideal presented by those psychologists? They seem to have significant influence on some of the users of their materials, and this kind of communication/relationship is a one way traffic where rarely the users of these publications have the chance to directly interact/communicate with the authors.
Nevertheless, at least some scientists are able to reflect their findings back on themselves. And then there is the issue of subversion.
See point 3. Parasocial interactions are on principle cognitvely superficial. Being a passive listener isn't conducive to being a good listener.I don't see any danger in that. From my observations, most people spend hours watching TV or social media, and that does not seem to effect their daily social interactions. In fact, if what you say is true, we would be living in a world where we have more good listeners, but this is evidently not true
One cannot see inside another person's head. It would be a sign of pathology for a person to actually say things like, "Richard Gere/Patrick Jane/Buffy likes me". But watching them regularly on tv, the viewer might feel like they are being liked, accepted by them. This is more common in younger people who tend to develop strong feelings for media personas and fictional characters.My mother watches TV day and night, i never noticed the illusion of "being accepted by the media persona" you are talking about.
Secondly, whether that illusion is created or not can depend also on the content of the programme itself, and the intention with which a person watches it. For example, watching reality shows with an attitude of contempt toward the characters won't create the illusion of being liked by them; but it's still conducive to the illusion that others would tolerate in their midst someone who despises them they the tv viewer does (so that is a kind of illusion of acceptance as well; IRL, if people knew someone despises them, they wouldn't tolerate that person in their midst).
Further example, one can watch a gardening show with an amiable gardener as a host. And because they are so amiable, this can make the viewer conclude that that gardener would be as nice to them IRL as they are on screen and give them the type of gardening advice or compliments they give there to people whose gardens they visit. But at the same time, it could be that if gardener would actually visit one's garden, maybe they'd be totally different than on tv, and criticize one and one's gardening work to the ground.
Interesting. I wouldn't think that.Most people watch TV for excitement and amusement, so their intentions to begin with has nothing to do with listening too carefully. Also people's addiction to TV in my view is a manifestation of their meaningless everyday life, so any troubles arise in their mind through watching TV is merely accidental. Keep in mind that even those who don't watch TV are not necessarily less troubled.
Indeed, the problem of potentially useless advice applies regardless whether the advice was taken from a neo-Western or whether one has been given that advice by one's psychiatrist, or one's friend.I don't see how this is different from everyday interactions. When people share experiences whether through TV or in normal life, they provide summarized accounts whether it has to do with success or anything else. It probably has more to do with the evolution of conventional reality which is based on accessibility, simplicity and comprehensibility rather than to convey an overly accurate account of how things really are. In fact, maybe expecting social interactions (and language) to go beyond that is in itself delusional.
I would think that people who like themselves don't spend much time watching tv for entertainment.I don't see developing feelings of admiration and adoration for someone to be mutually exclusive with having good feelings about oneself as you are presenting., nor do i see people's admiration of TV personas to be an attempt to compensate for the lacks and downsides of television.
I'm not trying to present absolutes, just the cases where what I'm saying applies, insofar that is relevant to my specific inquiry.Pending you accept those negative effects to be real.Listening to a religious/spiritual teacher can have the exact same negative effects.
That's just it: How does one learn from a teacher?In fact, learning from teachers through books or media
Is one supposed to read and believe what one is reading?
How does one read didactic texts?
I mean, we spend our lives studying texts, and take for granted that we know how to learn and what learning is all about. But sometimes, things just break down.
For a couple of years, every now and then, I google "how to read didactic texts", and to this day, it gives no matches.
Possibly, to keep on avoiding reciprocal relationship with the teacher. I remember reading one of your old posts describing how happy you were when you began reading the suttas on your own, and how this has changed when you began interacting with real Buddhists.Now, the question is, what needs to be in place for the person (who is merely an audience, not a participant in a reciprocal relationship) who is listening to a religious/spiritual teacher or reading their texts, so that the above negative effects don't occur?
I don't see it that way, though. After coming in contact with Buddhists, my conclusion was that I understood the teachings wrongly. This still stands.
To me, listening to a religious/spiritual teacher (whether via the internet, on tv, or in person) is like watching tv. It's one-way communication and I'm supposed to be a passive and receptive audience. With all the negative effects listed earlier.It is the nature of social interactions that is not pleasant generally speaking, and this has nothing to do with religious spiritual teacher or anyone else.
Memorable passage.You might find the following parable by Arthur Schopenhauer relevant:
A number of porcupines huddled together for warmth on a cold day in winter; but, as they began to prick one another with their quills, they were obliged to disperse. However the cold drove them together again, when just the same thing happened. At last, after many turns of huddling and dispersing, they discovered that they would be best off by remaining at a little distance from one another. In the same way the need of society drives the human porcupines together, only to be mutually repelled by the many prickly and disagreeable qualities of their nature. The moderate distance which they at last discover to be the only tolerable condition of intercourse, is the code of politeness and fine manners; and those who transgress it are roughly told — in the English phrase — to keep their distance. By this arrangement the mutual need of warmth is only very moderately satisfied; but then people do not get pricked. A man who has some heat in himself prefers to remain outside, where he will neither prick other people nor get pricked himself.