That's an excellent read. Now I'm gonna go look for material by Bob Dobbs. Any other materials related to this?

wow; it's fascinating, though admittedly, I am a bit skeptical as to how this person got his inspiration. I don't understand why this person has chosen to label people as androids.

But, I think that the idea of creating a collection of networks that do nothing but broadcast examples of the audience as something intriguing.

Also, the YES NO YES NO YES NO idea has piqued my curiosity.

In short, it does seem like the controllers of the media are aware of this idea, judging by how they portray their programming. Before this, I never really understood why people rush into a fad or go all out in sports games with body paint. I never could grasp the idea of how people flock like sheep after one another once a few people in front of them have switched positions...

But now I do. It makes a great deal of sense with Rappaport's explanation.

Thanks for sharing this.

the electric enviroment is alive. organically, even. that is the android meme.
since the advent of the internet, we have grown another body: the chip body. we have four bodies. the AP, anthropmorphic physical, the AM, android meme, the TV body and the chip body.
these bodies compete for dominance over one another. it really is hard to understand.

[edit on 30-6-2004 by billybob]

I just read it, its basically the theory that many have but in different versions.

And if everyone is a hologram, that means everyones a copy. Id like to find my other half!

Originally posted by Leveller
This is the guy who believes that the whole world population was replaced by holograms in 1945 and that he and his wife are the only "real" people on the planet?

that's the guy. if you study his school of thought, which is an extension of marshall mclhuhan's and james joyce, mostly, you may begin to see through the haze of non sequitor statements and analogical conceptualizing. almost nothing he says is to be taken literally or on one level. the man is WAAaaaaaaAAY out there.

p.s. the church of the subgenius and bob dobbs are not directly associated. media guru, bob dobbs is a guy in new york(who also claims he did, indeed start the curch).
the 'bob' of the curch is a clipart icon of a guy smoking a pipe. rev. ivan stang is the head of the church. become an ordained minister! just send thirty bucks to them and they'll send you a startup kit. each minister gets to make up his/her own religion. they are celebrating 'xday' on july fifth, because that's when J.R. "bob" dobbs will come down with the flying saucers(july 5th, 1998, that is), with his 'stark fist of removal' and 'the rupture' will occur. that is all the subgenii will get into the saucers and leave the dying earth to the 'pinks'.
these guys kill me. it's where to go after you've hit 'the wall'.



[edit on 30-6-2004 by billybob]

Facinating read there. I think pretty much anyone who has experienced ambigiouity(spelling?), paradox, ET's, or astral/spiritual conscious directly and lucidly can appreciate this after they read it, then read it again. Although I have never used the term Andriods, I have used the terms prollies, mundanes, and sheep, if anyone wants an analogy. If the Yes/No thing could be expressed as binary, then the above events or simular ones would induce either a lock-up or freeze in the person or perhaps they evolve a trinary system and start sprinkling two's every now and then in between the zero's and one's, the fields of plus and minus would also have fields of x-charge/neutral/no charge as well. Just your resident Technomancer postulating, go back to bed.
I would not be surprised if the bob dobbs referred, is actually metaphoric for 'JR' bob dobbs/CotSG.. or even Kibo Not quite a manefesto of Non-Conformity, but it does hit some necessary notes.

[edit on 30-6-2004 by Crysstaafur]

delete

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

Aaahhh... good ol' Bob Dobbs!

All I gotta say is:

SLACK!!!

[edit on 6-7-2004 by Earthscum]

Holey Moley! This has the power to suck me in and twist my brain in the same way the theory of quantum physics does! Just when I think I've got it and I'm having an epiphany - suddenly someone turns the whole thing inside out and I have to start over again. I guess that is why I find both extremely intriguing. I am going to have to read this again before I can really weigh in on this but to some extent it makes total sense - then I suddenly feel stupid as it seems totally ridiculous. As I said, this may take a second or third read to really decide on but so far - this seems as out there as O'Leary.

Originally posted by Earthscum
Aaahhh... good ol' Bob Dobbs!

All I gotta say is:

SLACK!!!

[edit on 6-7-2004 by Earthscum]

a belated happy x-day, dude. looks like the saucers didn't come, .....again.

Originally posted by billybob


We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into
the future.

I get it. Kinda like how the Nazis took over Poland That old gag....

Seriously though, this guy and anyone who TRULY belives him needs to find better ways to spend their research time (in my opinion, and who am I?). I mean, if you are into this kinda stuf that's fine. I agree that it's a good read, but I do not agree with this theory. Maybe I need to read about it more, but I doubt it.
If this were all true, wouldn't EVERYONE be trying to get into the media? Sure, a lot of people do, but let me ask everyone this. How many people do you know? Out of those people. how many have tried to get on TV, in the papers, etc.? I would assume a small percentage, but of course I could be wrong.

As for Rappoport's quote:
"One might say, in any great media illusion, the audience feels compelled to take over the story," we must ask the question WHY the audience feels compelled to take over the story. In the cases given, I feel that the reason they feel they must get involved is because they do not believe they are being properly represented. How many gay men with AIDS were reporting the stories in the media before they felt they had to get involved? How many people in the media reporting on Iraq are activists themselves?

For argument's sake, say this theory is correct. By reading the original article, that makes you a member of the audience, correct? However, by then posting the link to the article on this message board and "double dar(ing)" us to read it and understand it, isn't that turning you, who was previously the audience, into, or at least the desire to be, the actor (since the internet is a form of media)? By this rational, the "wool" is still over your eyes.

Rappoport's statement that "(T)his passage from audience to actor is not always a bad thing. What is the Internet? To a degree, it is composed of people who were part of the faceless audience for news and then stepped out of the shadows," is just a clever way for him to justify getting his, and his "followers' (for lack of a better word)" beliefs across to the masses. He in no way explains HOW or WHY this is "not always a bad thing." Why not? Because he cannot. It is a hypocritical statement.

Lastly, anyone who buys into this must not be a sports fan. I, along with tens of thousands of other people across this country, get up on 16 Sundays (hopefully more this year ) over the course of the fall, put on our favorite football jerseys, get decked out, and sit in front of a TV screen (either at the bar or at home) to watch our favorite football teams play. Why? Because we turn into cavemen during football season. No, seriously, it's called passion. The same reason you go out of your way to please the person you love, or stay up till 5 in the morning trying to finish writing your story when you know you have to be up for work in 2 hours, or spend all your time and money fixing up that old classic car in your backyard. My mother will not let me watch football in the house when people are sleeping because I tend to wake them up. We may get carried away sometimes, but passion will do that to you.

Sure people do crazy and strange things, but that does not make them sheep, or "androids," just because they live a life you do not understand or appreciate (I am pointing to Rappoport here). We all have our own agendas, as crazy as they be sometimes. It is these intentions, not exactly or actions, that make us all who we are. What we DO or what we LOOK LIKE may lump some together, but it is what is on the inside that makes us all special and unique. It is from this reasoning that I cannot buy into this. For anyone else that may, God bless you. You do your thing and enjoy life doing it. Sorry for being long winded, my fingers just would not stop.

--The views expressed in this post are those solely of Robbie Woodside and are not affiliated with any other ATS members, ATS, or its affiliates.--

I think the biggest flaw in this article is the assumption that anyone who watches mass media will be affected is such a way as to gain control, lose control. Many members here at ATS most exemplify the exception in the campaign for denying ignorance even if it does come through mass media. But there are many, many people who suffer from this affliction.

It is a very interesting take on how media works and whats going on in the minds of many people who watch mass media and even when they are not.

There is the concept of dualities, which a lot of people have talked about, and which most seperates from our true-selves, turning is into androids as the article talked about. I definitely believe that the concept of dualities is very damaging to the individual.

Aristotle also talked about how everyone is both an observor and an actor, which seems to be utilized by the mass media according to this article. Observor to the media, acts out the media's story as a mirror reflection. Am I an android for passing on this information? I like to think not, I like to think it holds some truth.

This takes on a primary role in our lives at times and distracts us from pure experience. Our beliefs become our reality, our life.

But, the article also seems to believe that people should not care about information, or what's going on outside our scope. While this is an honorable idea, to think that it will ever be implemented by example may be futile. You have to work with the system to beat the system. There are certain things you must be aware of, before you can change things such as starting a 24/7 TV station featuring people.

Everything is relative, you must understand the relativity before you change other's relativity. The author may believe in this, but it wasn't relfected in the article.

As well, I can see how this guy believes in Zen Buddhism through what he talks about, but the fact is, he is guilty of the same thing for believing in such. Only no beliefs free you from this cycle....

Originally posted by badkitty
Holey Moley! This has the power to suck me in and twist my brain in the same way the theory of quantum physics does! Just when I think I've got it and I'm having an epiphany - suddenly someone turns the whole thing inside out and I have to start over again.

good, badkitty! there are parallels with quantum physics there, too. the observer effect, in particular.

the first step on the road to wisdom is admitting you don't know.
i don't know anything, ....which may, by this definition, make me wise, ....but i wouldn't know.

Originally posted by Woodside
Seriously though, this guy and anyone who TRULY belives him needs to find better ways to spend their research time (in my opinion, and who am I?). I mean, if you are into this kinda stuf that's fine. I agree that it's a good read, but I do not agree with this theory. Maybe I need to read about it more, but I doubt it.
If this were all true, wouldn't EVERYONE be trying to get into the media? Sure, a lot of people do, but let me ask everyone this. How many people do you know? Out of those people. how many have tried to get on TV, in the papers, etc.? I would assume a small percentage, but of course I could be wrong.

everyone IS trying to get into the media. you, here, now, is a good example. also, remember when you're dancing with these concepts, that media doesn't only mean tv and newspapers, but everything from dirt to electricity. these are all media. there was a great show on pbs, where they took cameras down to spring break in florida. teens were mulling around while the music blared in the beachy background. as soon as they realised a camera was pointed at them, they began to dance and holler, like it was spring break in florida, the way it is portrayed in the media. they also illustrated in the same special, how new movements would start that rebel against the 'man', and how the 'man' would then repackage these movements, trademark them, and then mass market them.

Originally posted by WoodsideFor argument's sake, say this theory is correct. By reading the original article, that makes you a member of the audience, correct? However, by then posting the link to the article on this message board and "double dar(ing)" us to read it and understand it, isn't that turning you, who was previously the audience, into, or at least the desire to be, the actor (since the internet is a form of media)? By this rational, the "wool" is still over your eyes.

not, really. i never said i was exempt. certainly the opposite is true. LOOK AT ME!!! the user is content.

Originally posted by WoodsideRappoport's statement that "(T)his passage from audience to actor is not always a bad thing. What is the Internet? To a degree, it is composed of people who were part of the faceless audience for news and then stepped out of the shadows," is just a clever way for him to justify getting his, and his "followers' (for lack of a better word)" beliefs across to the masses.

i don't really understand what you're saying here. it's not a cult. it's analysis of the larger pattern of actions and reactions in the masses. rappoport's just the 'game', we are the audience, or were, at least. now, we are the 'game', and the lurkers are the audience. and, OF COURSE, he wants to get his message across! we ALL do.
it's like you're agreeing, but saying you're disagreeing.

Originally posted by WoodsideMy mother will not let me watch football in the house when people are sleeping because I tend to wake them up. We may get carried away sometimes, but passion will do that to you.

a passion instilled by media bombardment? would people yell and scream at the tv if they didn't know they were supposed to? i wonder.

Originally posted by WoodsideWhat we DO or what we LOOK LIKE may lump some together, but it is what is on the inside that makes us all special and unique. It is from this reasoning that I cannot buy into this.

there are six billion people in the world. nothing is unique, really. not from the perspective of the big picture. each blade of wheat in the field is unique, but they all look the same to a combine or a mill.
thanks for thinking about this, and taking the time to share.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I think the biggest flaw in this article is the assumption that anyone who watches mass media will be affected is such a way as to gain control, lose control. Many members here at ATS most exemplify the exception in the campaign for denying ignorance even if it does come through mass media.

a good case in point. you see, by saying the buzz phrase, 'deny ignorance', you have painted your chest with ATS, and are cheering on the team. ATS is media. you are media. the user is content.
also, this is about the larger patterns, and not exceptions(like, conspiracy freaks) to the statistical norm.
even within our 'ranks' here at ATS, there are waves, so to speak, of beliefs and priorities. one day, we all focus on mars, the next, bush, and so on. all these are of course, reflections of the mainstream news.
i've also noticed that often around here, 'deny ignorance' really means 'toe the party line'.
my favorite example, is when they(the site owners) say, 'we're not spies, .....trust us'. where is the denial of ignorance in that? it is complete hearsay, and yet to ask that question is considered an insult by the operators of this(wonderful, excellent, please don't ban me, worshipful masters) site.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Everything is relative, you must understand the relativity before you change other's relativity. The author may believe in this, but it wasn't relfected in the article.

it is all a big feedback system. this is one of the main points of this school of philosophy. i think it's in there.