It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Nature of Fame

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:26 PM
Fame and Celebrity status is a curious phenomenon; as evidenced by the flags and stars a mod or owners of ATS get for very ordinary threads or posts, even as some truly inspired threads fall by the wayside into the oblivion of BTS.

Somehow people think that by sucking up to important people, a little of the glitter will rub off on themselves. Such is the nature of authority figures. Being well known immediately puts you in the category of authoritativeness though usually undeserved.

For the last 5 yrs.I have worked in the entertainment industry at a very low level [background/extra/driver/crew/supporting] and had a few important roles in indy films but I meet and occasionally hang with some BIG stars, producers, directors, screenwriters, in TV and films and most big names don't even understand the adulation they receive from their fans; But they do understand the scum that wants something from them, money, drugs, sex etc.

Human nature is still in the tribal stage of development and that's why perceived "heroes" are worshiped.

edit on 2-8-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:32 PM
I have met various singers, race car drivers, sports people and others in my line of work...let's call it entertainment.

Nothing like giving a dance to some "celeb" you see on tv while declothed you could say. It didn't make me freak out or act any different. They are just people who have a job where they make insane amounts of money and are in the public eye. I think they like it more when you dont go all school girl on them.

I think the only person that could make me gaga so to speak would be Rob Thomas. I love that man for many reasons. Great artist and for many personal reasons I'd like to thank him. His music helped me through a lot so it is more personal than any other celeb I have met.

I have also met some astronauts at a luncheon and that was SOOOO cool, they are like my sports people only they don't make millions and aren't all famous but they get to go to space! So to me that was a bigger deal than any other "celeb" I have ever met. To me they have earned the right to brag! More so than any celeb out there

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:46 PM

Originally posted by mblahnikluver They are just people who have a job where they make insane amounts of money and are in the public eye. I think they like it more when you dont go all school girl on them

Yes. I've had dealings with names that would blow your minds and your statement holds very true. It's from being surrounded by manipulative individuals and a little refreshing honesty helps them to attach to the greater reality we all undergo. People also forget that in looking at celebrities you are also looking at other vunerable human beings and the alteration of perception affects celebrities as well. Perhaps they are just better paid sufferers under an oppressive mindset that is alien to humanities true persona.

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by mblahnikluver

As a declothed dancer; I'll bet you are famous in your own right!

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:51 PM

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
I think the only person that could make me gaga so to speak would be Rob Thomas. I love that man for many reasons. Great artist and for many personal reasons I'd like to thank him. His music helped me through a lot so it is more personal than any other celeb I have met.

I have also met some astronauts at a luncheon and that was SOOOO cool, they are like my sports people only they don't make millions and aren't all famous but they get to go to space! So to me that was a bigger deal than any other "celeb" I have ever met. To me they have earned the right to brag! More so than any celeb out there

I think these are very important points being hinted at throughout this thread and is distinctly different from the mindless fame seekers.

There are people who awe me based on their talent, ability, and all in all people who in my opinion through actual skill deserve respect. But I think this is true if they are famous or not.

I must admit there are a couple of people who are famous that I would like(d) (most are dead now) to meet. Not to coo over them like a hungry little child chasing the ice cream truck but because their skill has awed me or their art has had an impact on my life or way of thinking. I would just like to thank them personally for doing such great work.

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:39 AM
reply to post by Jdawg9909

Have you ever met a famous person?

Nope none, but then again I don't watch much celebrity TV or who the new american idol is. So I could of meet them but had no clue who they were. For some reason I have never cared at all about any famous people or really anybody with a to big a ego.

Really I could care less who they are and have always been like this, trough out my entire childhood, I never cared at all who was popular or cool, or really it didnt matter at all who they were, I just didn't care at all. And even now I still get pissed off when I have to watch one of there movies with friends and the movie usually sucks, but they think its cool because so and so is in it.

Once I was so pissed that I went to watch a movie with Nicolas Cage just because they said he is cool and so the movie was going to be good. So in about 30 min into the movie I couldn't take it anymore and stood up walked about 20 miles back home in the middle of the night. Since I didn't drive there and came with them and didn't want to ruin there fun.

Ever since then I have learned my lesson and research into all things concerning the mass opinion that I might have to go to, before going anywhere. Because most of the cool things that are cool and cool celebrities that they say are cool, are really freaking boring and lame.

But to each there own so, whatever.

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:59 AM

Originally posted by goldentorch

You cannot state that a desire can be accentuated into complexity and then ignore that complexity in your explanation. Also a problem that is inherently complex cannot become more complex by somebody making their understanding of it more complex that is the obfuscation that leads to celebrity worship.
Also I don't think you have read this thread at all, I don't suffer from celebrity worship at all I am an object of it, so your statement about me having to let go of an attachment makes no sense. It's peoples attachment to me!
So if we want to psychoanalyise and get all intellectual it would seem as I stated that I am the one suffering from the attachment to me and you construed it as my attachment to others that can only mean that you have some sort of attachment you can't deal with.
You're a secret Britney Spears fan at a guess and can't let go, ah well.
edit on 2/8/11 by goldentorch because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/8/11 by goldentorch because: got it rong again dad

edit on 2/8/11 by goldentorch because: the usual

When I used the word "you" I was not talking about you specifically but in a general sense, so that should clarify most of your defensiveness to me. Also, I never said one should ignore anything. I simply said that if 'you' (anyone) wants to overcome this problem then they should go to the root of it to address it. And the root of this problem is very simple to realize, which is an attachment to the desire for attention. Everyone knows this, just few are willing to do what it takes to overcome it. Now again, if you want to get all Freudian and psychoanalyze other people then go ahead, but then you are delving into a sea of complexity because everyone has their specific egoic reasons for why they are so attached to this desire. But that does not change the root of this problem, being the desire for attention.

In other words, when we see a tree is withering away from a nitrogen deficiency, when its branches are bare and leaves are yellowing, how do we treat it? Do we sit around and analyze which branches and leaves are sick or do we go ahead and apply the nutrients to the roots? Sure, we could sit there all day and philosophize about which branches are weaker and which leaves are more yellow, but we already know it needs these nutrients and so why not just give them to it so it can heal? Then the problem is fixed.

In this same way, we already know the root cause of this problem; that some people are awe-stricking by others who are famous because they too have a strong desire for attention. So why not help these people overcome this problem by giving them the 'nutrients' they need, by enlightening them to the root cause of the problem; being their strong attachment to the desire for attention, and even more fundamental; their mistake of identifying themselves with an egoic self. Or better yet, why not just show them how to meditate in order to clarify these things for themselves? Do you really think telling them, "You are fixated on famous peoples lives because of your poor relationship with your mother", is really going to help them? That is like feeding nutrients to the trees branches and leaves, it has little to no affect. Pour the nutrients on the roots my friend.


posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

I am going to start my reply with a quote.

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. William Shakespeare

Which taken at face value dints the notion of everybody seeking fame.
I have to get slightly anylitcal in order to frame an answer if you will excuse me.
To compare humans to flora shows your eastern and from your avatar Bhuddist philosophical leanings. I personally use a form of Tai Chi for meditation which because of bad karma problems I do too little of of late.
So without exactitudes can one presume along the lines off you presuming the flora and fauna all having a spirit and that shall we say disturbances in that spirit are meditated away.
You speak of Freudianism.
In many eastern philosophies there is the notion of chakras. I believe these to be neural rather than spiritual in nature, however am at one with the notion of damage to those chakras being a problem. Not being ones whole self would be the mystic expression and many see it as having a largely spiritual base. I see it as having a physical base and see many of the problems it causes as having an expression in what you have termed Freudianism. Fair enough, but you have to consider people like Freud and let's say Skinner are my only tools to put any points accross, you can only frame what you are trying to relate using a frame of reference people understand.
Freudian references come about because in a sense he and later psychoanylists are the spiritual tools the West uses for any attempt at the understanding of self you claim to achieve through meditation. If you accept the Freudian notion of the Ego then surely you can sense the logic of what I am conveying.
Freud I feel was abused by his mother to what extent I am not sure but he was certainly utterly dominated by her in his early life and yet he was the first to attempt the spiritual explination if you will and while I understand what he says about the manifestations of many problems I largely seperate with him on causation.
It does to a large extent restrict my terms of reference because more modern works have yet to enter the vernacular to the extent that those that do not study the subject can at least grasp some or indeed all of the concept.
The mother thing I see as far more instinctive than your instant assuption of me being Freudian, smell and taste are possibly our base psychological functions as they are semi-autonomous breathing and other functions are autonomous. So in talking of the fracture between mother and child i speak of manufactured interruption of this cycle. If you wish to psychoanylise that i framed it thus and used cycle because of your apparent eastern philosophical stance and used a lower case i to leave out Ego, horses for courses.
In the manufactured break in that symetry I feel are some of the answers to why we value and/or seek fame over achievment and yes it involves disturbances to the chakra/neurology, but feel that this seperation is part of the base of identity problems that can lead to seeking attention not it's entirety.
For you to once again blandly state people want attention because of ego leaves no room for further discussion. Let's anylise again but gently. For it would seem from your anger at Ego you are having difficulties in your own meditations.
There is an ancient Korean belief system that signified three strands to the persona a couple of thousand years before Frued but i was only made familiar with it briefly and am unable to find it at the moment. Let you have it if I can find it I should imagine it would be of interest to you.
Back to my original quote; I did not seek fame it was thrust upon me so when you speak of ridding oneself of the desire to seek fame I have no frame of reference and it leaves me blank and have difficulty therefore in commenting on your take on the OP.

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:36 AM
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

Another thought just struck me is that in the materialistic West many do it just for the money not the attention, they're not egoistically seeking fame with it's attendent psychological profile just show 'em the money!

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:54 PM
reply to post by goldentorch

I am sorry, but I don't see your point. I never stated that all people suffer from this problem, nor did I say you did. And no, I cannot accept Freud's theory of Ego because he never was able to move beyond it. He remained a psychologically sick and tortured man until his death. To look to Freud for advice on the psyche is like looking to a meth-head for advice on drug rehabilitation. And no, I am not angry at the ego.
That is like being angry at a unicorn, there is no such thing as a unicorn to be angry at.

And anyone who is seeking fame is seeking attention, because fame is attention. Are they also seeking money and power too? Maybe... most likely, but many people also seek out money and power without seeking for attention, and so if we are talking about peoples desire for fame then we are only talking about peoples desire for attention. If we are talking about peoples desire for acquiring money and power then we are talking about peoples desire for control. These two can coexist within the same mind frame, obviously, but they do not go hand and hand with each other. There are people who seek fame but are not interested in money or power, and there are people who seek money and power but are not interested in fame. So it is not correct to say people seek fame for money and power. No, they seek fame for attention, and they might use that attention to also fulfill another desire, being a desire for control. Ultimately both of these desires stem from a mistaken sense of identity with the egoic self, with a personality; with someone trying to establish permanent boundaries on an impermanent phenomena. This is the root cause.

Peace friend.

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 03:55 PM
The only way I'd cry when seeing my favorite celebrity, Brad Pitt, is if he face planted hard, then I'd cry from laughing.

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 01:49 AM
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

I said I was informed by Freud because he became important because like it or not his is viewed as a seminal work. You don't know my veiws on the mind as I haven't stated them. When attempting an opinion as I stated a framework is neccassary. The mocking smiley of your triumphalism would seem to be mocking your denial of Ego the mythical unicorn rides rampant throughout your piece.
Just to continue with that thought you state there's no such thing then close your piece talking of the egoic self. Honestly how circular can you make your arguments. Seems just like anyone with a belief system to peddle.
Just like anyone with a belief system your egotistical smug and self righteous sanctimony also shines through the piece. From what I understand from your replies we just need to do this or that and the whole problem just disappears, all peddlars of belief systems use the same attitude and the same merthods, destroy who you're preaching at then rebuild them in your own self image. If I'd only admit my wrongs/false assumptions/sin/error of my ways I am sure you could show me the light. I just have to think like you and then I will see clearly.
Like I pointed out in the beginning of this your mocking denial of ego then your use of it to make a point at the end of your reply shows clearly the way belief systems contradict themselves in seeking power and control.

edit on 4/8/11 by goldentorch because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/8/11 by goldentorch because: clarification

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 03:00 AM

Originally posted by Jdawg9909
The reason I ask is because when people started to "worship" me in a sense, such as getting my band tatooed upon them, wanting my autograph or memorbilia, thinking I was more than them, I felt guilt and quit the band.

We met with a guy who was a fan of one the films I did and had drove a couple hundred miles to visit some of the locations we had filmed at, meet some of the cast and get some autographs so we felt obligated to meet him and kinda flattered I think. But when he pulled up his sleeve and showed us a tatoo he had gotten of the logo from the box cover, something about that made me feel really guilty as well. I'm just a regular person and this guy had gotten a tatoo over it. Suddenly it wasn't flattering anymore and I totally understand the guilt you're talking about, I left that night with an uneasy feeling and a whole new perspective on things.

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 05:13 AM
reply to post by goldentorch

Well I am sorry that my reply offended you so much. It seemed that from your previous few posts in this thread that it looked like you had stated your view point on this subject. And although I agreed with your assessment, as I stated previously, (or what I thought was an assessment) I thought you were making it too complicated of a thing and decided to engage you in a conversation. That was all, no intention for "smugness" or "righteousness", actually I don't even want you to believe me on anything I say unless you can see it the same way. If not, then I fully except that maybe I am wrong. Anyways, again, I was not talking about you having this problem so I don't see why you got so offended in the first place. I don't mind if you challenge what I say, that is a part of the territory when two people engage in deeper dialogue.


posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 05:32 AM
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

If I seemed to overcomlicate it and accept that, which I do, could I ask you to look at what I see as your over-simplification of the problem. Perhaps then as with most problems the truth of the matter lies somewhere between the two extremes.
I do sometimes try unravel the complexities to the full extent and this does sometimes appear complicated but the human primate is a complex machine. I use our friend Freud but I know much deeper and darker machinations go into the manifestations, things that made him the sick man he was.
My career took me into areas of culture where the quasi and psuedo medical practices, mystics and sects all religions carry, live. I have seen their secret world and heaven it ain't.

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 05:40 AM
reply to post by twitchy

It takes on a whole new level of scariness when people start saying they'd die for you. That really does confront one's mind with some problems.
That hasn't showed itself for a while because I refused to alter myself to the image and expectations of the person they had created in their heads.When you cause mass hysteria the things that wash back at you in waves can be debillitating.

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 01:18 PM
reply to post by goldentorch

I believe that you and I had touched upon a good point. And that is the concept of a producer vs. a consumer.

A producer is one that creates metaphysical ideas and presents them to the world. This can be in the form of movies, songs, thesis, art, pretty much any type of product which is presented to humanity.

The people who purchase or hold these ideas dear are the consumers. They can be considered the general public, or the fans.

Now, I will say that all producers are more evolved, both spiritually and metaphysically than the consumers. The producers have come to recognize the freedom that they feel through creation. A consumer may become a producer only if they leave their old mindset behind. They must break the chains of the consumer mentality and to realize that life is too short to only consumer.

The only immorality of one can come through being a producer. If you are a consumer you will not go down in history because you have not created or contributed a single thing to society. You have not made a single dent in the evolution of man. We are all meant to be producers, but there are forces in the world which hold us back form doing so today. Mainly the design of the society is set up, by those who designed it, to be a consumer only. Only through self searching can one become and realize the power of being a producer.

A producer attracts consumers, as fans and disciples. This model can be applied from a musician, all the way up to a cult leaders. They are producers. Their freedom through creation is what attracts consumers as followers.

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by Jdawg9909

I hadn't thought to extrapolate it out like that.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in