REFLECTIONS

Music and Intelligence

noreply@blogger.com (Ashutosh Ghildiyal) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:58:00 +0000

First Saturday

“Music – everybody listens to music these days. Is there anything surprising in that? If we look backwards in time, we will see that it was not always so. Music then was music – not the good music-bad music, rock music-classical music, this music and that music. Music can only be music – neither good nor bad, whatever else there is, is non-music. Music in the past was not merely a form of entertainment but something more. Moreover, only the few used to listen to music, as was the case with all art. There were few pretences in this regard and it was not a means of achieving fame or success. It was life for some, means of worship for some, and for some it was a means of great expression, beyond words and images. The tones, the sounds employed, the instruments were all a very personal medium for the musician to reach into himself and go beyond it,” I said to my friend Virendra, one day after listening to Bach.

It had been a year since I started taking music seriously and found great pleasure in doing so. Earlier, all I used to listen to was some Hindi film music and some of the latest, most popular English and Hindi pop music. It was always a means of entertainment for me, a means of passing time, a means of having some activity in the background while doing something else so that I didn’t get bored. I had never actually paid attention to it before.

Virenda said, “Like all other arts, music has declined in the last 30 or so years. Music has now become associated with images, ideas and for entertainment, partying and all the rest. Most so-called music these days is nothing but empty sounds, put together by a lot of people, using all kinds of artificial means to manipulate the sounds to achieve one end – popularity. That is what popular music is. Moreover, a division has been created, probably on the basis of outward form – between classical and popular music. But if one listens, actually listens, what one hears is only music. If one simply listens, without comparing what one hears to his or her idea of music, only then one can see what music is.”

I was new to Mumbai and Virendra was my only friend here, so usually on weekends and whenever I had a day off, I went to his place to stay over. He was an old friend of mine, from the time when I was in Delhi. We used to stay together at a paying guest hostel. Our rooms were close by and we often used to spend time together.

I said, “In India, only classical forms of music have survived, probably because it has been not popular and most of its exponents have not succumbed to the motives of personal ambition or fame. In the West, the same is the case with classical music, though there the quality depends upon the interpretation of the performer or the conductor. In popular music, several good attempts were made, in rock, punk, and jazz in the years before the 80s. Since then, there has been a gradual decline in popular music. In India, Bollywood music, except in a few cases, has been melodramatic, sensational and mediocre. The decades of the 60s and 70s were especially productive for music in many ways – there was a regeneration, a breaking from the traditional forms, but soon afterwards, it collapsed again.”

I had been finding myself becoming more and more intimate with music lately. I saw the beauty, the importance of music as a part of human existence. At first, I used to resist anything new, since it was not already known to me. I used to remain content with what was familiar since it gave me a certain degree of comfort. Now I was realizing how small my world was and how vast were the unexplored territories. Music was what helped me realize this more than anything else. I started listening to it openly, afresh, with no expectations whatsoever and found that by listening without an idea, I could listen so well. Music was teaching me how to listen.

“One can’t define what music is – any attempt to define music physically does not suffice. One has to hear, with clear senses, untainted by expectation or comparison to see the beauty of music,” he said, as if reading my thoughts. “Music is always out of time. If you are actually, attentively listening, there will be no sense of time. It is this quality of music that has made so many of the great composers exalt it as a divine virtue. Music has an effect on the body and the mind – not as two distinct effects but as one total effect. It affects the senses in various ways, and when one is in harmony with the music, then it ceases to be something separate, something outside of oneself – you become the music. Music is harmony and music is beauty. Music has the quality of expressing the inexpressible. One can’t approach music with one’s own peculiar likes or dislikes and tastes, which are all a part of one’s own conditioning. Music is something both extraordinarily complex and simple at the same time. We are not used to listening to anything except our own thoughts, therefore we can’t sense the beauty of music. Because we are always trying to do things according to our own peculiar tastes and likes and dislikes that we have built up, we become deaf to all other sounds. But when we drop all that and simply listen, then sound becomes a most wonderful thing – the complexity of it, the depth, the clearness, the penetration, the opening of many doors it leads towards, is inexpressible and beyond words.”

How well he could put it all into words! The things that I had faintly realized and which were not so clear to me became clear as light on hearing him.

Second Saturday

Next weekend, as usual, I went to Virendra’s place. We were listening to Bob Dylan. I told him about a recent discussion I had with some people in my office. He was, as always, ready and receptive to hear whatever I had to say. He would hear it out completely, then either comment or sit silently, as if the act of listening in itself was his comment. He never said anything just for the sake of saying something.

I told him that I had been discussing the relationship between music and intelligence and most people couldn’t believe what I said. He said it is quite obvious that music has a relationship with intelligence; and classical music, especially, can increase intelligence. I said that I told them that there has been scientific research in recent times to discover this relationship. Even though it seems fairly obvious that music has an effect on the brain cells themselves and that listening to some forms of music, especially Western and Indian classical, can increase intelligence, science, as always, has been trying to prove this. I told Virendra that science was something infallible and very authoritative for most people and he said that science is and always will be limited, since it is based on knowledge, which is also always limited. I said that most people consider the limits of their understanding to be the limits of the human mind. Nevertheless, what I had to say about music and intelligence did have some interest and credibility for them because some scientists also thought so.

I had told my colleagues about the Mozart effect. I told them, “In the University of California, Irvine, 36 people took standardized intelligence tests after three 10 minute periods of Mozart. Those who listened to Mozart’s Sonata for Two Pianos (K448) scored an average 119 – eight points higher than those who listened to a relaxation tape and nine points higher than those who listened to silence. Mozart’s music is quite complex and very patterned. This is what was reported in the findings in a journal.”

They were quite impressed but I could see they didn’t quite understand what I was talking about, so I went on. “One might recall how classical music appears to be tedious, boring or may also give one a headache. I have especially noticed how people just can’t stand listening to Bach – it just gets too much for them to take. Why does this happen? The first reason might be because one is not used to listening to it; therefore, there is no identification with it as such. Secondly, this might be because the mind needs to be very attentive and swift to follow music – the sounds, the notes, the complexity of the musical architecture – and when one is listening without paying attention there is bound to be a conflict, resistance of some kind. Thirdly, probably because one is accustomed to treating music as something separate, outside of oneself.”

This seemed to have offended them somehow, so I tried to quote some authorities, as that is always somewhat more convincing and accessible for most people. I said, “According to Steven Gillman, a brain researcher, listening to and participating in music creates new neural pathways in the brain that stimulate creativity. Studies have shown that music actually trains the brain for higher forms of thinking. Music stimulates the mind, encourages creativity and helps to lay a foundation for learning that leads to higher intelligence and aptitude. Also, GJ Whitrow quoted Einstein: ‘He often told me that one of the most important things in his life was music. Whenever he felt that he had come to the end of the road or into a difficult situation in his work he would take refuge in music and that would usually resolve all his difficulties.’ Einstein is also thought to have said about his theory of relativity: ‘It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the rest of musical perception.’”

Quoting authorities and well-known people certainly did have an effect. Seeing this, I continued with the figures and quotes. “According to Plato: ‘...music is a more potent instrument than any other for education...’ Now scientists know why. Music, they believe, trains the brain for higher forms of thinking. After eight months of musical training, three-year-olds were expert puzzle masters, scoring 80% higher than their playmates did in spatial intelligence – the ability to visualize the world accurately. This skill later translates into mathematical/conceptual and engineering skills. Also, I’ve heard that the very best engineers and technical designers in the Silicon Valley industry are, nearly without exception, practicing musicians.”

If I had said the same thing simply, I’m sure nobody would’ve paid attention to it. Now it seemed to me that at least they were interested and may have understood what I was trying to point out. Someone said, “That is very insightful and thought-provoking. Such ‘serious’ discussions are rare; intellectual ones, rarer. Yours is both.” Another said, “That’s a good theory. Sounds interesting.” Theory! Well, it’s not a theory. It’s something pretty simple and straightforward. Scientists theorize, not ordinary laymen such as ourselves. We were discussing facts, not theories. I can become pretty aggressive at times like these and I think I can consider this to be my flaw. I set about proving it.

I said, “Look, researchers believe that certain types of music actually create new neural pathways in the brain. That means that the brain can function in a different field than that of memory alone. After listening to classical music, adults can do certain spatial tasks more quickly, such as putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Why does this happen? The classical music pathways in our brain are similar to the pathways we use for spatial reasoning. When we listen to classical music, the spatial pathways are turned on and ready to be used. The music most people call classical – works by composers such as Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart – is different from other kinds of music as it has a more complex musical structure. Researchers think the complexity of classical music is what primes the brain to solve spatial problems more quickly. So listening to classical music may have different effects on the brain than listening to other types of music.”

I wanted to tell them about my favorite composer and also give an example which might seem a little accessible to them. So I told them about Bach. “One of the oldest and most highly reputed classical composers is Johann Sebastian Bach. Bach’s contributions to music, or, to borrow a term popularized by his student Lorenz Christoph Mizler, his ‘musical science,’ are frequently bracketed with the contributions of William Shakespeare in English literature and Isaac Newton in physics. Someone suggested that Bach’s music is what the people of Earth should use to communicate with the universe. Bach is the also the most represented artist on the Voyager Golden Record, a phonograph record included in two Voyager (Spaceship) missions. Bach’s compositions are three of the 27 recordings chosen. Also, several notable composers such as Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann and Mendelssohn began writing in a more contrapuntal style after being introduced to Bach’s music.”

I told them that Bach’s music, revered for its intellectual and technical beauty, was not always appreciated during his own lifetime, and he was considered to be “old-fashioned” by his contemporaries. Nevertheless, Bach is now considered one of the most famous and influential composers of all time. Today the “Bach style” continues to influence musical composition, from hymns and religious works to pop and rock. Many of Bach’s themes – particularly the theme from Toccata and Fugue in D minor – have been used in rock songs repeatedly and have achieved notable popularity.

Someone commented, “If the theory is based on the complexity of music (I approach it from the mathematical perspective), then it is not limited to orchestral music. An extreme example would be Math Rock.”

Theory again! I really dislike these words: theory, idea, opinion, point of view! They were the most illogical words to me. I said, “Firstly, it’s not a theory – it’s an actuality, as anybody can observe for himself. Secondly, classical music is not limited to orchestral music. Also, though the musical structure might be complex, the actual music is really very simple. Because it is simple, it can operate in the most complex fields. Like Bach’s music; when they map it, they see all the complex structures and all the intricate details, but when you listen to it, it’s the simplest form of music ever written. It’s like nature.

“The type of music labeled as rock was at its best in the 60s and the 70s. Some of the best music in categories such as rock, punk and jazz was created then. It was created by people who wanted to break from the tradition and structure of classical music, since tradition is always a limitation, and wanted to create something new. There were some great musicians in this period who have been highly influential. Examples would be Bob Dylan, The Velvet Underground and John Coltrane. However, through time, even that became a tradition, a genre, which others followed, remaining within the same field, so it became repetitive.

“Math Rock, as I understand, is based on conscious and deliberate effort towards creating music within a particular frame, according to certain pre-formulations. Since it uses mathematics, it is based on measurement, which means comparison, which also means time. Since there is a framework defined already, it remains within the field of the known. Therefore, the spontaneity, the timeless factor, is missing. Since they try to manipulate, twist and syncopate to confuse, to delay, to create something that is a twist on rock, punk, or pop, it simply remains a modification of the existing structures.”

Nobody said anything after that. I guess they were either bored or had had too much of this. There was nothing more said and we left for our respective tasks.

“Anurag, you certainly did try to prove something there,” said Virendra. “I doubt whether it was for yourself or for them. It’s not something you can propagate through words. It is enough that you understand. You don’t have to show it to others too, you don’t have to convince them.”

Third Saturday

On the following Saturday, I went to Virendra’s place somewhat earlier than usual. I had gotten up early in the morning and reached his place by 9 a.m. One of his friends had come to visit him from Bihar.

We hardly ever had breakfast. At his place, there were only two meals a day, with no fixed time, as and when we fell hungry. The first meal of the day typically happened around noon. We sat silently for about an hour and a half. Then I told him about another discussion related to music that we had in my office. He didn’t react. I went on.

I said, “The other day, the people in my office were discussing poetry. I mentioned Bob Dylan. I told them that his songwriting is really good and he has also been nominated several times for the Nobel Prize for literature. I mentioned that Mr. Tambourine Man is one of his best songs and is a good example of his songwriting. Though most of them agreed, some of them said that drug use is one of the major contributing factors to the quality of his music. This irked me a lot and I tried to explain why it isn’t so. However, some of them defended it.”

“One can defend anything,” said Virendra. “Obviously drugs don’t put a chip in one’s head that means they will start creating good music. There have been many who’ve done this. If one is at all sane, one will see the truth of this.”

“Yes, that’s exactly what I said, but then the view of some was that to think differently or to create good music, one shouldn’t think sane. I don’t know what ‘sane’ means for most people.”

He didn’t say anything more but I went on to tell the whole story. I said, “When I had told them about this, most of the people agreed with what I had said. There were more than two people, so I’ll call them A, B, C and D.”

A said, “Truly a great artist. One of my favorite tracks!!

Take me on a trip upon your magic swirlin’ ship,
My senses have been stripped, my hands can’t feel to grip,
My toes too numb to step, wait only for my boot heels
To be wanderin’.
I’m ready to go anywhere, I’m ready for to fade
Into my own parade, cast your dancing spell my way,
I promise to go under it.”

“The song (in its complete version) is widely recognized as one of Dylan’s most evocative and poetic songs. There have been many theories about the meaning of the song. One interpretation is that the song allusively recounts Dylan’s early experiences with LSD, and this is supported by the prominent use of the word ‘trip’ in the first line of the second verse.”

B said, “Excellent. One of my favorite artists. Just like Every Grain of Sand, Visions of Johanna, Like a Rolling Stone, and many others, this is another great track.”

I said, “Yes, he’s the only man that stands out in what is called popular music. He’s been consistently creating good music, in many different forms, always reinventing himself, never remaining in any fixed category, never labeling himself, throughout the last five decades. He has also been highly influential in all forms of music.”

B said, “Certainly. His surrealistic style of writing, excellent musicianship, and usage of mind-expanding drugs can really create that kind of magic. Let me go on a bit more. This is something I really like:

Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth,
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth.

“You have brought back my teenage memories. So on that note, let me dedicate his Desolation Row entirely to you.”

I said, “I don’t agree with the drug part. I don’t think there is any such thing as a mind-expanding drug. Any movement of mind away from its usual state is not expansion. It may temporarily stimulate or dull the brain and one might become aware of one’s thinking process momentarily; but it affects the capacity to reason, to pursue a logical sequence of thought, sense of responsibility. It destroys the brain. There have been many others who’ve taken drugs and created music but they have really been quite mediocre and have died at a very young age. Clearly, that’s not the case with Bob Dylan. That quality of mind doesn’t come from any drug – it comes from observation and choiceless awareness of one’s environment.”

B said, “Well, well, I don’t mean to promote any sort of psychotropic substance here publicly. Nor do I mean to spread any negative message. I know psychotropic substances are bad; but I was only talking about the surrealistic movement. And the music of the 60s, the time when drugs were more freely sold, and commoner than today – I am only talking about that. What is mind-expanding to most drug users is technically known as hallucination.

“And the people who died young were actually inspired by Nietzsche’s Nihilism. Examples are Morrison, Sid Vicious, etc.

“Much of the surrealism in music can be attributed to the usage of psychotropic substances. Speaking of psychotropic substances, Blake once said, ‘If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern.’

“Huxley later explained the meaning of this in his short essay, The Doors of Perception, in which he took peyote (mescaline) and described his experience in writing.

“Of Huxley’s book, Wikipedia says, ‘Psychedelic drugs are thought to disable filters which block or suppress signals related to mundane functions from reaching the conscious mind. In The Doors of Perception, Huxley explores the idea that the human mind filters reality, partly because handling the details of all of the impressions and images coming in would be unbearable, and partly because it has been taught to do so. He believes that psychotropic drugs can remove this filter (to an extent), or “open these doors of perception.”’

“I say it again, I do not intend to promote any sort of psychotropic substances; I am only reiterating what a few great men have said based on what I’ve read and based on my knowledge of music.

“For abstract ideas to come, the mind should not think sanely, that’s all I mean by it.”

I said, “Sorry, I’m not trying to contradict what you have said or trying to protest against anything. You don’t have to accept what I’m saying. What I’m trying to put forward are the facts. It’s easy to escape through any drug and invent any form of so-called surrealistic experience, which is nothing but the projection of the content of one’s own consciousness. It is very easy to deceive oneself through these experiences and at the same time have a marvelous escape. Even the many so-called spiritual people have such experiences, which each translates according to his own particular conditioning. It is simply another invention of thought. This is a fact. Experience, be it of any kind, is always limited. Therefore, knowledge born of that experience is also limited. That knowledge is stored in the brain as memory. From that memory, you think. So, all thought is based on knowledge, on what one has already known. You can’t think of something that you don’t know. It is impossible. Therefore, it is never new. It’s a fact.

“I’ve read Huxley’s book and I know about these musicians. As to any of them being influenced by Nietzsche, I doubt it. Quoting someone else doesn’t mean anything. What someone else has said or thought is not real unless one critically examines it for oneself. Simply being able to understand a verbal statement or arrive at an intellectual conclusion about the same doesn’t make that thing real. I think we would agree on this.

“If by ‘sane’ you mean operating from memory alone, from knowledge, previous experiences, from conflict, from prejudices, beliefs, ideas and ideals, not being aware of one’s own sensory responses and thought process – which is the usual state of mind – then I would agree with it. But sane really means the opposite of this. It certainly does include logic and reasoning.

“Drugs don’t cleanse the doors of perception – attention and observation do; and ‘narrow chinks of cavern’ means your knowledge (not the technical knowledge, of course), your fixed ideas, beliefs, authorities which you set up in your mind, including your own authority.”

B said, “Ah, what to say now! I have neither the strength nor the energy to speak any further; nor can I disagree with any of what you have said, because all that you have said is absolutely correct.

“However, I can say this: almost every musician in the 60s took depressants such as marijuana, LSD, or other similar drugs, or at least experimented with some form of drug. Another thing is that some of the artists mentioned above have created very good music even after taking drugs. Not to forget, David Gilmour is from Pink Floyd, and all members of the band were notorious drug users. So were Jimi Hendrix (and it was after listening to Hendrix’s version of All Along the Watchtower that people actually started to like the song) and Keith Richards.

“Also from a philosophical standpoint, experimenting, without getting addicted, with psychotropic substances is good because it broadens one’s knowledge and experience; but it’s even better not to experiment at all, because once one falls into the dark, odorous cesspool of drug abuse, safe return is always doubtful. And life is beautiful. Sometimes.

“If one is not an existentialist.”

I said, “Yes, what you have stated about these musicians is a fact and sure, some of them have created some good music too.

“But I think I haven’t made myself clear. What I am questioning is whether experimenting or using these things broadens ones knowledge and experience. I doubt it. As I mentioned, knowledge and experience are limited because they can always be added to. And if there is a thing which one comes upon, even temporarily, by using these things, some so-called state that these things simulate, what is the nature of that? Does it only depend on artificial stimulants? Is it something separate, outside of oneself? I’m simply questioning it. Must one not be attentive to the workings of one’s own mind? What is actually meant by cleansing the doors of perception, not verbally or intellectually or as an idea, but actually? Because if the stimulant is not there, the thing is also not there. So, either that thing was projected by thought itself or it never existed in the first place. I don’t know if I’m making myself clear. Does using any of these things do anything more than bring about chemically a certain state of mind which is totally different from the understanding of oneself?

“And these terms, like existentialism, are just words, right? The word is not the actual and before you know it, totally conditions your mind. It’s just a label. It may mean something for one and another thing for someone else. Labels and terms are restrictive, limiting. If one is an existentialist, he will see things from his point of view, the scientist will see it from his, the philosopher and the religious man will see it from their own. So, who is actually looking? Are so many different realities possible? I’m sure if anybody was to go and tell Dostoevsky or Nietzsche that he was an existentialist, they would be very embarrassed, might even feel offended. All these terms have been invented by people who got some kind of artificial stimulation by reading them and created these terms to glorify their mistaken idea that they have also reached the same level of understanding.”

B said, “Would love to answer this. Got work right now. Tomorrow morning probably. This talk has started to make sense now.”

I said, “You don’t have to answer this. It’s not some kind of a battle of wits or a form of intellectual amusement. If you would like to discuss it further, please feel free to email me and we can talk as two friends exploring something together. If it is merely opposing one conclusion to another then it does not lead us very far.”

B said, “I am sorry. I didn’t mean to cause any offense. Answering is the wrong word. I thought you were asking me a question. I apologize. I should have used the word ‘discuss.’ Please pardon my wrong use of the word, kind sir. I wish to stop this right here.”

C said, “No, don’t stop. This is a fascinating debate and you’re both doing so well. And Anurag makes some excellent points there.”

D said, “Yes. I agree with C. What started out as a comment on a song has expanded into a debate providing insights into so much startlingly wonderful ground. Don’t stop now. We want more.”

B said, “Thanks C. Thanks D. I’ll continue with my part of the discussion with my dear friend tomorrow. Until now, I had been afraid that I would have to disclose my deepest secrets if I spoke too much, but something tells me to go ahead. I can only say this for the time being: ‘A good philosopher is one who never jumps to a conclusion, but suspects all possibilities.’”

I said, “Please, there is no question of offense or anything of that sort. I just wanted to point out that the intention here has not been to inform one about something one would like to be talked about, theoretical, superstitious, imaginary, a fixation, as it were. For my part, this has not been a theoretical discussion; this is not just a lot of words.”

B said, “I would myself like to conclude by saying this. I think the word experience had led to some confusion here. I have understood experience as knowledge accumulated by participating in an event. An example would be taking drugs for a short period, experiencing them first-hand, stopping using them, and getting rehabilitated again. When I say drugs broaden our experience, I’m talking about the rational knowledge that we acquire after this entire process is completed.

“Experience, to me, is only limited to what the observer has observed. A human can observe things in two ways: one, merely with the help of his sensory organs (observing gravity); second, by actually participating in the event (taking a drug). This observation is also called initial observation and this initial observation provides a base for gaining rational knowledge. We observe things, we collect information, and then we use our reason to process it. This leads to the logical conclusion, which we call knowledge.

“Observation acts as the initial raw material in the process of obtaining knowledge. Let me try to give an example. A guitarist named John Frusciante took drugs for many years. Because of it he fell into severe depression. He stopped playing music for a long time. His knowledge became disorganized. Eventually, he stopped taking drugs and became successful in rehabilitating himself and getting all his knowledge back. Today, John doesn’t do drugs, but he certainly knows drugs better than a non-user. He says his experiences were all hallucinations, but he has learned something from them. He has seen a different side of life which is spiritual and beautiful. That’s what I mean by experience.

“I agree, reason gives us proper knowledge, but how can we say that only proper knowledge is required for creating music? Or art? Reason can give us a logical view, but reason cannot always give us an artistic view. In my opinion, in art, while creating something, sometimes one must see things differently. One doesn’t have to be right.

“Musicians, when doped, see things in a nondescriptive way. They feel things in a distorted way. And they try to bring those feelings, those images, into their music. If one was not bitten by a snake, one wouldn’t know how it feels. If one has not taken a drug, one wouldn’t know what it actually does to the brain; one would never have a first-hand experience. One would remain completely unaware of that part of life. One can only read about it which doesn’t give the exact idea.

“Another belief I have is that humans are still in the process of evolution; they are not completely evolved. Their ancestors were apes, and who knows what they are going to become 100,000 years from now. Their bodies are limited, their sensory organs have limited abilities, and their knowledge is very limited and only reliable in their own world. Therefore, I keep a skeptical view about human knowledge too. I think it is imperfect. I don’t say it is imperfect, but I like to think it is so.

“I still think life is a strange thing. Though Freud explained dreams, I’m not sure I know what dreams are. I have read both the Newtonian and the Kantian explanations of time, but still I am unsure I know what it is. I see myself aging every day, living in time, and keep wondering why I grow old. Similarly, I don’t know if the knowledge acquired with the help of our underdeveloped sensory organs is true. I’m not saying it’s false, I’m only saying I keep myself open to know more – more than just what my reason and sensory organs can tell me. We all know a ball thrown up in the air will ultimately come down due to gravity. So we, as humans, can only say that we have seen it coming down thus far, but we cannot say for sure if it actually comes down. So one day if it doesn’t come down, we’d all be less surprised. The universe is very big and unfathomable. And we are mere tiny points; tinier still is our so-called knowledge.

“I hold:
“If one does more things, one will know more.
“Knowledge is reliable only to an extent.
“One should suspect all possibilities.”

I said, “I think I’d like to make myself clear once more. Please don’t accept what I’m saying but see the truth of it. Try to listen without interpreting or translating it according to what you already know; then there is a possibility of sharing our understanding. What is true cannot be different for everyone. A thing can only be seen and rightly understood for itself and not by comparing it with something else. Also, let us put aside what others have said or discovered, be it anybody, however ‘great.’ We have to look at things simply and not come to them with various conclusions, most of which we have gathered from books and what others have said. Let us try to see the thing for ourselves rather than seeing it through someone else. Let us look at it directly and simply.”

“What you mention is something I’ve been thinking about lately. This word – ‘experience.’ I think it is usually used in two ways: the active present and the past. One is that you are experiencing something, which means to go through it. The other means to have gone through. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Either way, your point that experience helps in increasing one’s understanding does not seem to be correct. It may add to one’s knowledge, which is a different thing since knowledge is always in the past and is always limited because it can always be added to. I think that in neither way does experience help in understanding – be it through taking a drug, or something spiritual or whatever – for the following reasons:

“Experience as the active present – ‘experiencing.’ When you are actually experiencing something – anger, sex, etc. – at that moment there is no experience at all. Have you noticed this? Only a little later comes the experiencer, saying, ‘I have been angry.’

“Experience as the past. When one says, ‘I have experienced. I know,’ one knows something which is already over. Right? When I say ‘I have had an experience’ I only know the image of that experience and that image is the past, dead, over, finished. Because to experience implies not only going through, but to experience something you must be able to recognize it. Otherwise you cannot experience. To recognize implies that you have already known. So, there is no such thing as a new experience.

“So, the point I’m trying to make is that experience doesn’t help in understanding at all. Because what is called experience is nothing but a residue in memory and from that memory, that residue, which is the past, one looks at the present. So, there is always this conflict between the observer and the observed. When you go through something, it is over. And what you experience then is the past. So, there is nothing new in that at all. So, there is no learning, merely an accumulation of something which has already been known, in modified form. As I said, it’s the content of consciousness that reaches out and simply experiences itself, because it wants to recognize itself in everything, every form. There is no learning, nothing new in that. One can test this out for oneself.

“Taking drugs to experience something marvelous is an old trick which has existed from time immemorial: to bring about a temporary alteration in the brain cells, a greater sensitivity and heightened perception which give a semblance of reality. I think we have gathered so much knowledge that we just can’t look at anything simply any more.

“My point is simple: a conditioned mind has no basis for right understanding. No matter how much it seeks, searches, makes effort to understand, it will remain exactly where it was. Only an awake mind, a mind that is aware of itself – its own reactions, thought process – can have right understanding. Without self-knowledge, rather self-knowing, which is in the active present, there is no basis for right thought. Repetition, drugs, control, conforming to a pattern, various forms of entertainment – including intellectual and spiritual entertainment – dull the mind. And this dullness of mind one may call silence, abstract, seeing things differently, etc. Well that’s it I guess. End of discussion.”

C said, “I disagree. ‘To experience’ does not necessarily imply recognition. A baby who knows nothing of the world experiences new things every day. Regardless of whether or not he recognizes it. This is why it is a NEW experience. In this instance, you do not understand what you are thinking, seeing, feeling; you are simply ‘experiencing.’ Once the experience is over, should he come across the same thing once more, he will draw upon past experience in order to INTERPRET it and attempt to understand it in that light. Should he wish to describe this new experience to someone who has not had the same experience, he would only be able to draw a comparison with experiences that the other person recognizes. Therefore, unless you have experienced something first-hand, you do not truly understand every nuance of it. While one does not need to drink poison to know that it’s deadly, one would not understand exactly what kind of pain one goes through should one drink it.

“Are you able to know what pregnancy feels like to a woman? To have a life growing inside your body? Simply because you have witnessed it or know it exists does not mean that you understand the experience. You have to experience it yourself to truly understand. Listening to someone describe a beautiful landscape is vastly different from being there and seeing it for yourself.

“If there was no night, there would be no such thing as day. It would always be ‘day’ or it would always be ‘night.’ One often recognizes things by comparing them against other things. You know that good exists because you recognize evil. You know that people love you when you compare them against those who don’t.

“We carry the influences of teachings from everyone around us...until we are exposed to conflicting influences and opinions (which do exist and yet both may be valid) which force us to re-examine our understanding of those things. And hence, we come up with our own version of ‘truth,’ diverging (sometimes imperceptibly, sometimes by a wide margin) from what we originally held as truth.

“Case in point, since all that you have said is so well stated, by your logic, you would expect me to agree with it. Whereas it is obvious by now that isn't the case. Simply because as an individual with my own mind, I can differentiate between fact and opinion and draw my own conclusions about them.

“While my comments are open for all to agree or disagree with, they are directed at you solely in pursuit of knowledge and understanding and not with the intention of being offensive. Since you have very rightly said that we should not simply accept another's beliefs at face value, I hope you will take my disagreement with your opinions in the same spirit.

“I have no doubt that you will disagree with much of what I have said, which should not be a cause for concern since it is nothing more than a difference of opinion.

I said, “It’s a good thing to think on your own. It’s also a good thing that you do not accept anything I say. I am not disputing any of that. You are very much entitled to your opinions and there is no question of offence of any sort. But I am afraid that you have thoroughly misunderstood me. And that is all right.”

I told Virendra, “That’s where it ended. Quite an abrupt end, I must say. I wanted to say more, add more, clarify more, make them understand. I wanted to explain it in the best way possible, describing it, using words as close as possible to the actual thing to convey the meaning, so they can have a glimpse of it, so that it can at least trigger some kind of insight into the whole thing. It was so simple, so apparent. Why didn’t they see? The whole thing moved like a boat sailing on a windy night, taking no fixed direction. I don’t know where we reached. I don’t think anybody moved at all. I think they remained exactly where they started from. It is always surprising to me how people don’t want to move from their fixed bases.”

I looked at Virendra. I was expecting a response. But he said nothing. Then it occurred to me. I had learned nothing since the last Saturday.

Television and Conditioning

noreply@blogger.com (Ashutosh Ghildiyal) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:43:00 +0000

I

Sam Warren hadn’t felt good for quite some days. He had been having constant headaches and was feeling anxious but didn’t know why. He could not focus on his work any more and would get tired very quickly. He felt exhausted even though his was a desk job and not much work was coming his way lately. He could sleep well but when he woke up, he would soon start feeling exhausted and fatigued. He felt a sense of depression and loneliness which was quite unaccounted for in his case. He would feel a sense of desperate loneliness, anxiety and depression in his heart and could not look at anything in a clear light. He did not feel happy any more, about anything. He could not enjoy the things he had previously enjoyed doing. He had never felt like this before.

Sensing his inner condition, one of his office colleagues told him to go a doctor. He went to a doctor, told him the symptoms and was given some medicines to take. He took the medicines, and ate the food suggested by the doctor, but nothing happened. He seemed to be stuck in that condition. Then someone suggested he go to a psychiatrist.

He went to a psychiatrist, who asked him lot of questions to which he did not have an answer as such. The psychiatrist told him not to think too much, not to worry, to think positive, and to take a holiday. He did all that and for a month felt just fine. However, when he returned and started the same schedule again, his condition once again deteriorated.

He had dreams which did not make sense to him. He could even be aware while dreaming that he was dreaming and he could see that his dreams were simply a continuation of what went on during the day. As long as he was unconscious of it, it was just fine, but being conscious of it and seeing the engines of his mind running even during the night as during the day, he felt utterly miserable. He felt cornered, hopeless, and in utter despair. He found no rest, neither when awake nor during sleep. He became extremely conscious of it all, with his life becoming one series of continual conscious misery. He could switch it off by going off on a vacation or indulging himself in something for some time, but now he had become very conscious of this as an escape and knew that the problem would come back again. He was also very tired of running away all the time. He was always on the edge and could not see either forward or backwards in time. The fear that every day would be the same and that this conflict would go on for the rest of his life tortured him and made him very miserable.

II

One day, he read an article in the newspaper by a psychologist who was visiting the country from the U.S. This psychologist was renowned in the field of neuropsychology and cognitive psychology. The article mentioned the effects of television on the human mind. It ran like this:

Have you ever watched yourself watching television? What happens? There are two things one can do – directly perceive the images and the sounds first and thereby approach the television from oneself; and watch the content and thereby approach yourself from the television. Most of us approach the television from the latter angle and thus get completely lost in it – we let the television invade our minds, without first perceiving the kinds of images that are being shown. If one approaches the form before the content, one will simply find most of the images and sounds shown on the television to be repulsive and offensive to the senses. It is because we do not directly see, because we do not understand this first impression, that we get lost in the content and then the good and bad in the TV depends on our conclusions, ideas and likes or dislikes.

Television as it exists now is nothing but a marketing tool for making money by offending one’s senses by displaying all kinds of rubbish images and by invading the feeble and impressionable human mind. One might’ve experienced a certain heaviness in the brain during or after watching television for a short duration of time. Many times, the residue of the images and sounds displayed remains in the brain. It is because we think it is harmless and let it work on us that more and more new ways of using it to deteriorate the mind are being invented. A mind that is in a habit of watching television regularly, is exposed to it for many years, has more or less lost some of its natural faculties. Moreover, it must also affect the brain cells, perhaps damaging some and killing some. This is only the direct effect of television, not to forget the image making process that starts in the mind – the mind becomes occupied with images and ideas rather than with facts. This is a serious threat facing humankind, especially young brains.

One watches television, listens to music, reads, plays video games, etc., because the mind has simply become addicted to these artificial stimulations, to be kept occupied with some thing or the other all the time. It seriously alters the mind’s capacity to be free of illusions and to see things as they are. It crowds the mind with all kinds of unnecessary images and sounds – one can see this for oneself when all kinds of thoughts and sounds just pop up in one’s head. This makes the mind mechanical, insensitive and incapable of direct perception of things. It also affects one’s physical vision, fatigues the mind and makes one lazy.

Now, it is a crisis situation since the people who make the media their profession become engaged in wielding its power shamelessly. One can see this in the programs that are aired on television; most of them are far away from the basic logic of things. This shows how ignorant and stupid these people are who are not only living their lives amidst all this but are also imposing the same on almost everybody. Their minds have already deteriorated and they project their deterioration and senselessness onto the masses, who are impressionable and after a time start believing in the senseless as the real in a most natural way. This has been the lot of mankind for the last 20 years or so. However, the speed at which this is occurring is increasing, and the younger generation which is exposed to it shall have to bear the brunt of it. The whole human consciousness is now so filled with content of all kinds that it has become ever more difficult for people to be free of all this accumulation and live a sane and healthy life.

Sam Warren read the article and felt quite alarmed. He had never approached the matter from this angle. He thought this might just be the author’s point of view. But what if it was a fact? What if it was one of the reasons for what was happening to him? He grew more confused as he pondered upon it.

He had been an avid TV watcher since his childhood. Television had been his companion, consolation and diversion. He had never thought about this point. Now that he started to think along these lines, he found that much of what he had learned, known, and felt came from television. He remembered nostalgically how watching TV in the old days had transported him into some magical world, or in another kind of world, of which he was a part as well as spectator. These worlds had been changing but they always gave him great pleasure.

He had learned about the emotions – the wide range of them – by seeing people on screen using them. He had known how to smile, how to laugh, how to cry by watching various characters cry, smile, and laugh. He had known and learned how to walk, how to talk, how to think of life and almost every other thing through television. He had learned about many places, about great men, about great deeds, through television. He had taken part in all of them, lived them, suffered with them, enjoyed with them, through television.

His language, his action, his beliefs, his ideas, his range of knowledge and information were all through television. He remembered how in many cases when he did not know what to do or how to react he would recall how some of his favorite characters would react and he would do it exactly the same way. He also recalled how lately he could not even find solace in TV. He recalled how he could not even enjoy watching TV as he used to earlier. He kept on pondering on all of this and reflected on how much of his personality was shaped by TV.

He found out about the psychologist who had written the article and decided to visit him.

III

The psychologist was staying in a hotel in the suburbs. Sam called him up and made an appointment. When Sam arrived in the hotel, the psychologist was sitting in the lobby chatting with an old lady. In five minutes, he got free and came towards Sam. He shook hands with him and asked him the purpose of his visit. Sam gave him a brief account of what he had been going through lately and also commented on the article that the psychologist had written and how it made him feel.

“Your problem may not be directly due to the effects of television, as I had mentioned in that article, but it is surely related. Television is definitely a cause but it is not the only cause. It is the conditioning effect of the environment, which includes television, amongst other things. However, television may be and usually is the most powerful and potent medium of conditioning. It is when one becomes slightly aware of it and sees the actual truth of it, and not as an idea or theory, that one becomes afraid and fearful. It affects the personality in many ways causing depression, anxiety and a sense of dissociation.”

“I don’t quite understand what you mean,” Sam replied. “Do you mean that we are conditioned, as in programmed, and we are not what we think we are but are what various sources have molded us into, including television, which you say is the most potent and powerful amongst these mind manipulators?”

“Yes, that’s what I’m saying, partly. Most of us like to think that our own minds and thought processes are impenetrable. We like to think that other people can be manipulated, but we cannot. We believe that our opinions, values, ideas and beliefs are totally autonomous. One of the principal tools in the mind manipulation arsenal is television, the cultural arm of the established industrial order. Television, the drug of the world, maintains, stabilizes and reinforces ideas, attitudes and behaviors through its programming and advertising.”

“But don’t we learn from our environment, doesn’t watching television educate us, inform us too?”

“It is important to differentiate between conditioning and education. Does TV educate or does it condition us? Education is when you are involved, critically examine everything and see the fact of it and not just receive and accept blindly. You may think that TV does no harm because you know it’s not real, but did you know that your subconscious believes it to be real? Do you know that they don’t teach us one very important thing in schools, which is: the word is not the actual. The description, the image, the word, the symbol is not the actual. We are not taught that and our brains are not able to differentiate between them. That’s why we think that the word is the thing. How many of us think that the word ‘love’ is love? Aren’t we conditioned by the word?”

“I think so,” Sam replied, “But I’m not very clear about it. I do agree that it’s sometimes hard for me to differentiate between the real and imagined.”

“I have done a lot of research on this and have spent almost all my life learning about it. I think it is a very important subject. I’ll give you some facts. Did you know in America, children and adolescents spend 22 to 28 hours per week viewing television, more than any other activity except sleeping? That means that by the age of 70 they will have spent 7 to 10 years of their lives watching TV. On average people watch 5-6 hours of TV every day. This figure is only an average; many people, especially children, watch far more than this. This not only programs their minds from an early age, but may also damage their brains, causing them to grow up and behave more like an animal than a human, thus driven by basic desires such as sex, violence and food.”

“That’s astonishing. But not all people may watch TV. Would you say that even the people who don’t watch much TV are prone to some kind of passive effects through others who do watch a lot of TV?”

“Yes, I would say that. It is infectious. After all, it’s collective subconscious, not just an individual consciousness. What affects others affects you too. More than any other single effect, television places images in our brains.”

“Yes, I remember having some dreams which I couldn’t quite place. Then I recalled that the images I saw in my dreams were a part of some TV show I had seen a couple of years ago.”

“I think that psychologically, we are still at a very primitive stage. We have not yet learned to distinguish in our minds between natural images and those which are artificially created and implanted. That is why I said our education should teach us that the word, the image, the idea is not the real, is never the actual.”

“Yes,” said Sam, “I think I’m beginning to see your point.”

“TV has everything to program your mind. You know what that means? It means you are conditioned, programmed by outside sources, like a computer is programmed. That means that the brain becomes like a machine, accepting, recording and working within the program, never free and never original. Therefore, TV can be and usually is used to program you into behaving, reacting, responding as per the program. It may seem fantastic or fiction when you hear this but it’s the truth.”

“But it’s hard to believe. It still seems to me like fiction, like in that movie, Matrix.”

“Of course, that’s how you’ll feel. As I told you, the brain more or less loses the faculty of distinguishing between the real and the imaginary, since it is used to believing in everything it sees. Wait, I’ll give you some more facts. Did you know watching TV puts the viewer into a highly suggestible sleeplike hypnotic state? This provides easy access to the subconscious. When you watch TV, your brain activity switches from the left side of your brain, which is responsible for logical thought and critical analysis, to the right side. And the right side of the brain does not critically analyze incoming information; instead it uses an emotional response. This means there is little or no analysis of incoming information. Right brain activity causes the body to release chemicals called endorphins which have natural sedative properties similar to the drug heroin. It is therefore not only possible, but probable, for a person to become physically addicted to TV. This ensures constant daily exposure, a critical factor involved in programming the mind. It also reduces higher brain activity, promoting activity in lower brain regions. In other words it makes you less intelligent and more likely to behave like an animal.”

“Okay, is that the reason why advertising is so successful and why we see so many commercials while watching TV?”

“Yes, that is something which is exploited by the marketers, the industry people, intentionally or unintentionally. There are subliminal suggestions being hidden in certain advertisements. Not only that, words and phrases are used in specifically crafted ways to influence your thoughts.”

“These people who use these things to program us, manipulate our minds, who are they? Is it one person or many? Is it an organization or the government? And do they have our best interests at heart?

“I don’t know about this,” said the psychologist. “But it is surely a sign of our collective ignorance, irresponsibility and self-interest. Mainly self-interest, which is the base of all corruption. Anyway, I’m sure for those who are involved in this, the underlying assumption is that the public must be manipulated for its own good. Many advertising strategies involve covert methods to trick the consumer into believing their lives are incomplete and deficient without the promoted product; only through purchasing the commodity will the consumer’s life be ‘whole’ or ‘better’ again. Many advertisements send the message ‘you’re not good enough’ unless you drink the right soft drink, buy a new car, use the perfect shampoo or stock up on scented toilet paper. Other messages subconsciously prey upon guilt, anxieties or hostilities. Many people, hundreds of times a day, are hearing or reading subliminally that they’re not good enough. This continual suggestion is a major cause of stress, and certainly the cause of much dissatisfaction, anxiety and even illness.”

“Yes, I agree. How many times have I felt this way but could never put a finger on it? I think that suggestibility exists constantly within our psyches, determining our state of being, our consciousness and our relationship to ourselves and the world around us.”

“While the power of suggestion is generally exercised unconsciously in our day to day existence, it is exploited deliberately and ruthlessly in the world of advertising. What a person watches DOES influence them, and this is well known by the behaviorists in the group. In fact, they know that TV is a tool that they purposely use to influence ‘the masses.’ The medical industry, for example, does not want people who would buy and consume according to their own requirements. Rather, they want them to buy on suggestion. Many advertisements offer cures for a debilitating array of ills from headaches and backache to constipation, prostate problems and premenstrual tension. The sheer ubiquity of such promised cures convinces us, if only by suggestion, that we must need them, and that we must or should be suffering from the afflictions that they claim to alleviate.

“Subliminal advertising was exposed in the 1950s,” the psychologist continued, “When some TV commercials were discovered to be transmitting split-second images that were designed to stimulate a viewer’s desire for a certain product. For example, during a soft drink commercial, an advertiser might have flashed the message ‘I’m thirsty’ without the viewer realizing it.”

“I just recalled some article that I read long back about an Army using something like this to create soldiers who will kill more,” said Sam. “After the Second World War the Army recognized the need to create a soldier who was more willing to kill. This came after reports that many soldiers would purposely miss or aim low when shooting the enemy. Soldiers did not want to kill, and when they did kill they would feel lots of remorse. To remedy this, one method that was used amongst others was to make them watch violent images on screen, especially before going into battle. The effect was to desensitize the soldier to violence, thereby making him more willing to kill.”

“That’s programming for you!”

“I think that the effect would be worse in the case of children.”

“Yes, it is very concerning and very disturbing,” the psychologist agreed. “Do you know advertising and marketing firms have long used the insights and research methods of psychology to sell products to children? Today these practices are reaching epidemic proportions. Psychologists, marketing people, and advertising and entrepreneurial firms work together to try to understand how best to sell things to young children. Psychologists are regulars at marketing conferences and in business magazines. Many advertisers brag that their understanding of child psychology gives them the edge when serving clients. Using psychological principles to sell products to children means not only selling a product, but also a larger value system that says making money and using money to purchase material goods is the road to happiness.

“Not only that,” he continued, “But the programs that are aired on the television for children, the so-called ‘children’s programs,’ are really creating havoc in the children’s psyche. I remember reading somewhere that some psychologists in Russia had called on the government to ban a television cartoon, asserting that a 25th shot system was applied in the cartoon which negatively affects children’s sub-consciousness. As a result of this shot’s impact, a ‘neuro-linguistic programming’ occurs, or, to put it in other words, zombifying. The psychologists characterize this phenomenon as ‘intellectual genocide.’ In their view, the cartoon calls for cruelty and aggression, while numerous signs on the heroes’ costumes symbolize death.”

“TV today has a profound influence on our society,” said Sam, “And especially young children. I don’t think anyone is untouched by it. Even women, I think, are usually a target of this and are greatly affected by it. How television has been continually defining things like beauty, love, fitness, health etc. for the masses.”

“Yes, women are carefully trained by the media to view themselves as inadequate. They are taught that other women — through the purchase of clothes, cosmetics, food, vocations, avocations, education, etc. — are more desirable and feminine than themselves. That’s the case with most women, if they do not realize this consciously. You see, TV itself is like a mass-mind. It’s a different world altogether and for many people, it is the real world. Real-life experience is replaced by the mediated ‘experience’ of television viewing. The TV ‘world’ becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the mass mind takes shape, its participants acting according to media-driven impulses and believing them to be their own personal volition arising out of their own desires and needs.”

“But are we so helpless against it all? Isn’t there some kind of filter or protective covering in our brain which is somehow related to our experiences, memories and learning, something that is our own, part of our identity?”

“You see, the critical side of your brain is the left. As you hear this you are making judgments, passing opinions and coming to conclusions. Whether they are ‘stupid nonsense’ or ‘I knew it,’ they are being caused by beta brain waves. These are the waves activated when you begin to use that left hand side, the center of logical human communication and analysis — the certain something that separates us from other mammals. Researchers have found that once the television set is switched on that left hand side and all its faculties tends to switch off. Instead the images from television’s 300,000 little dots (which make up the picture) go straight to the right brain. The switch from beta to alpha waves shows this. Alpha brain waves are the ones we associate with meditation, sleep and zombification.

“Some years ago the Journal of Advertising Research compared the brain activity of reading, say a newspaper, with the activity while watching the box. Conclusions: the response was different. The response to print may fairly be described as active, while the response to television may fairly be called passive. I think it is important to realize that when a person watches TV, they go into an alpha brain wave state, in which they are more suggestible than normal.

“Have you ever noticed the glazed expression on the face of a person who has been watching TV for any length of time? This is from being in prolonged alpha state and a semi dissociative state.”

“Yes,” said Sam, “I’m aware of that. I have myself found myself lost in that state plenty of times. I realize that I become what I watch on TV.”

“Right. You’ve got it! Let me give you some more facts. There was research conducted in the 1960s by Professor George Gerbner, Dean of the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania, which showed that television has protracted effects which are gradual and indirect, but cumulative and significant. He found that heavy watching of television cultivated attitudes that were more consistent with the world of television programs than with the everyday world. For example, heavy television viewers tend to develop a ‘mean world syndrome,’ believing that the world is a nastier place than do light television viewers. He also discovered that television watching cultivated a symbolic message about law and order with the action-adventure genre reinforcing a faith in law and order, the status quo and social justice with the villains and the bad people always getting what they deserve.”

“Yes, that’s what we discussed about people living in different worlds rather than in the real world, which is the only world where one can live.”

“Before the television, there was conversation around the dinner table or people used to go out and meet people,” the psychologist replied. “Technology now stands between us and each other, between people and the natural world. We know our virtual ‘neighbors’ on television better than our real neighbors next door. As communities and extended family structures decay, the isolated individual becomes easy prey for the mind manipulators. As cathode ray reality becomes genuine reality, public opinion becomes homogenized and mainstreamed, widespread apathy and indifference prevail.

“This mainstreaming of opinion is evident in nightly news bulletins, which have become a source of entertainment first and information second,” he continued. “Local television stations all report the same news simultaneously, even using the same footage. Despite the similarities, each claims to be ‘the best,’ ‘the latest’ or ‘the most up to date.’ In reality, they are hardly different and it is difficult for the public to distinguish one from the other.

“Commenting on this subtle mind manipulation phenomena, former CIA agent Philip Agee, in his book On the Run, observes: ‘Television news is show business, designed to entertain and intentionally or not, programmed to keep people ignorant.’

“And with the advent of ‘reality’ television, the boundaries between the real world and the virtual world have been inextricably blurred by the mind manipulators. As real-life experiences are replaced by the mediated experiences of reality and fantasy, gained via television viewing, it becomes easy for politicians and market researchers to rely on a base of predetermined mass experience that can be evoked by appropriate triggers. As the mass mind takes shape, its participants act according to media-driven impulses, believing them to be their own personal choices arising out of their own desires and needs.

“Most people believe the news shown on TV to be real and the opinions presented therein to be the truth. In fact, news watching, like newspaper reading, is something of a habit with most people. They say it keeps them informed. All that information, which they believe to be true and factual, seems to increase their knowledge and understanding.

“I’m sure that’s what most people do believe. I myself know some people who cannot function without reading the newspaper, and news according to them is an essential part of living. It is easy to see that it’s simply another means of entertainment. Moreover, it is usually the quality of the shows that are often criticized. However, this is missing the point. Television shows are not supposed to be thought provoking. You are not supposed to question the images you see on TV, only believe in their prima facie existence.

“Television programs, commercials, news reports and talk shows are all designed toward blind acceptance by the viewer. Because, after all, if you see it with your own eyes, it must be true. It must be real. Reality inside a box!”

“This widespread damage, is it permanent, is it something that can be remedied?” Sam asked. “Is there any way to undo the mind control damage already done by TV?”

“Turn it off. Easier said than done. Once the input stops, it isn’t constantly reinforced. But really, it isn’t as simple as that. In 1977, an American activist and former advertising executive named Jerry Mander wrote a book called Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. In the book, he talks about not only the contents of the television images, but the effects television has on the human mind and body. His discussion includes: the induction of alpha waves, a hypnotizing effect that a motionless mind enters; the way viewers often regard what they see on television as real even though the programs are filled with quick camera switches, rapid image movement, computer generated objects, computer generated morphing and other technical events; the placement of artificial images into our mind’s eye; and the effects that large amounts of television viewing have on children and the onset of attention deficit disorder.

“Further, he states, ‘The horror of television is that the information goes in, but we don’t react to it. It goes right into our memory pool and perhaps we react to it later but we don’t know what we’re reacting to. When you watch television you are training yourself not to react and so later on, you’re doing things without knowing why you’re doing them or where they came from.’

“‘Television offers neither rest nor stimulation,’ Mander says. ‘Television inhibits your ability to think, but it does not lead to freedom of mind, relaxation or renewal. It leads to a more exhausted mind. You may have time out from prior obsessive thought patterns, but that’s as far as television goes. The mind is never empty, the mind is filled. What’s worse, it is filled with someone else’s obsessive thoughts and images.’

“Well, why do you think they call it programming? Mander goes into great detail discussing the physical effects television viewing has on the human mind and body. His analysis is excellent.”

“I know the name of that book,” Sam stated. “I think I read the name in one of Linda Goodman’s books long back. It was mentioned there as suggested reading.”

“Mander argues that the brain cannot fight against the continuous and unending encroachment of modern video technology. We will naturally and fluidly believe all that we see. Once the images are inside you, they imprint upon your memory. They become yours. What’s more, the images remain in you permanently. Mander argues that the brain cannot fight against the continuous and unending encroachment of modern video technology. We will naturally and fluidly believe all that we see.

“‘Imagination and reality have merged,’ wrote Mander. ‘We have lost control of our images. We have lost control of our minds.’ This placement of images in our brain he calls “Video Memory Implantation” and goes on to state that it is changing the human brain forever. It may now take many years for the human mind to once again break free.”

“That sounds so threatening,” Sam replied. “Am I doomed to forever carry these images and memories inside my brain?”

“The answer, unfortunately, is yes.”

They continued their discussion for some more time, after which Sam Warren left the hotel and went directly to his place. He was feeling quite hopeless and helpless and his sense of isolation increased. He could see that his problem was that he was conditioned and that he was doomed to be in that state forever. He was feeling quite low and decided to go on a vacation. He took leave from work and went to Rome for a holiday.

IV

Sam Warren went to Rome and enjoyed the Mediterranean climate. For a while, he quite forgot his worries and problems. He visited the various historical places and admired the beautiful architecture.

One day, during his vacation, he was passed by some people who were discussing ‘conditioning.’ This caught Sam Warren’s attention, and he saw that they were standing near a big hall. The crowd was a mixed one, with people of various nationalities present. He asked some of the people what they were discussing and he was told that there was a person by the name of J. Krishnamurti, giving some kind of a lecture about conditioning. When he asked who this person was, he was told that he was some kind of Indian philosopher or guru.

“He’s another of those Indian gurus you see coming to the West these days. I bet he’s another fraud, coming to lecture people to gain popularity,” said one.

“He’s a philosopher, I think, or maybe more of a psychologist, I gather from his talks, though he denies being either of them,” said another.

“He’s an Indian ex-Theosophist turned California sage. He was schooled in the West where he was groomed by the Theosophists to become what they called ‘World Teacher.’ I hear he was involved in various scandals, as were the other theosophists, including love affairs with older and married women,” said the first one.

“I came here because I am generally interested in Krishnamurti and the early history of the Theosophical Society,” said the second one.

Then came another gentleman, who seemed to be more informed. “The Theosophists had adopted and groomed Krishnamurti to be a ‘World Teacher,’ an incarnation of Lord Maitreya. However, when he grew up, he broke off with the society. But Krishnamurti did turn into an exceptional person. As he gradually matured, he came to reject the Messiah’s throne that was offered to him. An entire organization, The Order of the Star in the East, had been set up to prepare the world for his coming. Krishnamurti rejected all formal creeds and doctrines, renounced his own special status, and disbanded the Order in 1929.”

“I think all that is just showmanship,” said the first one. “It’s just another show set up by these so-called spiritualists who want to cash in on the gullibility of people.”

“Krishnamurti’s path, if one were to follow it, would be a path to absolute freedom for the individual self,” said the third one. “As such it is an exceedingly hard path to walk. Of course, what he says has been said before and probably done before by others too. Maybe what he says is more relevant in these times. I’ve read a lot of books and I feel that what he says is somewhat similar to what some existentialists have written, including Dostoevsky, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.”

“Krishnamurti’s teachings, though in some ways radical, do contain inherent contradictions,” replied the first one. “One of his major messages is that there is no path, no way, no teaching that will take you to the truth. And yet he’s supported by a million dollar organization designed to spread his teachings. This was pointed out by another Krishnamurti, U. G. Krishnamurti, a South Indian about 20 years younger who came to similar though more radical conclusions and on more than one occasion challenged Krishnamurti to live by his own words.”

“I hear that some say that what he says is the same as in the Vedanta; others say that it’s the same as Buddha’s teachings,” said the second one. “So I’m just wondering then why he denies all tradition. Though he is a guru, why does he deny being one?”

“I’ve been listening to him for the last 40 years and I go where he goes to give a talk,” replied the third one. “I feel that there is something deeply true in what he says and I somehow see it too, whenever I hear him saying it, but after that it just vanishes. I think he has something going but I’m unable to be clear about it. What he says seems simple enough but I feel that I haven’t understood it. It would be easy of course to give up or to say that either it’s nothing or I’m just not able to get it, but I’m unable to do any of that.”

“I tell you, don’t get fooled by these people who do nothing but feed on your confusion, your sense of emptiness,” said the first. “They do nothing but exploit and manipulate people.”

“Well, I’d like to go and hear what he says,” said the second. “I enjoy reading him and hearing him speak, if nothing else.”

It was an extraordinary Spring day outside and the hall was almost full. The immensity of the hall and the number of people stood in stark contrast to the lone and solitary figure of Krishnamurti seated on a simple folding chair on a bare stage. His erect body faced the crowd straight on, hands resting gently on his thighs, head seldom moving.

Sam Warren went inside and sat amongst the others to see what the speaker was going to say. The speaker had a slight cold and was holding a handkerchief in his hand. “I see the same old crowd is here again,” he said, not smiling. He then proceeded to give the following talk:

“I would like to know why you are all here. I really mean it. With what intention, with what purpose, with what kind of imaginary or superstitious concepts one has. And perhaps, if I may be so bold as to suggest it, you might have come with those ideas, with those formulas. And I am afraid you will be disappointed because — I hope you can hear, all right? I hope you all can hear — one has talked all over the world for a long time, seventy years, that’s a long time, and one has naturally built up all kinds of fanciful, superstitious imaginary reputations, and those reputations, those images that one has created are really meaningless because what we are talking about is totally different from a lecture. A lecture is meant to inform, to instruct, to guide and so on. This is not a lecture.

“Please, we must be very clear on that point. This is not a lecture. There is no intention on the part of the speaker to guide you, to help you — forgive me if I use that word — or to inform you about something you would like to be talked about, theoretical, superstitious, imaginary, a fixation, as it were.

“But we are going to deliberate together. That word has a very deep meaning; deliberate means weigh together, take counsel together, nourish each other, not physically, I hope, but psychologically, intellectually and penetrate as deeply as possible into one’s own consciousness, into its own function, its own way of thinking, living. This is not a theoretical meeting, talking about various things that should be, or that have not been, but together, you and the speaker are taking counsel together, weighing things together. Please, this is not just a lot of words. The speaker really means what he says, whether you like it or not. He says we are going to take counsel together, weigh things together, not I weigh and then tell you about it, but rather that together you and the speaker take counsel together, weigh together. This is not propaganda because we are together investigating, asking, questioning, doubting.

“So together we are going to look at this world, that is ourselves. Right? Are you willing? Or are you frightened, hiding behind all kinds of absurd theories, all the psychological innuendos, all the things man has put together as they call it religion, the existing society, that is the degeneration that is gradually going on: pollution in all the cities, despoiling the air, and also corruption. This is what we are caught in. So what has gone wrong with us? Or is this a natural course? You understand my question? Do you really want to listen to all this rubbish? You must read about all this in newspapers, if they are honest, magazines, and of course all the gurus in the world have destroyed that thing which they want.

“So let us begin, but please bear in mind this is not a lecture. You haven’t come to listen to me. You have come to listen to yourself, however complicated that self is, however superficial, however deep. We are going to go into all that. It’s up to you, because otherwise you, as a listener, may say, yes, yes, it sounds very good, or not at all good. It is not logical, or illogical and so on. Right?

“Is this clear? Don’t agree, please. You are not agreeing with me, this is a fact. You are not used to this kind of thinking, that is your trouble. You don’t want to share anything with anybody.

“Do you understand something of what I am saying? Good! We are going to talk about this matter of conditioning. This is a human problem — as a whole, not of a particular group or a particular people, or of a particular culture. Can one respond to this, totally, as a whole phenomenon, not a particular kind of phenomena?

“So you are faced with yourself, who is part of this world, part of this degeneration. How do you then respond? Being driven into a corner, seeing actually what is taking place, your own house burning, how will you act?

“Can one rely on one’s own intelligence, on one’s own understanding, on one’s own experience, knowledge? The experience, the knowledge, the understanding, are they not also conditioned, by the society, by the culture in which one lives? And can one rely on that conditioning? Has not this conditioning produced this chaos in the world? You understand what is implied in all this? If you cannot possibly rely on any outside agency, because that led to wars, brutality, bureaucracy — if you cannot rely on any outside agency can you rely on yourself? Yourself, are you strong enough, clear enough, unconfused; seeing the whole thing, not just little patches of it? And, ourselves, each one, is so fragile; we haven’t got intelligence enough; there’s no vital demand to find out. So, what is one to do? Despair? Live only for the present; enjoy oneself? Just let things go?

“You understand the issue? You cannot rely on outside, you can’t rely on yourself. Your self is the result of the outside world in which you have lived and which you have created. The society is you and you are the society; the two are not separate. If you reject that you reject also this, and you must. So what is it that you are rejecting? Are you following this? When you reject the outside world, the outside authority, the priest, the church, the whole structure, are you not also rejecting yourself, throwing it away? Because that which is outside of you is part of you. You’re Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu, Communist, this or that, you’re conditioned and when you reject that you must also reject your own conditioning. And can one be free of one’s conditioning? Not partly, in patches here and there, but entirely, completely, wholly, both the conscious as well as the unconscious. After all, that is freedom. And it is only in that freedom that there is right action; total action, which will respond wholly to this vast phenomenon.

“So that is the issue: to free the mind. The mind, not your mind or my mind, but the mind of man — which is you — from all his conditioning. Can one attack the problem that way? Because otherwise we are not free and because we are not free there is chaos in the world. And freedom is this absolute unconditioning of the mind. And if we don’t we shall always live in prison, decorated more or less, become great technicians, go to the moon and further, put the flag on Venus, or the cross on Mars, or the red flag somewhere else and so on. We will always be in sorrow, in confusion.

“So can one be aware of this conditioning at all the levels of our consciousness not just on the superficial level, deep down, in the innermost recesses of one’s mind, and free it, and dissolve this conditioning, the conditioning of violence, hate, jealousy, ambition, greed; the division between you and me, we and they? The tradition, the memories, the thousand years of propaganda, the conditioning which divides man against man?

“So can one become so totally aware that one sees one’s conditioning and dissolves it? Not during the course of many years, because if you allow time, many years, in that concession to time there are other factors entering into that field, other pressures and strains which prevent you from dissolving the conditioning. So you cannot possibly rely on time, on evolution, therefore it must be done instantly, immediately.

“I do not know if you follow all this, if it has any meaning at all. When the house is burning you don’t sit back and say, ‘Who set it on fire?’, the you, the old age, the old tradition, discuss the length of hair of the man who must have set it on fire and so on and so on and so on. You act. In the same way, becoming aware of this conditioning, one must act instantly. The incapacity to act instantly is degeneration. And that is what is happening in the world. Knowing one is conditioned, and not being aware of it, and carrying on. Or being aware of it and not doing anything about it.

“So, if you say that it’s not possible for the mind to be unconditioned, ever, as many do, then you have no problem, then you carry on as you are. But if you investigate, explore freely, as one must, confronted with this madness that’s going on in the world, then it’s not a question of possibility or impossibility but investigation — not analysis, because analysis implies time; the cause and the effect and so on, and on. And when you analyze there is also division between the analyzer and the thing analyzed. But the analyzer is part of the analysis, is the thing analyzed; the two are not separate. So you have this outward phenomenon which is the inward phenomenon. The inward state is the outward state, which is not just a theory but it’s an actuality.

“We have created this society, organized it, until the human being radically changes, deep down in his psyche, we will create organization and bureaucracies, perhaps modified from what they are now, but they’ll be the same, until we come down to something very basic, fundamental, which is whether the human mind — the mind that you and I have — is the result of a million years, therefore it’s not personal mind. It’s the whole content of history, of all the struggles and experience of man. And that mind is conditioned, and the only answer to this challenge of deterioration is complete freedom from this conditioning, and in that there’s complete action, not inadequate action. There’s no permanent continuance of anything — conditioning itself is impermanent.

“So long as I do not know myself, the ways and compulsions of my own mind, unconscious as well as conscious, there must be suffering. After all, we suffer because of ignorance — ignorance in the sense of not knowing ourselves. By your own acts you are being conditioned, but at any moment you can break the chain of limitation. Is there a permanent thing in you? You are changing, your body changes, unless you are dead. Everything is in movement, but you refuse to accept that movement. The brain has been registering for millennia. Therefore, registering has become part of it. The brain has become mechanical.

“I say: Can that mechanical process stop? That is all. If it cannot be stopped it becomes merely a machine, which it is. This is all part of tradition, part of repetition, part of the constant registration through millennia. I am asking a simple question which has great depth to it, which is: Can it stop? If it cannot stop, man is never free.

“Can the brain ever be free from all the programs it has received? Is it possible through watching the very activity of thought? Can you be aware of your thoughts, your reactions, and your responses? This watchfulness makes the brain extraordinarily acute, sharp, and clear. This clarity is freedom. When one sees life as it is, when one sees oneself as one is, only from there can one move ahead.”

When he finished, he rose from his chair as though to walk slowly off stage. Suddenly the audience stood up and began to applaud vigorously. Krishnamurti turned around in his steps, faced the crowd and with an impatient flick of the wrist in an effort to subdue the clatter asked, “But what are you clapping for?” and then added in a somewhat exasperated voice, “Perhaps you are clapping for yourself. You are not encouraging the speaker or discouraging him. He doesn’t want a thing from you. When you yourself become both the teacher and the disciple — disciple being a man who is learning, learning, learning, not accumulating knowledge — then you are an extraordinary human being.” Without further ado, he turned around again and walked quietly off the stage.

Thereafter, there were some discussions among participants around the place and outside, some carried on in cafés and some along the road. It seemed to be exciting and stimulating for people and most of them paired off or formed same-interest clusters.

Sam Warren had listened to the entire thing with attention. He didn’t talk about it to anybody, he didn’t mix in the group, he didn’t discuss or analyze it. He went outside and went on a long drive. He did not think anything. His face seemed silent and calm. He drove towards the mountains and looked at the trees, the birds, and smelled the fresh mountain air. He felt as if he were seeing the world for the first time. He could neither think forwards nor backwards. He didn’t know if he had ever had any problems or worries. He didn’t remember.