• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Television is Electronic Heroin

Migrated topic.

Valmar

Esteemed member
Source: DieOff

ELECTRONIC HEROIN

In the PLUG-IN DRUG, Marie Winn says that television is an addictive drug: "When we think about addiction to drugs or alcohol we frequently focus on negative aspects, ignoring the pleasures that accompany drinking or drug-taking. And yet the essence of any serious addiction is a pursuit of pleasure, a search for a 'high' that normal life does not supply. It is only the inability to function without the addictive substance that is dismaying, the dependence of the organism upon a certain experience and an increasing inability to function normally without it. Thus people will take two or three drinks at the end of the day not merely for the pleasure drinking provides, but also because they 'don't feel normal' without them.

"Real addicts do not merely pursue a pleasurable experience one time in order to function normally. They need to repeat it again and again. Something about that particular experience makes life without it less than complete. Other potentially pleasurable experiences are no longer possible, for under the spell of the addictive experience, their lives are peculiarly distorted. The addict craves an experience and yet is never really satisfied. The organism may be temporarily sated, but soon it begins to crave again.

"Finally, a serious addiction is distinguished from a harmless pursuit of pleasure by its distinctly destructive elements. Heroin addicts, for instance, lead a damaged life: their increasing need for heroin in increasing doses prevents them from working, from maintaining relationships, from developing in human ways. Similarly alcoholics' lives are narrowed and dehumanized by their dependence on alcohol.

"Let us consider television viewing in the light of the conditions that define serious addictions.

"Not unlike drugs or alcohol, the television experience allows the participant to blot out the real world and enter into a pleasurable and passive mental state. The worries and anxieties of reality are as effectively deferred by becoming absorbed in a television program as by going on a 'trip' induced by drugs or alcohol. And just as alcoholics are only vaguely aware of their addiction, feeling that they control their drinking more than they really do ('I can cut it out any time I want—I just like to have three of four drinks before dinner'), people similarly overestimate their control over television watching. Even as they put off other activities to spend hour after hour watching television, they feel they could easily resume living in a different, less passive style. But somehow or other, while the television set is present in their homes, the click doesn't sound. With television pleasures available, those other experiences seem less attractive, more difficult somehow.

"Finally it is the adverse effect of television viewing on the lives of so many people that defines it as a serious addiction. The television habit distorts the sense of time. It renders other experiences vague and curiously unreal while taking on a greater reality for itself. It weakens relationships by reducing and sometimes eliminating normal opportunities for talking, for communicating." [p.p. 23-25, Marie Winn, THE PLUG IN DRUG; Penguin, 1977. ISBN - 0-14-007698-0]

According to the Washington Post, Terence McKenna's FOOD OF THE GODS "Deserves to be the modern classic on mind-altering drugs and hallucinogens." In this modern classic, McKenna convinces us that television is emotionally equivalent to electronic heroin: "The nearest analogy to the addictive power of television and the transformation of values that is wrought in the life of the heavy user is probably heroin. Heroin flattens the image; with heroin, things are neither hot nor cold; the junkie looks out at the world certain that what ever it is, it does not matter. The illusion of knowing and of control that heroin engenders is analogous to the unconscious assumption of the television consumer that what is seen is 'real' somewhere in the world. In fact, what is seen are the cosmetically enhanced surfaces of products. Television, while chemically non-invasive, nevertheless is every bit as addicting and physiologically damaging as any other drug.

"Most unsettling of all is this: the content of television is not a vision but a manufactured data stream that can be sanitized to 'protect' or impose cultural values. Thus we are confronted with an addictive and all-pervasive drug that delivers an experience whose message is whatever those who deal the drug wish it to be. Could anything provide a more fertile ground for fostering fascism and totalitarianism than this? In the United States, there are many more televisions than households, the average television set is on six hours a day, and the average person watches more than five hours a day—nearly one-third of their waking time. Aware as we all are of these simple facts, we seem unable to react to their implications. Serious study of the effects of television on health and culture has only begun recently. Yet no drug in history has so quickly or completely isolated the entire culture of its users from contact with reality. And no drug in history has so completely succeeded in remaking in its own image the values of the culture that it has infected.

"Television is by nature the dominator drug par excellence. Control of content, uniformity of content, repeatability of content make it inevitably a tool of coercion, brainwashing, and manipulation. Television induces a trance state in the viewer that is the necessary precondition for brainwashing. As with all other drugs and technologies, television's basic character cannot be changed; television is no more reformable than is the technology that produces automatic assault rifles." [p.p. 218-220, Terence McKenna, FOOD OF THE GODS; Bantam, 1992. ISBN 0-553-37130-4]
 
Great clip. Terence folds it all up nicely and inspires others to perceive the mass medium differently. It's a repeat of a story told, over, and over again. Throw away your television. Permanently. :thumb_up:
 
Here is some picture evidence I posted a while ago.

Bodhisativa said:
Alloklais said:
Bodhisativa said:
The parents are just as responsible for education, maybe even more so, than the teachers.

The way most parents raise their kids is totally wrong. Or at least could do with a lot of improvement.

I agree with you. Parents are our First Teachers.
Good parents to me are trying to do what they think is best for their kids.
What improvements are you proposing?
I'll try to keep it brief, because I can go on for hours about this.

As you said, "Good parents to me are trying to do what they think is best for their kids." That begs the question, what is best for their kids?

When I see modern parents, I see people who give electronic devices to their young, in order to keep them occupied. While this happens, the parents are off doing their own thing. The child becomes entranced by this magical box. It plays sounds and has vivid moving pictures. TV is amazing, since it basically thinks for the viewer. It's basically saying "Hey, you don't need to think anymore. Let me take you on a journey." Often the parents will put a series of childrens shows on a playlist, and let the child watch, believing that they will magically learn everything presented in front of them. Many of the childrens shows are absolute gems in teaching children about a lot of things. I actually watch them myself when I'm high as shit. I learn way more from that than I do from "adult" TV. Now ask this, is the child receiving these lessons, or are they just looking at the pretty colours?

I think these pictures will answer it. These pictures are of kids watching TV.

Idiotbox_Cassidy.jpg


Idiotbox_Mila.jpg


Idiotbox_Datsun.jpg


Clearly they are fixated with the pictures. When I go to the houses of family or friends, and there are kids watching TV, I watch it too. After the show is over, I ask the child what did they learn from it. The younger the child, the less they understood. Fair enough, they aren't masters of language acquisition. However for the older kids, they said the really simple messages of the show. The very obvious answers. When I asked them further questions, they started to see the true meaning. Synapses started to connect. They were learning. After plenty of questions that dissect all aspects of the episode, I asked them the initial question again. They responded like a professor of ethics and philosophy. And they understood its meaning completely. They weren't reciting what we discussed.

Kids are as smart as the WAY they are taught. Watch TV with your kids and question them. Never let them watch TV unattended. If they do, tell them to report back to you after every episode to tell you all about it. That improves the ability to communicate, which in turn improves their ability to critically analyse in a discussion with another individual. Talk to them how cartoons are made, and who makes them. Let them know there is a purpose to each cartoon. Cartoons aren't made by kids. They're made by adults for a reason.

Technology is an amazing tool. It is also an amazing distraction. Let your kids be kids. The park still exists, which is unbelievable considering our youth. Everything in balance. Healthy body, healthy mind.

TV and psychedelics are very similar. Set and setting also applies to TV. The correct mindset. The desire to learn more instead of being entertained. That's the difference between a psychonaut and a person that takes psychedelics just for fun.


Honestly, when I see poor examples of parents, I feel like there needs to be a parent aptitude test before you can have a kid. It weeds out the bad parents. Don't know if this is plausible, but just putting it out there. I also say it half-jokingly.



tl;dr

Teach your kids how to think. Question them on everything that is important. Start with basic questions, then move on to the harder/"abstract-er" questions. Don't let them be slaves to technology. Let them use it as a tool when necessary. They should not be reliant on technology at an early age. Otherwise we'll soon see kindergarten kids with Linkedin profiles.

Let your kids exercise. Both their bodies and their minds.
 
I will be in the minority here and actually disagree that television is "bad." I personally love TV, and I find that many of my moments of happiness these days are found in front of my TV. Of course I spend a lot of time formally analyzing shows and movies, so I am watching a little differently than most others. And, certain shows make me want to vomit, such as sitcoms or those with laugh tracks.

But art is art, and some TV is just good TV. Does it shape us culturally and push certain mores, implicit assumptions, and products on us? Of course! But I do not think that means you should just totally forbid it from your life. Don't books do this too? How about movies? And music? Should we just stop all of these things because they're shaping us? I don't think so.

You just need to be wary of when a show is trying to get you to do something or behave in a certain way. This takes work and possibly even taking some Screen Arts or Visual Culture courses (or reading a book on the matter), but it is definitely worth it. I actually find it enjoyable to analyze these elements in both TV and films. It gives me something to do; it's a way to relax and have some fun after working a lot.

And for the critics of TV here, is watching YouTube really much different? Is surfing the web and reading random stuff not "electronic heroin?" I'd argue that YouTube/Facebook are worse with that; they can really hook you in with new content for hours, but most people get sick of TV shows after a good couple of hours.

In that video McKenna talks about how television "works the same muscles" regardless of what is on, but how different is sitting in front of a computer than sitting on a couch? You are still in front of some electronic screen, probably not doing anything really productive. Of course on the Internet you have the ability to actually input data, but most people I see using electronic media are usually just scrolling through feeds or watching videos.

Also the original article states that TV is like a drug, but aren't we largely a drug forum? 😉 I know it's talking about addictive drugs, but being in a passive state and not working can be a good thing. Who wants to work all of the time? Isn't less work better for our quality of life?
 
Also the original article states that TV is like a drug, but aren't we largely a drug forum? 😉 I know it's talking about addictive drugs, but being in a passive state and not working can be a good thing. Who wants to work all of the time? Isn't less work better for our quality of life?

As has so often been said, he who packs your capsules controls your destiny, and I think TV, far more than say, books/music, suffers from some serious quality control in that respect. And books/music aren't (yet?) preinstalled with ads every ten minutes.

Good books/music provide stimulus for thoughts/dancing etc. OK, occasionally, sometimes, people will shout at the TV, but that's about it...

Active passivity, good! Passive passivity, meh...

My 2c
 
Back
Top Bottom