Posts Tagged TV

Body, Mind, Spirit and Time. Part Three: The Stuff of Dreams

Body, Mind, Spirit & Time

Part Three: The Stuff of Dreams

Trust in dreams, for in them is the hidden gate to eternity.” Khalil Gibran

“Are you sure/That we are awake? It seems to me/That yet we sleep, we dream.”

William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night’s Dream

“We are such stuff/As dreams are made on; and our little life/Is rounded with a sleep.”

William Shakespeare, The Tempest

THERE is often the ‘new’ analogy of the brain being like a TV – picking up signals and turning them into sight and sound – or ‘reality’. The brain not creating consciousness but rather making consciousness manifest. So, the argument goes, when we die the TV might get turned off but the signal is still being beamed…with the idea of what we are and have been remaining intact. But initial thought: when you turn off the TV its ‘reality’ DOES disappear and this is the only reality by which we know and love ‘the box’. Those signals of Coronation Street or whatever is currently popular (I DON’T watch British TV!) – might still be floating through the ether – but…well…as far as we’re concerned they might as well be non-existent. Is ‘reality’ for us only viewed on a screen (our manifest consciousness)?

There are tiny tubes in the brain – microtubules of the brain cell – where quantum consciousness might exist (see the ORCH-OR model)…and might escape at death but are there other little brain tubes somewhere else they can migrate to? Does consciousness dissipate into the GREAT WIDE UNIVERSE – O it sounds so poetic but that’s surely not much solace to I, ME, YOU. We only seem to come alive when the TV is turned on. And interestingly – the TV takes time to ‘tune in’ too…in the old days it was called ‘warming up’…or in human terms, learning to understand, speak and develop language and thought.

What if we had a whole bank of TVs – like those in electrical appliance shops? Only not just say twenty or thirty screens all playing the same soap but an infinite number and each with a unique picture! The idea being that when we die (blank screen) we ‘migrate’ to another television. Not so much jumping ships as switching screens…but in this parallel universe there is also another ‘us’ too – isn’t there? Do we jump just as another TV is turned on…do we inhabit the same consciousness (in some form)…as a looker-in (Anthony Peake’s idea of The Daemon perhaps)? Do we jump in at a moment that the TV ‘loses its signal’ and we take the place of another ‘us’ – an ‘us’ that, presumably, will in an ‘infinity of opportunity’ also jump into another TV? Synchronised (and perhaps infinite) swapping of screens! And why aren’t we aware of our close, close other ‘us’s – or are we, indeed, subtly aware?

During a near-death experience we might argue that the quantum information held in the microtubules dissipates…when the person is revived they recall their ‘experience’. Now here’s an interesting dichotomy: if the dissipation is extreme then can the information subsequently coalesce? Even if it isn’t extreme what bonds it together. Can it dissipate as a ‘body’ of information – and therefore would that be dissipation at all? There are maybe two possible outcomes here: at death we dissipate into the UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS for want of a better name and effectively cease to exist – or we maintain a sense of ourselves – though God knows what that existence would be! Would space and time cease to exist for us, or would we enter an infinite dream-state? After all in dreams where there is no space or time except in the ‘reality’ of those dreams – we perceive that state to be, well, ‘real’. Consciousness has created a second reality. We are lying asleep hardly moving – and yet we are alive in our dreams…and only when waking do we acknowledge the previous ‘reality’ as dream state.

clouds_outer_space_stars_galaxies_nebulae_vortex_quasar_1920x1080_38885

Is this dream state another beamed consciousness or is it a created ‘reality’ from the first beamed consciousness – rather like many imagine (along with current mainstream scientific thought) that our brain creates consciousness. If the first beamed consciousness can create a second consciousness then that would put it on a level with the initial creative force – whatever it is that does the ‘beaming’. If the second consciousness (dream state) is also beamed – then what is stopping the brain having multiple consciousnesses (as in multiple personalities), which can exist in some folk? And if our mind – which is a beamed consciousness – can create a second consciousness…then why can’t that reflected ‘reality’ create further ‘realities’ too – dreams within dreams within dreams?

And we carry dreams (this other ‘reality’) with us, within us, don’t we…I can recall last night’s dream and a dream from last week (which seemed to be predictive); so one reality has a memory of another reality. In dream-state do we also share this reflective quality? Are we the stuff of dreams – are we the expression of some greater power, intelligence? When we die will we fall awake and pass through the ‘hidden’ gate to eternity? We shall see. We can only dream.

 

  • By Tim Bragg
Advertisements

Comments (3)

Call off the threats

The BBC has succeeded in gaining an impressive reputation: it’s respected around the world for its impartiality.  While other broadcasters like Rupert Murdoch’s Sky and Fox channels and Silvio Berlusconi are universally despised for their undoubted political biases, the BBC usually manages to get away with its claim o be a balanced and impartial broadcaster. This claim is not sustained by the facts as revealed by a former Director General of the BBC itself, Greg Dyke, in a speech to a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrats’ annual conference, only reported by the Belfast Telegraph, the Glasgow Herald and the Guardian media correspondent Roy Greenslade.

In his speech, about MPs’ expenses, Dyke called for a commission to look into the “whole political system”, adding: “I fear it will never happen because I fear the political class will stop it.”

Dyke claimed that he had wanted to make big changes to the BBC’s political coverage but that these had been blocked..

“The evidence that our democracy is failing is overwhelming and yet those with the biggest interest in sustaining the current system – the Westminster village, the media and particularly the political parties, including this one – are the groups most in denial about what is really happening to our democracy…

  “I tried and failed to get the problem properly discussed when I was at the BBC and I was stopped, interestingly, by a combination of the politicos on the board of governors, one of whom [Sara Hogg] was married to the man who claimed for cleaning his moat, the cabinet interestingly – the Labour cabinet – who decided to have a meeting, only about what we were trying to discuss, and the political journalists at the BBC.

  “Why? Because, collectively, they are all part of the problem. They are part of one Westminster conspiracy. They don’t want anything to change. It’s not in their interests.”

He went on to claim that at the BBC,  “In the end, political journalists live in the  same narrow world as politicians do and they don’t see a need to change because they think it’s the world. They just don’t understand that out there it’s very different.”

That’s the hub of the problem.  The bias at the BBC is so ingrained, that it has become as natural as breathing to most of the journalists who work there. This was borne out by an impartiality seminar of BBC journalists hosted by former Desert Island Discs presenter Sue Lawley in 2006.  Andrew Marr admitted to the London Evening Standard that the BBC did not represent majority British opinion, saying, “The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly-funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people.

  “It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.”  Business presenter Jeff Randall told the same paper that he had  complained to a senior executive at the BBC about the corporation’s pro-multiculturalism stance. He claimed he was told: “The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism, it believes in it and it promotes it.”

There is evidence that the prevailing ethos at the BBC at best disdains Christianity and seems to want to drive it from the public arena to the private sphere. According to the Evening Standard, Lawley’s seminar discussed a proposed episode of Room 101 in which Ali G would dump a copy of the Bible and the Quran. BBC executives were willing to dump one of these books but not the other.  Can you guess which one?

Former BBC newsreader Peter Sissons, blows the whistle on this in his recent book When One Door Closes. Sissons says, “What the BBC wants you, the public, to believe is that it has ‘independence’ woven into its fabric, running through its veins and concreted into its foundations. The reality, I discovered, was that for the BBC, independence is not a banner it carries ­principally on behalf of the listener or viewer.
“Rather, it is the name it gives to its ability to act at all times in its own best interests.”

You might ask, so what?  After all, we have the option of turning our television sets and radios off if we don’t like what we hear.  What does it matter if the BBC reflects the concerns of a self-affirming political liberal-leftist elite? We can watch other TV channels, tune in to other radio stations or access other news sources online.

That’s true, but the big difference is that we are required to pay for this source of biased news on pain of criminal prosecution. When I pay for a copy of The Guardian, I know what to expect; thoughtful left-liberal political analysis. I expect the Irish News to promote an Irish nationalist agenda, the News Letter to promote unionism and the Daily Express to come up with something new or bizarre about Princess Diana every couple of months. I expect pugnacious conservative populism in the Daily Mail and The Sun and unrepentant Stalinism in the Morning Star.  I pay my money and I take my choice.

No-one is going to send me a series of threatening letters saying that they have no record of me taking The Times and threatening me with court action if I don’t immediately go out and pay for the privilege of reading it whether I actually do so or not. I can choose to subscribe to newspapers, internet and cable or satellite television channels that reflect or challenge my political or religious opinions, prejudices and biases.  I cannot choose not to pay for the BBC and use a television set without risking being taken to court and fined or sent to prison.

We have become so used to this extraordinary state of affairs because we have grown up with it, but in fact it’s a crazy system. A private company acts as if it was some kind of public authority to demand payment with menaces for another private corporation; one that holds the view that the masses who do not share its left-liberal metropolitan views are to be treated with disdain or contempt.  Try ignoring letters from the TVLA and see how it ratchets up the threats and menacing language. Even better, if you have no television set, write and tell them so.  It makes no difference. The threatening letters soon resume.

It’s time for the BBC to put its money where its mouth is. I suspect that the Corporation might have to change its ways were it forced to rejoin the real world and pay its way like any other business.  The smug ‘we know best, so clear off’ response to viewers’ and listeners’ complaints might change if people were not treated as criminals should they decide to withhold payment of their TV licence fee.

Abolish the compulsion element in the licence and replace it with a voluntary subscription and quarterly fund-raising appeals and see what happens. That’s what happens in theUSwith American Public Radio and National Public Radio. Those who agree with the BBC’s political line or who like to be challenged by it will pay to receive BBC radio and television as their counterparts do inAmerica.  Those alienated or offended by it or the indifferent will probably walk away.

 

David Kerr

Leave a Comment