About "Advertising"
Etznab
from ad- "toward" + vertere "to turn"
Consider how advertisements seek to turn one's
attention toward something. Often using state of
the art technology to make something appear a
lot different from what it actually is. This is the
point.
For further reading see below.
*******************************************************
Advertising is a form of communication used
to influence individuals to purchase products
or services or support political candidates or
ideas. Frequently it communicates a message
that includes the name of the product or service
and how that product or service could potentially
benefit the consumer. Advertising often attempts
to persuade potential customers to purchase or
to consume a particular brand of product or
service. Modern advertising developed with the rise
of mass production in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries.[1]
Commercial advertisers often seek to generate
increased consumption of their products or
services through branding, which involves the
repetition of an image or product name in an effort
to associate related qualities with the brand in the
minds of consumers. Different types of media can
be used to deliver these messages, including trad-
itional media such as newspapers, magazines, tele-
vision, radio, billboards or direct mail. Advertising
may be placed by an advertising agency on behalf
of a company or other organization.
Organizations that spend money on advertising
promoting items other than a consumer product or
service include political parties, interest groups,
religious organizations and governmental agencies.
Non-profit organizations may rely on free modes of
persuasion, such as a public service announcement.
Money spent on advertising has increased in recent
years. In 2007, spending on advertising was estimated
at more than $150 billion in the United States[2] and $385
billion worldwide, [3] and the latter to exceed $450 billion
by 2010.[citation needed]
Advertising is communication used to influence individ-
uals to purchase products or services or support political
candidates or ideas. Advertising can be displayed on bill-
boards, newspapers, T.V., websites, movies and more.
[....]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising
*******************************************************
The word will come up again in the coming year, so I am
here giving some description.
Etznab
Ken
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8f2783e4-07fe-4075...@g7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> from ad- "toward" + vertere "to turn"
>
> Consider how advertisements seek to turn one's
> attention toward something. Often using state of
> the art technology to make something appear a
> lot different from what it actually is. This is the
> point.
I'm wondering what you mean when you say, "this is the point". Are you
saying it's the point of your mentioning the subject, or are you saying that
you believe it's the point of advertising?
"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't
know which half."
- John Wanamaker
--
Ken
Etznab
It's a point. Yes.
Not saying that all "advertising" is bad.
Perhaps this related term will help to clarify.
************************************************************
False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use
of false or misleading statements in advertising. As
advertising has the potential to persuade people into
commercial transactions that they might otherwise
avoid, many governments around the world use reg-
ulations to control false, deceptive or misleading ad-
vertising. Truth in labeling refers to essentially the
same concept, that customers have the right to know
what they are buying, and that all necessary inform-
ation should be on the label. [....]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising
************************************************************
Remember the remark I made recently about the
belief that Eckankar was in the field of truth? And
when I mentioned light coming through the clouds?
The point about clouds and light had to do with the
Sun always being out, always existing, like truth.
Below the clouds, or obscured by clouds the light
appears limited, or less. IMO.
Remember I also wrote about "religion" lately and
how religions have "doctored" illustrated history &
teachings.
This topic of advertising is related. And the idea of
covering over the truth in order to make something
look better. It all ties together to make a point.
I think there was a reference to Paul Twitchell adver-
tising / promoting himself Do you remember that?
"The ECK teachings have been here from the earliest
times, but they haven't carried the name of ECKANKAR.
They have been brought out under different names at
different times because they could not be presented
openly, but at this point in history they can. So Paul was
advertising himself in any way he could, and in general
preparing for the future when he would use his talents to
promote his books and articles on ECKANKAR."
[Based on: Harold Klemp, The Secret Teachings, Mahanta
Transcripts, Book 3, Copyright 1989, p. 144]
It might help to read this in context to the other parts
which accompanied it. Paul was "practicing" it seems.
The Who's Who article was mentioned, too. Where
Harold mentions that Paul exaggerated and twisted
facts. I think there was a suggestion that Paul would
someday use his talents to promote his books on
Eckankar.
I am leading up to making several points about how / why
false and pseudo information crept into the history of the
Eckankar literature. This is not to debase the truth that is
Eckankar, but to highlight that which is not the truth. And
to spotlight some of the reasons why. This is for clarity &
to show that there are reasons for everything. It helps to
know the reasons for certain things because that way one
can achieve a greater understanding. IMO. Without the
reasons, however, people are subject to make things up
in order to fill in the blanks, so to speak. I would like to
help prevent the proliferation of urban legends and myths.
In the coming year I will probably cite examples, so if you
don't get the point right now just hang in there. I'm not in
any great hurry with this because I want to check the facts
and go over things several times to check for accuracy.
Just off the top of my head though, right now, consider how
much Paul Twitchell wrote about going to Paris, France and
meeting the people there, etc. Consider how much other info
was connected to that story. Sudar Singh, etc.
Does the Paris story qualify as a form of "advertisement" &
of Paul Twitchell "advertising" himself, or Eckankar? How
much did Paul "spin" the truth?, exaggerate and / or twist
facts? in order to promote himself or Eckankar? And what,
if anything, does this have to do with the truth that is Eck-
ankar?
I would like to look at some of the reasons for advertising,
where false, or pseudo information is used to promote a
person, a product, etc, etc. This will help me (and perhaps
other people too) to clarify why such things happen and to
connect cause with effect so it's no longer a mystery what
is meant by "imperfect outer teachings", so to speak.
There really is a distinction between inner and outer and
the way Eckankar teachings can come through from the
inner to the outer. IMO.
I know some people might wonder how this subject matter
is anything important in the way of vahana activity. I think
that will become more clear in the following year.
Some might not see it right now, but I am actually trying
to highlight the truth that I know as Eckankar, sharing my
own perspective and opinions about it justr like everybody
else has the freedom to do (whether it is here, at an Eck
function, or just plain anywhere. I don't expect others to
completely agree with my point of view, and / or to see it
exactly as I do.
One thing I am NOT trying to do, however, is to conform
and / or fit inside of a box that limits my own Eckankar
experience.
Etznab
Sean
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8f2783e4-07fe-4075...@g7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
RE
In 2007, spending on advertising was estimated
> at more than $150 billion in the United States[2] and $385
> billion worldwide, [3] and the latter to exceed $450 billion
> by 2010.[citation needed]
I'm wondering is that saying that the $150 bill, is paert of the $385 bill?
as in Advertising in the USA accounts for 40% of global advertising - Wow.
Because -- The U.S. share of world GDP fell below 26% in 2007 for the first
time since 1996, and is expected to fall below 25% in 2008
--- maybe this means that Advertising is seen by those who spend the $$$ as
being far more effective on a cost-benefit analysis when used upon
Americans?
mmmm, why would that be so, I wonder.
thx Etznab .... :)
Sean
> I'm wondering what you mean when you say, "this is the point". Are you
> saying it's the point of your mentioning the subject, or are you saying
> that you believe it's the point of advertising?
>
Ahem ..
OR some other 3rd, 4th, or 100th other option no yet considered nor aware of
...............
Rich
That's what I have been trying to do! Lets continue with the Who's Who one
above, another which you are perpetuating, shall we? You stick Paul into a
thread about false or deceptive advertising?
You know that _after_ Harold gave that talk, two Eckists went to Paducah KY
and in the Library found people, documents, and records that showed that
none of that Who's Who{which Paul didn't have anything to do with} was
exaggerated or twisted. It was all true.
Fess up. You knew that didn't you?
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
Sean
"Circumstance does not make a man, it reveals him to himself." :) OR The
more you take responsibility for your own life, the more you are able to
change it for the better.
Responsibility is freedom and empowerment. Becoming conscious of our
thoughts, feelings, beliefs and attitudes that are creating our world,
changes our world. So, by taking responsibility for them and choosing those
that truly serve ourself and our world miraculously previous barriers are
dissolved. There is no need to resist anything, for what we resist persists,
not least by the energy we ourelves give it.
Quite a profound quote, one of those that hits on many levels all at once.
Yeah, go ahead, read it again.
So the question is not are we manifesting, but what are we manifesting? The
goal here, I think is conscious manifesting.
Many of us associate the concept of responsibility with something
burdensome, something heavy to bear, or something someone else *should or
should not* be doing. But one of my favourite authors, Wayne Dyer I think,
re-phrased that word as Response-Ability. The ability to respond.
If we can master our ability to respond in an appropriate way, then we can
start to be more aware, and make decisions that will benefit us the most. In
this context, we can only be responsible for ourselves. [???]
What I am saying here, is it is not good or necessary to take on the burdens
of others. Contrast this to feeling angry about something, and "pushing
against" it, we feel bad, and the situation usually does not change!
Ultimately, if we are really aware, really truly aware, then we can be
effortlessly manifesting whatever we desire in our lives, by being more
response-able!
I think it's a delicate balance between caring deeply about issues we would
like/prefer to be different or changed, and taking on unnecessary burdens
that are in fact not our job to fix. and so we can become so attached to
issues that we can stop living for our higher longterm welfare.
As someone said, it's a choice! :)
"Rich" <dead...@inorbit.com> wrote in message
news:hfnsc...@news3.newsguy.com...
Jasmyn
-----
There's a lot of false information out there that gets perpetuated.
Some things get told over and over by critics, even if it's incorrect
information and suppositions, such as this Who's Who thing.
Over the years there have been a few current members post in A.R.E.
criticizing Paul Twitchell and his writings and Eckankar. It's
interesting that every one of them (as far as I remember) left
Eckankar.
Jasmyn
-----
Etznab
Rich,
Lots of different techniques are used in advertising. The use
of animated characters, etc. It's something allowed because
the the point is to turn people's attention to something, etc.
The holidays use advertising techniques, too. Christmas and
Easter, etc.
It's a common practice and most adults know when an image
is being used to promote a product, such as an animated or
fictional character.
These things are allowed in many circumstances & they are
quite common.
One of the points I considered was how Paul Twitchell wrote
fiction and was a promoter as well. He wrote for a number of
people and groups before founding Eckankar. It is not (IMO)
unreasonable to imagine Paul used such talents to promote,
or draw attention to Eckankar.
You were saying that Paul did not write the Who's Who? He
did not have anything to do with it? And it was all true? OK.
If you say so.
Deceptive advertising you say? Where did I use the word in
connection with advertising? Did you miss I was asked about
the "point" where I put the word advertising in quotation marks?
Where I mentioned that not all advertising was bad.
The link about false advertising was added to build a broader
understanding and use of the term. I am building on this further
by pointing out that not all "false" images used in advertising
are unacceptable and that there are many different forms. In-
cluding what is called "false advertising".
There was advertising used in the promotion of outer Eckankar
teachings. IMO. And advertising is continued to this day. It is
quite common and normal. Did I say Eckankar used false ad-
vertising? Even deceptive advertising? If so, then go ahead and
give some examples.
I think there is a distinction between a "product" the real thing
and the way(s) that products are "advertised" and appear to
people in general. I will be giving examples shortly about what
I mean by this.
Etznab
Sean
"Jasmyn" <Jasm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ae5f8ad9-53a2-4917...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
There's a lot of false information out there that gets perpetuated.
Some things get told over and over by critics, even if it's incorrect
information and suppositions, such as this Who's Who thing.
Over the years there have been a few current members post in A.R.E.
criticizing Paul Twitchell and his writings and Eckankar. It's
interesting that every one of them (as far as I remember) left
Eckankar.
Jasmyn
-----
Mmmmmmm, interesting comments.
I can only guess that the main difference here Jasmyn between Sri Harold
Klemp, the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master and those you speak of above is
that ( as far as I remember ) Sri Harold has never posted to A.R.E.
If there is any doubt about my comment here, then one classic example wil be
found in Sri Harold's comments contained in the book and discourses Letters
to Gail III. There are many many others. If you do not believe me, then
maybe ask Rich, as he surely must be aware of such things.
Jasmyn, I also have a couple straight questions for you, ON BEHALF of the
Group participants as a whole, and I would really appreciate if would answer
them honestly, and fully as a fellow ECKist -- as I believe that it would
help the group to understand a little more about you and where you are
coming from, and why it is you say some of the things you have said this
year. There is a severe gap I have in being able to comprehend and
understand on what basis you make such comments as this one, and many
others. I for one, and I know that several others are as well, at a complete
disadvantge in being able to understand you, and I would really like to put
this conflict to rest.
You have several times spoken about the history of this group as if you
speak from direct personal experience.
What year did you become a member of Eckankar?
When was the first time you actually *read* A.R.E. personally?
Have you ever posted here, under a different pseudo/s, before 2009?
and if so, just roughly, how long ago did you first post here???
and an *optional* question you are more than welcome to keep private should
you wish, is that if you have been in Eckankar for over 20 years, are you
now a 5th Initiate or above?
All simple queries, and all genuine and sincere. And fwiw I know the answers
to these questions of EVERY Eckist posting here now, and in the past, bar
*tlastis* [ if they are an eckist, i have no idea, nor actually care, but
that's another story. ]
A forthright and genuine response would be of great service to all,
including yourself, imho.
Thanking you in advance for doing ALL here this little favour.
Sean
Number Harmonics
Rich,
Etznab
...................
Rich (Smith) pointed out the facts pretty much known to all in the NG that
the Who's Who article was true and factual.
Rich (Etznab) seems to have been unaware of this
Michael (Wallace) says that the attitude of the "Y" Generation is valid on
all of the above.
The attitude: I don't care, and you don't matter!
(My son's definition of the "Y" Generation)
And the point of the thread is? Paul stated openly that he had to promote
the teaching. That's plain common sense. What's the issue? Where does the
discussion go? To anywhere useful??
Personally speaking, this seems like the organ grinder and the monkey. Play
out a tune and the monkey dances. Anyone can imagine anything for any
reason, and the mind will dance to the tune you play.
Or as Pythagoras said "The cost the Gods levy for the gift of song: To
become what we sing." (Paraphrasing ... Not good with Ancient Greek
translation)
Michael
Rich
> Rich,
<snip distraction from the question>
> You were saying that Paul did not write the Who's Who? He
> did not have anything to do with it? And it was all true? OK.
> If you say so.
My question was whether _you_ knew the truth or not. You did of course, but
won't/can't admit it. Why? I don't know. It's not something you can hide.
Maybe because it's too obvious a myth, a false portrayal of Paul? Maybe
because it flies in the face of your wanting to "help prevent the
proliferation of urban legends and myths."?
It just one small point. Why can't you just admit that you knew what you
wrote was not true and move on? What do you think your avoiding a direct
answer indicates to the readers about your credibility?
> Deceptive advertising you say? Where did I use the word in
> connection with advertising?
What? Are you serious? Hmmmm...
Read the Wiki quote you started with. Then the next two paragraphs where you
wrote about Eckankar's field of truth being obscured by clouds, and one
paragraph later, "This topic of advertising is related. And the idea of
covering over the truth in order to make something look better." Paul did
not do that in the Who's Who.
Let's put this one thing to bed. Will you stop perpetuating the Who's Who
myth?
It's simple. Choose one: Yes or No
Rich
>
It's a revival of the dead horse, to sing(nay) the sad song that it _is_
useful to research and document everything that can be seen as wrong or
false about ECK Masters and the Eckankar teachings.
Etznab
You were the one, Rich, to use the word deceptive advertising.
The thread title is: About "Advertising". I believe you called it a
thread by a different name. Or, a thread about deceptive adver-
tising, whatever.
I quoted some things Harold Klemp said about Paul Twitchell
and about a Who's Who article.
Are you calling Harold Klemp a liar? Or just someone who did
not know exactly what they were talking about?
Is that your point? Or do you want to put me in Harold's place
as one who didn't know all about the Who's Who article?
Maybe we both didn't know exactly.
I was believing what Harold wrote. And quoting in that context.
Is it so unimaginable?
Etznab
Sean
Rich has some serious reading comprehension issues here, and I sincerely
hope that is all it is.
Baraka bashad
Jasmyn
> "Jasmyn" <Jasmyn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
-----
I didn't mean anything personal toward Etznab, I just realized it was
true and it was interesting, no hidden meaning other than Etznab seems
to be an exceptionally nice person and I wish him well. I've enjoyed
some of his other stuff.
You have lots of questions....
I've posted here off and on since 1996 or 1997, a break of several
years before this time.
I know all the past posters and the whole history here.
I probably never said one thing negative about Eckankar.
I loved the quotes.
You and I had some nice conversations *before*.
There is nothing personal I'd care to share here now.
-----
Sean
>
> A forthright and genuine response would be of great service to all,
> including yourself, imho.
>
> Thanking you in advance for doing ALL here this little favour.
>
> Sean
-----
I didn't mean anything personal toward Etznab, I just realized it was
true and it was interesting, no hidden meaning other than Etznab seems
to be an exceptionally nice person and I wish him well. I've enjoyed
some of his other stuff.
You have lots of questions....
I've posted here off and on since 1996 or 1997, a break of several
years before this time.
I know all the past posters and the whole history here.
I probably never said one thing negative about Eckankar.
I loved the quotes.
You and I had some nice conversations *before*.
There is nothing personal I'd care to share here now.
-----
Thanks jasmyn, I wish you well.
Sean
Number Harmonics
Let's do the Jews, Muslims, Catholics ... and JW's and SDA's and Anglicans
and Methodists and eventually get around to the TINY little group called
Eckankar
lol
Seriously, for me it is a question of time and focus.
A good example is a game I started on thge net called "Evony" ... A lot like
Ages of Empire, but with lots of people involved. It seemed interesting at
first, building up towns, gathering resources... Now, a week later... All it
is is TIME CONSUMING.
Every little thing takes an hour, and the net result is that you spend ages
doing not a lot.
And some people LOVE it. Some people are addicted to this quirky time
waster.
I have to go now, and build a few archers.
LOL
Michael
>
>
Rich
> You were the one, Rich, to use the word deceptive advertising.
OK... He didn't read the Wiki quote he started the response with. I guess
cognitive dissonance has overwhelmed normal functioning and rather than
confront it, he's run away. <sigh>
> The thread title is: About "Advertising". I believe you called it a
> thread by a different name. Or, a thread about deceptive adver-
> tising, whatever.
>
> I quoted some things Harold Klemp said about Paul Twitchell
> and about a Who's Who article.
>
> Are you calling Harold Klemp a liar? Or just someone who did
> not know exactly what they were talking about?
>
> Is that your point? Or do you want to put me in Harold's place
> as one who didn't know all about the Who's Who article?
>
> Maybe we both didn't know exactly.
>
> I was believing what Harold wrote. And quoting in that context.
>
> Is it so unimaginable?
Could he be imagining that we don't know that he read Doug's book about the
new information(that Harold was not aware of at the time) concerning Paul
early life? Has some kind of dis-function blocked his memory? Whatever the
reason for his own denial, it's probably best for him that he's said
goodbye. Hopefully the time will be used in healing whatever it is he's
struggling with.
When he first started posting a few years ago I spent some time behind the
scenes defending him to Eckists on other groups, trying to mediate. We wrote
back and forth privately. He genuinely seems to be a nice sincere guy.
However as he's stepped up his denigration of ECK Masters, the teachings and
the Eckankar organization, I've been motivated to challenge his assertions
and set the records straight. As I reflect now there are characteristic
about him that haven't changed. He's usually beating around the bush, hasn't
openly admitted a mistake or culpability, and refused to answer simple
direct questions with simple direct answers. That makes communication very
difficult and easily misunderstood.
Still in all, that's just his style and I wish him well. Baraka Bashad.