By James Strauss
In the 1800’s physics had come far enough to determine just how the sensory system of humans, and most other animals on the planet, really worked. There has been little dispute about what was discovered. We have five sensory inputs that send information to our brains. We have touch, taste, smell, hearing and smell. Touch can be broken down into what we call feel (when you touch something the sensory apparatus in your skin actually determines fairly closely what elements the atomic structure is under that part of your body), temperature and even such things as wind and sound that’s not part of our hearing (vibrations). We all receive only vibrations and physical effects from the world around us. That’s it. Our sensory receptors report to our brains and our brains decide what it is we are sensing. Only recently have studies shown that those vibrations are not interpreted the same by all of us. Witness testimony is therefore almost always flawed by that differential result of the interpretation process, in legal matters, education and also the results of scientific process. We are not all alike, not just in belief, which is nothing more or less than interpretations by other parts of our brains about the only five entry sensory interpretations we are making.
What has this whole preceding and very revealing paragraph been in reference to?
Journalism. The vibration form, mostly made up of optical vibrations and sound vibrations that emanate from television sets, as well as the optical and feeling vibrations emitted by paper transmissions or communications. The objectivity of the mass, and local media has been called severely into question ever since the advent of the changes that ‘populist’ leaders have foisted on the public. It is now said, in all manner of places and in all manner of communications, that the media is no longer about writing truth or telling the facts instead of influencing those truths and facts with opinion.
Reporters and those reporting the supposed news, are all processors of the same sensory data the rest of us are receiving, no matter what the circumstance or occurrence. And we are led, if you read the first part of this article, to exactly where we have to be going to (again!) discuss the simple conclusive logical end place for what has to be the result. All news, all reporting of facts, all of it…involves the expression of opinion. All of it. No observation can be excluded. Not earthquakes, tsunamis or assassinations. All are subject to the conclusions of the very center of our brains that call for the interpretation of the five differential sets of vibrations.
When the ‘news’ is reported on television that ‘news’ is only called that. Actually, what’s being reported is the opinion of those that are witnessing things or being told things by people who are supposedly seeing and experiencing these things. And then there’s choice. There are only so many ‘voices’ out here among the throngs of the world’s eight billion population. Those voices are delivered in the form of reports and stories. Those reports and stories are made up of analyzed and concluded upon vibrational interpretations, just as the next step, your reception of them passes those reports and stories through yet another filter of interpretation (you watched and listened to something, and therefore you absorbed vibrations and then made conclusions in your mind about them.
The acceptance of a lack of true credibility and acceptance of fact by the receiving public must become something that is understood. The demands upon the mass media to get things right is not accurate in its pursuit. What is chosen to be covered is even more filled with this interpretive reception system we are all blessed or cursed with. We see life and the universe in such a limited way (the actual number of vibrational expressions racing about in the universe we know is almost beyond count, and we only life and exist inside five of them) that we have a hard time understanding what all of this is (the universe), how we came to be what we are in it and then that even bigger questions which remains unanswered, which is, of course, “why?”