Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 18:01:16 (GMT)
From: Feb 18, 2001 To: Feb 28, 2001 Page: 5 Of: 5


Pat Conlon -:- Jim the objectivist versus Janet the subjectivist -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 05:10:52 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- You missed my point -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 06:06:58 (GMT)
__ __ Pat Conlon -:- Get off your high horse, Jim. -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 19:57:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Nice post. -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:52:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Thank you, Scott -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 18:59:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Thank you, Scott -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 08:53:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Scott, sex and death -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 09:14:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Get off your high horse, Jim. -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:07:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Saving grace. -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:48:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What in the world is that supposed to mean, Scott? -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 16:31:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- This isn't really for you, but... -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 08:46:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- OK, then this isn't really for you either (??) -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 17:17:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- OK, then this isn't really for you either (??) -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 18:22:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Gregg -:- Art/Reality and the Grecian Urn -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 21:42:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hey, let's see how obscure we can get, okay? -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 00:55:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- What in the world is that supposed to mean, Jim? -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 20:47:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What in the world is that supposed to mean, Jim? -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 01:46:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- What in the world is that supposed to mean, Jim? -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 15:43:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What in the world is that supposed to mean, Jim? -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 17:26:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- What in the world is that supposed to mean, Jim? -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 17:41:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Prove it (nt) -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 01:22:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- OK, but it's boring. -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:48:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Why doesn't this move me? -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 15:39:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- Why doesn't this move me? -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 16:19:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Short version -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 13:24:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- A proposal and a question -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 15:30:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- A proposal and a question -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:03:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Er, DD. -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 14:07:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Now look what you've done, Mike! -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:38:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hey, here's an even better example! -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 00:25:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Hey, here's an even better example! -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 07:18:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- A question -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 19:08:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- A question -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 21:06:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Not Exactly -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 21:32:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- How about this -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 14:38:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- How about this -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 15:28:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- A proposal and a question -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 16:27:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- Good point -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 20:45:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Well, bye then. I'm leaving -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 04:25:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Postie -:- No, no, no Conlon -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 17:13:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Thank you, Postie NT -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 18:53:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Waiting the word of the Master -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 16:59:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Waiting the word of the Master -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 17:13:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Jim - Waiting the word of the Master -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:44:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Jim - Waiting the word of the Master -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 17:31:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Scott - Waiting the word of the Master -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:15:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- I do apologise, Jim -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 18:51:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- One foot out, one foot in ..... -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 02:05:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Objectivism is not dogmatism -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 02:58:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Objectivism is not dogmatism -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 07:04:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- For crying in a bucket, Scott T -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:03:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Jim, behind his back. -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 04:42:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Gerry, I need Jim to balance my flights of fancy -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 09:26:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Patrick, with all due respect -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 19:15:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Thanks, Joe, you are right -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 20:51:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Well, bye then. I'm leaving -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:00:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- that is bullshit Pat -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 04:31:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Thank you, Selene -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 18:56:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Pat, take a break if you need to, but please... -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 21:37:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Thanks Katie, can't leave - I'm in love with Jim -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:19:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ Gregg -:- You go, girl! -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:00:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Thank you, Gregg -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 19:35:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- a scientist? -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 17:00:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ Selene -:- hey you Pat Conlon -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 21:40:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ cq -:- 'lily-white middle-class sensibilties' -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 21:17:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- cq, so far I have not been able to disagree -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 21:24:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Don't worry, Pat, the time will come ... -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 21:34:02 (GMT)
__ __ janet -:- i just came back on-didnt know i was the subject -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 10:52:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ Charles S -:- Mistakes can show us what we REALLY value in life -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 20:52:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ janet -:- time out for technical whining on this point: -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:23:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ janet -:- time out for technical whining on this point: -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:42:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- HEY USE CAPITALS!!!!:-) -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 11:08:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Postie -:- janet: 1,000,000% better (nt) -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 17:07:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- icantreadtahtlongunbrokenstringofwords -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 16:04:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ JHB -:- Great post Janet!, but.... -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:24:45 (GMT)
__ __ JHB -:- Your logic is unsound -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:03:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- You're right, there's another step (or two) -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 16:23:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ JHB -:- You're right for the type of God you assume -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 16:36:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- What Mishler said about premies -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:44:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Postie -:- Supreme Court Justice Mishler says it all! (nt) -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 17:18:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Postie -:- Time for another poll? -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 18:30:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Postie, Do you believe 'God' exists? -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 20:34:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Postie -:- Does 'God' exist? -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 22:26:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Lurker #27 -:- Does 'God' exist? God Schmod! -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 16:20:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Disculta -:- Does 'God' exist? Deep thoughts! -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 16:29:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Postie -:- Deep thoughts indeed! Pertinent to CFS thread too. -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 16:58:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Deep thoughts indeed! Pertinent to CFS thread too. -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:36:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Postie -:- A brief shopping trip in the spiritual supermarket -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 04:05:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Thanks Postie (nt) -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 21:37:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Bin Liner -:- The human genome mystery...... -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 23:56:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Postie -:- Human genome not that simple - thanks Bin (nt) -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 04:31:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- A) Is there another kind? B) Isn't that Janet's? -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 16:50:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Barry -:- Mornen Jimbo!(nt) -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 16:57:12 (GMT)

Sir Dave -:- I have to post this -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 00:14:09 (GMT)

Nigel -:- Amaroo and THAT invitation. How to act on it? -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 21:53:37 (GMT)
__ Joe -:- Nigel, you would be a great delegate -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 23:25:16 (GMT)
__ Know It All -:- We're still lining Rawat's pockets though -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:34:17 (GMT)
__ __ cq -:- Remember the parable of the lost sheep? -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 18:41:28 (GMT)
__ __ AJW -:- Can't you get in for free -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:55:38 (GMT)
__ SB -:- But Niegel -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:52:51 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- What picture? -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 00:16:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ SB -:- What picture? -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 01:30:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Oh shit - so I did... -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 02:33:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ SB -:- Yeah, that's the picture -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 18:08:15 (GMT)
__ salam -:- How to act on it? -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:00:16 (GMT)
__ __ SB -:- How to act on it? -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:55:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ Barry -:- Bye SB, hey! Stay up on my band. Cool? Bye. -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:02:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ salam -:- Maybe -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 00:04:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ sb -:- Maybe -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 00:07:23 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- How to act on it? -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:05:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ salam -:- you certainly need help -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:32:37 (GMT)
__ Daneane -:- Don't do it Nigel -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 22:54:51 (GMT)
__ Coach -:- Faster Than A Speedin' Bullet....... -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 22:17:29 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Thanks, but please note... -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 22:53:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ Coach -:- It's gettin' worse.. -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:44:32 (GMT)
__ gErRy -:- Amaroo and THAT invitation. How to act on it? -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 22:15:39 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Not what you think... -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 22:38:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ CW -:- Not what you think... -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 02:12:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Fuck off you brain-dead moron..please read... -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:12:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Cw -:- Fuck off you brain-dead moron..please read... -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- And they might just be right, eh? -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:52:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cw -:- And they might just be right, eh? -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 06:33:45 (GMT)

Jim -:- Here's a good idea for Phase III -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 19:06:30 (GMT)
__ Bin Liner -:- What 're they gonna call the kid ? -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 21:43:40 (GMT)
__ Barry -:- Here's a good idea for Phase III -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 21:19:40 (GMT)
__ __ Postie -:- Propogation could have a whole new meaning now -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:26:40 (GMT)

JTF -:- Victims of premie sociopaths -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 15:33:27 (GMT)
__ Barry -:- Victims of premie sociopaths -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 21:27:07 (GMT)
__ Joe -:- Victims of premie sociopaths -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 20:34:08 (GMT)
__ __ Sandy -:- Victims of premie sociopaths -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 16:30:13 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Anyone could have waived the holy sword of truth -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 21:36:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Anyone could have waived the holy sword of truth -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:48:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Heard it all before, Dog -- you created the guru -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:02:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Marginal Jim? I just didn't live in the ashram -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 02:36:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Come doggie, it was more than that -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:14:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- True, but the degree varied -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 23:07:06 (GMT)
__ I know -:- Example; David Smith: Pay: Kiss his feet (nt) -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 16:42:22 (GMT)
__ __ Tim G -:- David Smith story, the nerd -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 17:57:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ LOL -:- He doesn't have to justify his behavior -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 18:07:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Francesca -:- He lost all his power if you didn't buy his bull -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 05:42:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- You had to step outside the belief system -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 18:41:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ la-ex -:- Joe-have youever told the wholestory on the forum? -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 01:49:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Yeah, I think a number of times -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 18:25:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- I remember that period so well because ... -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 01:00:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ lol -:- He lost all his power if you didn't buy his bull -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 18:41:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- He was a pathetic joke when I tracked him down -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 06:16:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ bill--Yeah, dig that DS -:- post of your phone calls. It was good..nt -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 04:06:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Here's the post (June 1, 1997) -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 06:20:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ bill -:- Thanks for all your posts Joe....nt -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:48:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sure, Jer. You, too (????!!)....nt -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 13:04:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Coach -:- Tres Amusant, James -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 22:03:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Thanks for digging it up -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 19:07:22 (GMT)

Connie -:- First time poster -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 09:10:45 (GMT)
__ Brian S -:- First time poster/ Way to go Connie! -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:10:33 (GMT)
__ janet -:- how's that courage feel?? pretty exhilarating?? -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:59:03 (GMT)
__ Aussi Ji -:- First time poster -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:36:06 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- First time poster -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:41:33 (GMT)
__ bill burke -:- perhaps?....nt -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 02:36:21 (GMT)
__ Barry -:- First time poster -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 20:53:54 (GMT)
__ Helen -:- First time poster -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 19:57:22 (GMT)
__ Selene -:- First time poster -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 17:32:07 (GMT)
__ Katie -:- Greetings to Connie -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 17:07:17 (GMT)
__ Kelly -:- First time poster..welcome -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 13:19:29 (GMT)
__ Robyn -:- First time poster -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 11:21:20 (GMT)
__ __ salam -:- First time poster -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:36:26 (GMT)
__ JHB -:- First time poster -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 09:19:31 (GMT)
__ __ Pat Conlon -:- Hi Connie, welcome and thanks for posting -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 10:02:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ Tim G -:- Hi Connie, welcome and thanks for posting -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 10:43:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ Marianne -:- Welcome Connie -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 10:35:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Postie -:- Welcome Connie and ditto the other comments -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 17:37:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Bin Liner -:- Welcome Connie and ditto the other comments + -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 20:13:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Connie -:- Thanks for the welcome, and -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 00:38:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ DeProGram Anand Ji -:- Thanks for the welcome, and -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 08:09:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Thanks for the welcome, and -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 23:23:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- Thanks for the welcome, and -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 19:27:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ la-ex -:- Welcome, Connie. I relate to your journey... -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 02:40:05 (GMT)

Ooramamaroo -:- www.amaroo.org -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 00:48:29 (GMT)
__ Pat Conlon -:- Just in by first class email -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 02:03:50 (GMT)
__ __ salam -:- Question -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 03:58:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Salam - answer -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 04:39:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Francesca -:- I never get e-mail from EV -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 06:14:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Brian S -:- I never get e-mail from EV/ I don't get anymore -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 07:24:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Who else stopped getting EV e-mails -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 01:30:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Brian S, based on experience on this forum... -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 17:44:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Katie, I'm confused.... -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 18:36:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- What I remember -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 18:43:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- P.S. to John -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 18:56:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- P.S. to John -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 20:13:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- I never get e-mail from EV - get it from a friend -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 09:41:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ salam -:- did you get feedback in the past -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 07:37:58 (GMT)
__ __ bill--we predicted that, -:- bad news for the stray viewer/sucker..nt -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 03:49:04 (GMT)


Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 05:10:52 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: pdconlon@yahoo.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Jim the objectivist versus Janet the subjectivist
Message:
Jim, perhaps I shouldn't butt in on your ongoing discussion with Janet because you might just be baiting her either because you enjoy baiting her or because you want her to think and express herself with less ''spiritual'' subjectivity.

I enjoy Janet's passion and read her words as poetry so I can't take issue with either her expression or her obvious enthuisiasm for life. She expresses herself quite idiosyncratically enough for my tastes and cannot be compared with the more cliche-ridden Turners or Sandys.

You said to Janet: ''I don't think Maharaji showed us anything of significance.''

I say to you: He did not show us anything at all that we did not already have. Janet and all the others who express their subjective sensations here in words would have had these feelings without the urug.

You express your enjoyment of life in your music and tend to have little sympathy for poets and prefer to use words with legal precision. I've never taken issue with you on challenging shoddy (usually new-age ''spiritual'' thinking) but you need to cut the poet's (like Janet the e.e.cummings of FV) a little slack. Although I would prefer it if she did not use the word Knowledge to describe her rather poetic vision of the world in which she lives.

The urug's scam, in my mind, was little like one that was pulled on me when I was quite small by an older cousin. Till he ''initiated'' me I had always thought that my penis was simply for urinating. My cousin showed me that it could also be a boy's best friend when he taught me sex. I always had a penis but had not seen it's other function. For many years I thought that only my cousin could give me that pleasure. My cousin's scam was that he ''initiated'' me in order to turn me into his sex-slave.

The urug said to a bunch of pretty wide-eyed idealists: ''I can show you the joy within you.'' It was already in us but we had perhaps not identified it and his schpiel was cloaked in some pretty fancy Hindu language and he was pretty damn flambuoyant. It sounded like he was showing us something new. He then proceeded to enslave us because we thought that he was the source of that joie de vivre.

No, not only did he show us nothing of significance, he showed us nothing at all. His tongue has always been firmly implanted in his cheek doing the fifth technique.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 06:06:58 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: You missed my point
Message:
My point was rhetorical. I wasn't saying that Janet sounds the least bit like Turner (or Sandy). Rather, I was saying that IF one assumes that Knowledge packs this big magic punch (like Janet described) and IF one assumes that Maharaji gave it to them, then, like I said, it's Turner time. In other words, on those assumptions, Turner's got it right and who cn say otherwise?

For those of us already firmly of the belief that Maharaji's a scam, there's still the question of what exactly K is. Many people call themselves ex-premies but still think that K is pretty much all it was sold as. Or they think that it might not be quite so great but it sure is something special nonetheless. Others, like me, think that it's all bunk, no more meaningful than any other physical trick one can play on the senses by either over-stimulating them (light) or under-stimulating them (music). The truth is, none of us really know yet. We need to know more about the brain, I guess, to really know how K impressed us as it did (yes, Virginia, I had an experience!). I readily admit that I don't really, really know. Maybe Janet's right and there's all sorts of spiritual wonder and voodoo splendour hidden within. On the other hand, it seems decidedly improbable. Like, improbable in the extreme.

I guess, in a way, an ex-premie can never be a full 'atheist' kind of ex-premie. After all, even if the guru himself admitted it was all a joke, that, too, could be lila. Right, Turner? And right, Sandy? But my money's on the mundane, if you wnat to call it that. I'm a strong agnostic premie, if you want to use that terminology. I don't see how one can divorce the issue of what Knowledge is from who Maharaji is though. Not without doing so arbitrarily.

To me, all the dirt on Maharaji is significant in that it really puts the heat on the lila theory. Makes one think hard about how we got into this shit in the first place. But so long as one respects K as spiritual bounty, I don't see how Maharaji himself can be far behind.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 19:57:57 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Get off your high horse, Jim.
Message:
First I did not think you were saying that Janet sounded like Turner or Sandy. Unlike Turner and the earlier incarnations of Sandy, Janet has plainly stated that it is her experience and that she gives the urug no credit for it.

I said, ''I would prefer it if Janet did not use the word Knowledge to describe her rather poetic vision of the world in which she lives.'' Using the word Knowledge buys right into the urug's scam that it is a uniform and universal experience whose source is him.

You then introduced quite a bit of a non-sequitur and deliberately and argumentatively missed my point. My point was not to discuss the validity of K or M but simply that you really need to be more sympathetic to peoples' attempts to describe their subjective experiences.

Maybe they are not ''real'' in a scientifically provable way but they are the basis for most of music, poetry, art and yes, even unfortunately religion and other mystical mumbo-jumbo.

Yes, I did learn something, not a whole lot, from the urug but I have also learned many more things from other people. Yoga (the art of concentration) is a hobby of mine much like sky-diving is to others (or making music is to you.) I prefer less physically dangerous adventures and prefer to be an armchair yogi exploring my own consiousness.

Do you play music only as a dexterity skill and maybe an intellectual appreciation of the mathematics inherent in the tonal scale or do you somethimes play from a feeling of exuberance or untameable energy or maybe even anger or the blues?

Why are you a tofu and potatoes guy (as you recently said of yourself) and not a cooked cadaver and potatoes sort of guy? Because of your taste in both senses of the word; sensation, feeling; subjective, idiosyncratic value judgement, discrimination (no, not the politically correct euphemism for racism.)

Ever read ''Antic Hay?'' It's a comedy of manners a la P.G. Wodehouse (of Jeeves fame) written in the 1920s and set in the sphere of the British upper-crust. Have you read ''After Many a Summer'' written in the 30s and set in Los Angeles (where the people ''chew gum as if in silent prayer to god'') and which deals with the suntanned Southern Californians quest for an immortal body and undying beauty? It's as modern as tomorrow.

Aldous Huxley, great nephew of Julian Huxley, the apologist of Darwin and a scientist of note himself, wrote those books. Long before he wrote ''Brave New World'' he was regarded as a philosopher-novelist with an uncompromisingly objective, materialist, scientific and rationalist point of view. Then he took mescaline and wrote ''Heaven and Hell'' and ''The Doors of Perception.''

Janet's doors of perception are set slightly more ajar than yours or at least allow for a different view than do yours. She is a self-confessed hyperesthenic; very open and quite naked and vulnerable and bares herself quite shamelessly before us compared with the bunch you hang out with in the courts of law who have not only perfected the deceitful strategies required to operate smoothly in their own rather buttoned down socio-political world but have no doubt at least dabbled in the duplicitousness sometimes necessitated when acting before a jury.

Unlike Janet (or Hamzen) I'm not much given to analyzing or describing what I get out of meditation. I have found over the years that, no matter how far out my inner trip has been, it is nearly always boring when I tell it to someone else. So I don't bother because why would you need to explain it to yourself unless you were puzzled by it which I am not. But I enjoy seeing Janet make a stab at it.

Janet's or Hamzen's esthetic exeriences are not the same as mine but I nevertheless still enjoy watching someone struggle to describe their subjective sensations. That after all is the main enjoyment to be had from music, poetry and art.

It's a bit like watching someone skydiving. Last night I just watched the movie ''Cutaway'' (one thumb up for affionados of action movies - 2 hours of mindless bliss for $4) which is basically a detective story set in the world of sky-diving. It's fun to watch from the safety of my armchair but I would never do it.

But when it comes to esthetics and sensation I will try anything as long as it is not physically dangerous. Mental and emotional dangers don't bother me - not after opening wide the doors of perception with psychedelic drugs and experimental ''lifestyles'' and thereby stepping into both heaven and hell. And certainly not after living through the early sometimes terrifying years of Bowly Shriek Maharaj Jism and messianic Knowledge ultra-bhakti-juju-heavy.

Not all of us can express our subjective sensations in music. Some people write as art not just precise communication. Didn't you enjoy Janet's description of the mala dance as a strip tease which she ended by saying, ''...the only thing that was missing was the jism on the plexiglass?'' Naked confession stuff that. Only another survivor on the fringes of society can really appreciate that. Ever had to sell your body for food?

Or is it a bit too raw for your lily-white middle-class sensibilties stuck as you are up in the great white north? Sure Janet is a bit of a wigga but she lives in the ungentrified part of Venice while I am sure you live in an all white homogenous suburb. I'm also pretty sure the only ''people of color'' up there are Colin Powell/Uncle Tom types.

Get off your high white horse, Jim, and and come down and live here where we all struggle to communicate in a heterogenous multi-lingual, multi-racial society composed of some very willful people who have not quite worked out the correct usgae of the English language or even the proper ratio between freedom and responsibiltiy.

I can't accuse you of being smug. I know you aren't but, to a fag living in a city where straight Europeans are outnumbered by Asians and Latinos and tattooed lesbian avengers (go girls), you do sometimes seem slightly insular. I've even almost had second thoughts about your intolerance for Runamok though he stretches my patience to the limit. (He thinks you have ghettoized him. I would have quarantined him rather - just kidding, Run, well sort of.)

If you really want to expose Mr Rawat as a fraud to the premies you better wake up and smell the coffee. Almost 99 point 9 percent of the premies are Indians who believe that there is an experience to be had out of meditation. You've got nothing to say to them.

But that's fine as long as you realize that this forum will always JUST be a place for Jim and Selene, or Jim and Janet or Jim and Turner/Sandy to take potshots at each other while the rest of us watch the interactive soap opera called Forum Five with wry amusement.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:52:02 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Nice post.
Message:
Pat:

No comment. I just wanted to commend you on an extraordinarily eloquent post.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 18:59:08 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Thank you, Scott
Message:
I enjoy your gutsy stabs at scientific cosmology too but most of it's over my head.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 08:53:52 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Thank you, Scott
Message:
Pat:

I'm evolving the opinion that sexuality is a semi-permanent interpretation of the nexus of life and death. At some instant we knew what life and death were like, simultaneously, and sexuality settled out of that the way a crystal of salt settles out of a solution as it cools. Of course, we've completely forgotten the original experience because we have this nifty interpretation to play with. Well, it's just a theory.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 09:14:03 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Scott, sex and death
Message:
Well, you can practice communicating on me anytime. That sounds like a topic that would engage me more than what you and Hamzen were talking about. Too dry and scientific for me. I hope you will also drop hints at readings you may have done on the subject. It is a common topic in that demi-monde populated by the likes of Aleister Crowley.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:07:17 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Get off your high horse, Jim.
Message:
First I did not think you were saying that Janet sounded like Turner or Sandy. Unlike Turner and the earlier incarnations of Sandy, Janet has plainly stated that it is her experience and that she gives the urug no credit for it.

Fair enough.

I said, ''I would prefer it if Janet did not use the word Knowledge to describe her rather poetic vision of the world in which she lives.'' Using the word Knowledge buys right into the urug's scam that it is a uniform and universal experience whose source is him.

Agreed.

You then introduced quite a bit of a non-sequitur and deliberately and argumentatively missed my point. My point was not to discuss the validity of K or M but simply that you really need to be more sympathetic to peoples' attempts to describe their subjective experiences.

Well, I don't think there was anything irrelevant or the like about what I said. As for whether I should be more sympathetic to peoples' attempts to describe their subjective experiences, I have to ask you: why? If people are trying to describe something as a real-world phenomenon, I say treat it as such. There's no reason to cut anyone any slack just because of the subjective nature of their experiences. Can you think of one? I can't.

Maybe they are not ''real'' in a scientifically provable way but they are the basis for most of music, poetry, art and yes, even unfortunately religion and other mystical mumbo-jumbo.

So?

What's your point? I agree that much art, etc. stems from 'spritual' inspiration. So what? When did that become the topic? More importantly, what does that have to do with the question of what Knowledge is or isn't?

Yes, I did learn something, not a whole lot, from the urug but I have also learned many more things from other people. Yoga (the art of concentration) is a hobby of mine much like sky-diving is to others (or making music is to you.) I prefer less physically dangerous adventures and prefer to be an armchair yogi exploring my own consiousness.

Sorry, I don't get your point.

Do you play music only as a dexterity skill and maybe an intellectual appreciation of the mathematics inherent in the tonal scale or do you somethimes play from a feeling of exuberance or untameable energy or maybe even anger or the blues?

I know you're being rhetorical so I won't answer seriously. But what's your point anyway? Music isn't a way of analyzing and understanding the world. It's not like that at all. It's just an emotive, sensual expression. There's no truth value to it and, please, do me a favour and don't start talking about the 'truth in song' or the 'truth of the heart' or whatever. That's the very kind of poetry that doesn't help here. The question was, What is Knowledge? It calls for a literal, factual answer.

Hey, maybe you could throw up all sorts of other things. For example, you could do a dance and call that 'Knowledge' But I don't think that's what Barry was asking for and, more importantly, I don't think that's what Janet was offering. Janet was offering a factual description of what she thinks the techniques can do for someone. That's a factual claim and can and should be treated accordingly. Put another way, it would have been wrong, perhaps patronizing and certainly unhelpful, for me to respond to her post by saying something along the lines of 'Janet, I know you didn't really mean what you said ....' Forget it! She meant it and I repsonded appropriately, given how I look at all this.

Why are you a tofu and potatoes guy (as you recently said of yourself) and not a cooked cadaver and potatoes sort of guy? Because of your taste in both senses of the word; sensation, feeling; subjective, idiosyncratic value judgement, discrimination (no, not the politically correct euphemism for racism.)

Yep. Agreed. But what's this got to do with anything?

Ever read ''Antic Hay?'' It's a comedy of manners a la P.G. Wodehouse (of Jeeves fame) written in the 1920s and set in the sphere of the British upper-crust.

Maybe.

Have you read ''After Many a Summer'' written in the 30s and set in Los Angeles (where the people ''chew gum as if in silent prayer to god'') and which deals with the suntanned Southern Californians quest for an immortal body and undying beauty? It's as modern as tomorrow.

Is that the one where the guy extends his life with some magic carp serum out in Tarzana? Great book.

Aldous Huxley, great nephew of Julian Huxley, the apologist of Darwin and a scientist of note himself, wrote those books. Long before he wrote ''Brave New World'' he was regarded as a philosopher-novelist with an uncompromisingly objective, materialist, scientific and rationalist point of view. Then he took mescaline and wrote ''Heaven and Hell'' and ''The Doors of Perception.''

And your point is .......? That Huxley saw the errors of his ways? I think that if Huxley were alive today and familiar with what we now know about the brain, psyechedelics, etc., that he might have had a much better framework to consider his trips in. Just as we now have a better context to judge Maharaji in now that this hindu spiritual shit isn't such an exotic item on the menu any longer. Mind you, I don't know WHAT Huxley thought in the end. Do you?

Janet's doors of perception are set slightly more ajar than yours or at least allow for a different view than do yours. She is a self-confessed hyperesthenic; very open and quite naked and vulnerable and bares herself quite shamelessly before us compared with the bunch you hang out with in the courts of law who have not only perfected the deceitful strategies required to operate smoothly in their own rather buttoned down socio-political world but have no doubt at least dabbled in the duplicitousness sometimes necessitated when acting before a jury.

Oh come one! What's the next card? The Noble Savage? I don't give a shit about Janet's 'doors of perception'. I care about the truth of the matter. By the way, Janet's every bit as capable of deception, I'm sure, as any of the 'bunch' I hang out with, (you know them so well!). I've had my own experiences in that regard. As for Janet being a 'self-confessed hyperesthenic' .... does that mean that she does her own nails? Sorry ... just a bit of a joke, there. No, Janet can call herself whatever she wants and you can believe her as you see fit. I don't have to buy her claims, on the other hand, and I certainly won't do it just because you call me a bunch of names. As if that works.

I love the story I've told here a few times, the one Gary Ockendon told me, about the time that he secretly subbed in for Mahatma Tejeshwarand at a k session in Nelson, B.C. The hype was so great then that most of the crowd claimed to see Maharaji, Shri Hans and other assorted hockey greats in the light. Meanwhile, they're getting initiated by an unauthorized agent while mahatma-ji is knocking up some sister in the back room. Did all those people see those masters in the light or not? I'd be interested in Janet's answer as well.

Unlike Janet (or Hamzen) I'm not much given to analyzing or describing what I get out of meditation. I have found over the years that, no matter how far out my inner trip has been, it is nearly always boring when I tell it to someone else. So I don't bother because why would you need to explain it to yourself unless you were puzzled by it which I am not. But I enjoy seeing Janet make a stab at it.

Fine, you don't want to analyze or even talk about it. So why, then did you start this thread?

Janet's or Hamzen's esthetic exeriences are not the same as mine but I nevertheless still enjoy watching someone struggle to describe their subjective sensations. That after all is the main enjoyment to be had from music, poetry and art.

How patronizing!

It's a bit like watching someone skydiving. Last night I just watched the movie ''Cutaway'' (one thumb up for affionados of action movies - 2 hours of mindless bliss for $4) which is basically a detective story set in the world of sky-diving. It's fun to watch from the safety of my armchair but I would never do it.

But when it comes to esthetics and sensation I will try anything as long as it is not physically dangerous. Mental and emotional dangers don't bother me - not after opening wide the doors of perception with psychedelic drugs and experimental ''lifestyles'' and thereby stepping into both heaven and hell. And certainly not after living through the early sometimes terrifying years of Bowly Shriek Maharaj Jism and messianic Knowledge ultra-bhakti-juju-heavy.

Not all of us can express our subjective sensations in music. Some people write as art not just precise communication. Didn't you enjoy Janet's description of the mala dance as a strip tease which she ended by saying, ''...the only thing that was missing was the jism on the plexiglass?'' Naked confession stuff that. Only another survivor on the fringes of society can really appreciate that. Ever had to sell your body for food?

I'm so sorry, Patrick. I really do apologize. I thought we were actually trying to understand and talk about what Knowledge is or isn't. I didn't know we were just finger painting. And no, I've never had to sell my body for food. What a stupid question. What's the next card in the deck, the Noble Street Punk?

Or is it a bit too raw for your lily-white middle-class sensibilties stuck as you are up in the great white north? Sure Janet is a bit of a wigga but she lives in the ungentrified part of Venice while I am sure you live in an all white homogenous suburb. I'm also pretty sure the only ''people of color'' up there are Colin Powell/Uncle Tom types.

Fuck off with this irrelevant Rainbow Coalition argument. It's got nothing to do with anything.

Get off your high white horse, Jim, and and come down and live here where we all struggle to communicate in a heterogenous multi-lingual, multi-racial society composed of some very willful people who have not quite worked out the correct usgae of the English language or even the proper ratio between freedom and responsibiltiy.

Look, this is getting ridiculous. You started a thread about the different ways Janet and I describe and consider Knowledge. Now you're bitching at me because I'm trying to address the issue clearly. And what's your beef? I shouldn't talk as clearly as I can because some people don't even speak English all that well. How in the world does that mean I shouldn't think or talk about this as clearly as I can? It doesn't.

I can't accuse you of being smug.

No, please, let me accuse you of that! Which I do. This pathetic bullshit about my uptight, lilly-white so-and-so. Fuck off, huh? I'd say it shows how little you know about me but that would obscure the main point I have to make which is that it's entirely beside the point.

I know you aren't but, to a fag living in a city where straight Europeans are outnumbered by Asians and Latinos and tattooed lesbian avengers (go girls), you do sometimes seem slightly insular.

And you're starting to sound like a flailing PC shmuck who thinks that his sexual orientation gives him some extra cachet it really doesn't.

I've even almost had second thoughts about your intolerance for Runamok though he stretches my patience to the limit. (He thinks you have ghettoized him. I would have quarantined him rather - just kidding, Run, well sort of.)

Whatever.

If you really want to expose Mr Rawat as a fraud to the premies you better wake up and smell the coffee. Almost 99 point 9 percent of the premies are Indians who believe that there is an experience to be had out of meditation. You've got nothing to say to them.

Your approach is bewildering. What exactly are you saying? That I have to change my beliefs just because all those Indian premies think meditation yields something profound (even I don't dispute that meditation yields an 'experience'. I just don't think it's a spiritual one, that's all.)

But that's fine as long as you realize that this forum will always JUST be a place for Jim and Selene, or Jim and Janet or Jim and Turner/Sandy to take potshots at each other while the rest of us watch the interactive soap opera called Forum Five with wry amusement.

Fuck off.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:48:32 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Saving grace.
Message:
Jim:

I know you're being rhetorical so I won't answer seriously. But what's your point anyway? Music isn't a way of analyzing and understanding the world. It's not like that at all. It's just an emotive, sensual expression.

I just can't believe you actually said that. I think others have suggested to you that there's just far too much 'information' to actually process, and that you've got a little gatekeeper who makes decisions about what to let in, and where to put it. So music can influence that gatekeeper. I hate to stoop to this level, but seems necessary to get through. If you ever looked at the spaces *between* objects you might discover it's easier to find your keys. And more. Seriously, you've got some scar tissue or something. Geez, even Karl Popper, the foundation stone of modern rationalism, puts a lot of store in a subjective world that 'represents the *potential*' for most of what is yet to be. But I thought someone with an appreciation for *sparkle* already understood that.

--Scott 'holding onto the potential for liking you, as a person' T.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 16:31:01 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: What in the world is that supposed to mean, Scott?
Message:
Nice solo, Scott but it doesn't address my point at all. Care to try again? Music doesn't have truth value. There's no such thing as 'false' in music. You either like it or you don't. I'm not talking about whether playing certain things or ways are acceptable in certain styles of music, I'm talking about whether or not music makes true or false statements about the world. It doesn't and you know it.

This has nothing to do with 'sparkle', whatever that is. It's got to do with how you look at fatual claims about the world, i.e. claims that the knowledge has some sort of spiritual power to it. Pat suggested that I must approach music very woodenly if I think in such blakc and white terms -- or the other way around, I don't really think in such black and white terms because if I did I would play music like a Poindexter-style geek, slide rule and all. I was saying that the two pursuits, art and trying to understand the world, are different animals, the former not having truth value, which it doesn't. You can't call a work of art false in the same sense that you can call a statement false. Art is ultimately a subjective call; statements about the nature of reality aren't.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 08:46:05 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: This isn't really for you, but...
Message:
Jim:

Nice solo, Scott but it doesn't address my point at all. Care to try again? Music doesn't have truth value. There's no such thing as 'false' in music. You either like it or you don't. I'm not talking about whether playing certain things or ways are acceptable in certain styles of music, I'm talking about whether or not music makes true or false statements about the world. It doesn't and you know it.
This has nothing to do with 'sparkle', whatever that is. It's got to do with how you look at fatual claims about the world, i.e. claims that the knowledge has some sort of spiritual power to it. Pat suggested that I must approach music very woodenly if I think in such blakc and white terms -- or the other way around, I don't really think in such black and white terms because if I did I would play music like a Poindexter-style geek, slide rule and all. I was saying that the two pursuits, art and trying to understand the world, are different animals, the former not having truth value, which it doesn't. You can't call a work of art false in the same sense that you can call a statement false. Art is ultimately a subjective call; statements about the nature of reality aren't.

I suppose I see the point that art isn't analytical in the sense that an equation is. I'm not sure I can really help you understand what I've been saying, but basically it's that you 'can' talk about a false or true work of art. That, indeed, they do make truth claims that can be assessed. I've suggested that such claims have to do with transparency, reflection, the sort of things that bug you about CD and cause you to think he must be brain damaged. You see, I think there *is* a difference between aesthetics and beauty. The fact that someone understands and appreciates aesthetics is a sort of testemony that they've abdicated their role with respect to issues of truth and accountability in art, and without such considerations art can't be true... or even valuable. It's a sort of contextual perversion of the world of recent origin, and one that's very convincing. But it's ultimately as perverse an any cult.

But beyond that, without expanding the notion of rationality into the subjective and social areas of human endeavor then you're left with an enlightenment project that's basically dead as a doornail. You end up making a religion out of science, that sort of thing... and meanwhile can't figure out why people fight wars or how to stop the veto power of terrorism. Straining out gnats to swallow camels. On a more mundane level, you can't see the extent to which your own observations are colored and determined by what we've painstakingly and carefully negotiated to be 'typical.' Your perceptions, insofar as they have any relevance at all, are completely deterministic. You are predictable: a mouse chasing cheese. All that's missing is the guru clever enough to catch the pattern.

To respond to Michael's observations, one is inherantly making an assertion in a 'good' work of art. You're asserting that something of you is revealed in the work, which in turn makes the work true or false. Not only that, but the 'something' is not trivial... and there is enough informative material that one can judge whether or not your assertion is, in fact, true. If it's not, then nothing else about the work is important. I grant that you can make music that doesn't have these characteristics... and most modern humans wouldn't know the difference. But that's the problem. That's precisely the problem.

Perhaps it's too hard a concept to grasp with something as disembodied as music. Surely it's easier to see with dance? But please, let's throw the aesthetic baby out with the bathwater. Art can be true, because there *are* doors, walls, and other boundaries to perception. Everything is *not* possible. There's not even such a thing as a straight line.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 17:17:51 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: OK, then this isn't really for you either (??)
Message:
I suppose I see the point that art isn't analytical in the sense that an equation is.

Thank YOU!

That's all I was saying, Scott, and though you might be saying all sorts of other things -- not a single one of which I necessarily take issue with by the way. Indeed, you make some wonderful points, as always -- this was my only point on this issue.

Hold on, I can't say that. There's a lot in your post I can't quite accept (see the trouble I get into trying to be nice guy?). I don't accept that there's some special meaning of 'truth' applicable to art and beauty. To me, those things are -- guess what -- art and beauty. You don't need to gild them with connotations of a word that actually relates only to factual claims and beliefs (assertions and whatever-the-other-one-was?) about the world. Art can include such claims but that's beside the point.

For example, Magritte's famous 'Ce n'est pas un pipe' painting. (That is Magritte, isn't it?) The painting isn't true or untrue. Rather, it's art. Yet the sentence painted on the canvass, that's a statement that can be either true or untrue. But there's no way that the painting itself can be true or untrue. That's just not english. It might be 'art talk' but then anything can be 'art talk'. (Just think of all the ridiculous artist's blurbs you've read at art galleries!).

Similarly, your trotting out the old hackneyed complaint about 'making a religion out of science' only makes sense if you fuck with the meaning of 'religion'. we could play this forever and, as you know, many people do. They write whole books (or, as in Sandy's case, florrid posts) in this vein. But when it comes to trying to actually understand some phenomenon in the world, such as we supposedly were doing here when we were talking about what actually happens when one mediates, what the Knowledge actually is or isn't and what Maharaji actually is or isn't, that kind of word play is quite misleading.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 18:22:07 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: OK, then this isn't really for you either (??)
Message:
Jim:

I don't accept that there's some special meaning of 'truth' applicable to art and beauty.

Right. I know that. And my, as yet rather unsupported, assertion is that some modification of the notion of rationality along these lines is not only useful but necessary.

Art can include such claims but that's beside the point.

It's not really. Well, maybe it's not relevant to what you want to say about art. But the role of art in the enlightenment project is *the* issue for me, and that has to do with the capacity for the above. I don't really care about art that evades such issues, because I think it's wimpy, and... well, evasive. Well, it can have some utility in opening us up to different perspectives, which is frequently useful, but that's a subsidiary role.

Yet the sentence painted on the canvass, that's a statement that can be either true or untrue. But there's no way that the painting itself can be true or untrue. That's just not english.

Oh God. Nah, I'm not even going to comment. You can read your own statement again and get more out of the exercise than anything I could say.

It might be 'art talk' but then anything can be 'art talk'. (Just think of all the ridiculous artist's blurbs you've read at art galleries!).

Well, I'll only point out that the tradgedy of modern art began at about the same time as the movement to accept the notion of 'aesthetics,' which corresponds with the French Revolution and the surrealistic virtual realities proposed by the Marquis de Sade. I maintain this is no coincidence.

Similarly, your trotting out the old hackneyed complaint about 'making a religion out of science' only makes sense if you fuck with the meaning of 'religion'. we could play this forever and, as you know, many people do.

Well, I'll only point out that in philosophy 'scientism' has about the some level of credibility as 'spiritualism' or the 'philosophy of consciousness.' No one takes it seriously. That doesn't mean that it might not make a comeback, but it'll be an uphill struggle. I think science has yet to make it's most significant contributions to the field of human cognition, which is where the real battleground lies. You have faith that these contributions well resolve most of the outstanding issues, and I'm considerably more skeptical... at least in the sense that the resolutions will support the balance of your contentions about the potential of science.

Ultimately, however, we are on the same side. I'm not a subjectivist or radical interpretivist. I'm a rationalist. I think we *need* to be rationalists, and more importantly it's an interesting and even seductive imperitive. What you're engaged in is an attempt to bracket rationality in a way that, I think, is a little naieve and ultimately futile. You're going over a lot of old ground. But what the heck, there's probably some utility in that.

But when it comes to trying to actually understand some phenomenon in the world, such as we supposedly were doing here when we were talking about what actually happens when one mediates, what the Knowledge actually is or isn't and what Maharaji actually is or isn't, that kind of word play is quite misleading.

Well, in what sense is it misleading, specifically? It doesn't mislead me, and it doesn't mislead you. What's the 'cause celebre?' I certainly grant that it's not very useful for getting to the bottom of things, except in the sense that there are a lot of clues in there about the claimant that you aren't even bothering to analyze, and those are quite important. There's a big difference, for instance, between Sandy's efforts at evasiveness and Janet's efforts to open up the doors of her own perception so that you *can* make assessments about her. The two strategies are worlds apart.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 21:42:38 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Art/Reality and the Grecian Urn
Message:
The distinctions between truth and reality vs. truth and art are by no means as clear cut as you make them, Jim, In fact, many post-postmodernists, as well as post-ironic artists, are these days beginning to re-evaluate their reflexive scorn for Keat's unironic assertion that Truth and Beauty are equivalent.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 00:55:35 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Gregg
Subject: Hey, let's see how obscure we can get, okay?
Message:
Unfortunately for you, Gregg, it now appears that the post-post-post-modernists and the post-post-ironic artists are rallying. Read all about it in the Wall Street Journal.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 20:47:39 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: dettmers@gylanix.com
To: Jim
Subject: What in the world is that supposed to mean, Jim?
Message:
Jim,

You said 'I don't really think in such black and white terms because if I did I would play music like a Poindexter-style geek, slide rule and all. I was saying that the two pursuits, art and trying to understand the world, are different animals, the former not having truth value, which it doesn't. You can't call a work of art false in the same sense that you can call a statement false. Art is ultimately a subjective call; statements about the nature of reality aren't.

In my opinion, Jim you are coming ever closer to endorsing the point I was making in our previous conversations about Truth and reality. If you seriously consider my point, you may discover that the ability to distinguish between assessments and assertions will help make your argument more compelling and understandable.

However, to do so, you must first let go of your concept that statements about the nature of reality aren't subjective. Do you remember my analogy about gravity? I’m sure you will agree that “gravity” is a phenomenon that has to do with the “nature of reality.” Yet Newton and Einstein offered two very different interpretations or assessments of it. Were not their interpretations subjective, even though they were grounded in scientific method? Newton’s interpretation was very powerful in its time and, using your language, he and his followers were able to make certain “truth” statements about gravity that could not be made before he declared it. However, there were anomalies that Newton’s interpretation could not explain. Einstein theory took those anomalies into account. Hence, his interpretation, or grounded assessment allowed scientists to make even more powerful “truth” statements about the phenomenon. See my point?

In any case, I think these discussions are very valuable and I thank you, and Pat, and Scott, and janet, and others for your contributions.

Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 01:46:14 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: What in the world is that supposed to mean, Jim?
Message:
First, Mike, you've mistakenly attributed my paraphrase of Pat's comments as my own. What I'd said was:

Pat suggested that I must approach music very woodenly if I think in such black and white terms -- or the other way around, I don't really think in such black and white terms because if I did I would play music like a Poindexter-style geek, slide rule and all.

So those were Pat's sentiments (as I tried to present them), not mine. See? Not sure exactly what turns on it but that IS what happened.

In my opinion, Jim you are coming ever closer to endorsing the point I was making in our previous conversations about Truth and reality. If you seriously consider my point, you may discover that the ability to distinguish between assessments and assertions will help make your argument more compelling and understandable.

Okay, you've got my serious consideration.

However, to do so, you must first let go of your concept that statements about the nature of reality aren't subjective. Do you remember my analogy about gravity? I’m sure you will agree that “gravity” is a phenomenon that has to do with the “nature of reality.” Yet Newton and Einstein offered two very different interpretations or assessments of it. Were not their interpretations subjective, even though they were grounded in scientific method? Newton’s interpretation was very powerful in its time and, using your language, he and his followers were able to make certain “truth” statements about gravity that could not be made before he declared it. However, there were anomalies that Newton’s interpretation could not explain. Einstein theory took those anomalies into account. Hence, his interpretation, or grounded assessment allowed scientists to make even more powerful “truth” statements about the phenomenon. See my point?

No. Sorry, I don't see your point. Newton made truth statements about gravity that were right but only, as Einstein illuminated, in certain circumstances. They were statements about objective reality but he just wasn't perfectly right. That's not to say that his statements were any less objective, is it? Really, I don't get how erroneous statements about objective reality are any the less objective. You've lost me.

How is it any different than this. I say that there's a man with a hat standing outside my building. That's a statement about objective reality that is either true or false, isn't it? So what if I'm wrong? It's still a claim about the world that transcends my own subjective experience. At least to me it is.

What seems to be happening here is a wall is being erected to prevent close scrutiny of the kinds of experiences Janet is talking about. One argument in that regard, the common premie one, is that the mind can never understand such things so don't bother trying -- full stop. Another argument that's surfaced here in this thread is that language is so imperfect, we don't really know what each other's saying half the time anyway, so just give it up. Another argument is that even trying to scrutinize such claims is a cultural affect of lilly-white, uptight guys and it'd be better perhaps, to just loosen up and fugedubowdid. Yet another pitch is that the very nature of reality has been so handily deconstructed by those who do that kind of stuff that there's not use looking closely at anything in order to determine what 'really is'.

I say those all fail in that we can and indeed should look at these things very closely. Did, in fact, the spiritual force or whatever it is pull Janet (or you or you or YOU) into the vortex that time or was that just your imagination? Nothing you or anyone's said here -- yet -- has persuaded me that that is a useless question. And so I ask it. Indeed, I do more than that, I say that I'm willing to bet on the answer. Now, please, what am I missing?

In any case, I think these discussions are very valuable and I thank you, and Pat, and Scott, and janet, and others for your contributions.

No problem.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 15:43:29 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What in the world is that supposed to mean, Jim?
Message:
Jim:

I say those all fail in that we can and indeed should look at these things very closely. Did, in fact, the spiritual force or whatever it is pull Janet (or you or you or YOU) into the vortex that time or was that just your imagination? Nothing you or anyone's said here -- yet -- has persuaded me that that is a useless question. And so I ask it. Indeed, I do more than that, I say that I'm willing to bet on the answer. Now, please, what am I missing?

I think it's rather charming that you don't seem to have any appreciation for how completely off-the-wall that statement actually is. But on the other hand I'm very interested in just what criteria you'd use to validate the claim that all Janet is experiencing is her imagination. I should think that she'd be a better judge of that than you, so that leaves the question of her honesty, how well she forms her efforts at communication, etc.

For instance, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that some of my own experiences in this area were merely my imagination, but fatuous arguments about electrochemical processes in the brain won't cut it. You've got to demonstrate that you understand something significant about the way humans cognate, and you sure aren't doing that. Of course, all I can do is make assertions about the validity I place on my own experience, so again all you can do is make judgements about how transparent and well formed my efforts at communication are. Why don't you just concentrate on the possible?

Basically, I'd be willing to bet that you can't ever go farther than that. But apparently I'd have to reconstruct the detailed arguments of the Vienna Circle concerning what they'd accept as valid, the bomb thrown at them effectively by Wittgenstein in the form of 'language games,' and the story about how Karl Popper rode to the rescue, sort of. Only then would I have any hope of convincing you of anything. And by that time you'd be hammering me for being boring, and absent sparkle. And, as you so perceptively observe, it's not helping me get laid. So, with you, one can't win fer losin'. But it seems to me you've got an awfully steep hill to climb, and all your detractors really have to ever do is give you a shove once in awhile. It must be really frustrating.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 17:26:22 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: What in the world is that supposed to mean, Jim?
Message:
I'm late for court so please accept this early, rather than lengthy, reply. Just because we can't now, and may indeed never be able to, discover why Janet experienced what she experienced, it doesn't mean that there isn't an actual answer 'out there'. And yes, Scott, it may indeed be along the lines of one of those 'fatuous' explanations you're not impressed by. So there!

In terms of getting laid ....sorry, gotta run!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 17:41:53 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What in the world is that supposed to mean, Jim?
Message:
Jim:

The point is that you're underestimating the magnitude of the task as well as it's complexity. For instance this 'it doesn't mean that there isn't an actual answer 'out there'.' is a pretty standard defense of logical positivism. It's ineffective because the basic assertion is that, given enough time and the right conditions all truth claims are subject to validation. Wittgenstein blew that to smithereens. I won't recount the argument in detail, but it's not even all that complicated. Essentially he said simply 'prove it.' Can't. So that's the end of validation as the critical criterion for rationality and truth claims. It was pretty final.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 01:22:26 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Prove it (nt)
Message:
hhhhhh
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:48:53 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: OK, but it's boring.
Message:
Jim:

The basic assertion is that, given enough time and the right conditions all truth claims are subject to validation. That's essentially the assertion of the Vienna Circle and the Logical Positivists. They said that they wouldn't accept anything that is not subject to validation. Wittgenstein started out as a fellow traveler, and then broke with them radically, which they regarded as a betrayal. The short refutation is that the basic assertion is, itself, unprovable. Since it can't be proved, it can't be accepted, by their own conditions, so they can't ever get the plane off the ground.

An additional complication is that if there are an undetermined number of truths that are not subject to verification, then you're left in something of a bind if you can't accept truth under your umbrella. But again. the basic problem is that the boat not only leaks but sinks instantaneously. It is completely unreliable.

So Popper came to the rescue, sort of, by saying that the issue is not verification, but falsification. That is, you can accept anything as a valid truth claim as long as it can be falsified. It's ingenious, but it also opened the door to a very complex system of categorization so that one can deal with potential truths in the subjective and social worlds, in addition to the world of facts. These are Popper's famous 'three worlds' (see note below). And the essential problem of the enlightenment, or of scientific method, is how you relate truth claims within and between these three worlds. The falsification condition is a neat trick, but the rest of the complexity comes along with it primarily because of the role of future events.

It's a package, and the starting place if you want to circumvent the dilemma is Popper. Personally, I don't think it can be circumvented, and more importantly it's actually a good thing... because otherwise the universe might be deterministic... and that just wouldn't be at all fair. The uncertainty is what it's all about. Without that, there would be no life. So, you can bracket the uncertainty, and put bounds on it, but it's a tricky business. You can essentially nail down one corner of the universe, at the expense of letting another corner slip away. And it's not just a matter of not having enough purchase, or too few hands. It doesn't matter how much purchase you have something critical will get away. It's part of the very definition.

So, how does one make progress, I'll bet you're asking? The world of ideas. And guess what, that's where art exists, as well as imagination and theory. Without those we're dead as a doornail.

Note: 'We may distinguish the following three worlds or universes: first the world of physical objects or physical states; secondly, the world of states of consciousness, or of mental states, or perhaps of behavioral dispositions to act; and thirdly, the world of objective contents of thought, especially of scientific and poetic thoughts and of works of art.' (K.R. Popper, Objective Knowledge, 1972: p. 106)

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 15:39:52 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Why doesn't this move me?
Message:
At the risk of appearing even more like a sparkle-less philistine, I have to tell you that all I think when I read this stuff is 'so what?' It's not cutting through my pretense, perhaps, that there's a certain minimal common sense I do and indeed can operate by, common sense that tells me I don't have to worry too hard about proving the obvious. I can leave that to others who enjoy and might even get paid for such efforts. Yes, I know that all of this philosophical grinding somehow, eventually contributes to the world-views that we all, in our society, share over time. But I'm just not interested in the supposed blind-spots in my common sense take on the world. I guess it's because no one's shown me why I should be. Or if they have, I just haven't gotten it. But hell, Scott, I don't care, you know? So what do you make of that?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 16:19:49 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: dettmers@gylanix.com
To: Jim
Subject: Why doesn't this move me?
Message:
Jim:

But I'm just not interested in the supposed blind-spots in my common sense take on the world. I guess it's because no one's shown me why I should be. Or if they have, I just haven't gotten it. But hell, Scott, I don't care, you know? So what do you make of that?

Arrogance.

Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 13:24:58 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Short version
Message:
The philosophical problem with logical positivism can be stated with a horrible and mind-boggling simplicity.

It cannot be true that a statement has no meaning unless there is a way to corroborate it (or to disprove it). The reason is, that in order to set up the experiment one must already have understood what is being asserted.

The apprehension of the meaning of an assertion is logically prior to being able to contrive a test of that assertion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 15:30:44 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: dettmers@gylanix.com
To: Jim
Subject: A proposal and a question
Message:
Jim,

Sorry for misrepresenting Pat’s sentiments as your own. I promise to be more careful in the future.

Regarding our discussions, it appears to me that we are talking past each other. I am, of course, in part responsible for this situation, which leaves me dissatisfied with my own contributions to this conversation.

For us to have a more meaningful dialogue, whether or not we end up agreeing with each other, I want to take the time to lay out the foundational principles upon which I base my argument. In doing so, I will relate these principles to Maharaji and knowledge since that will help keep the conversations aligned with the purpose of the Forum although the principles themselves have far greater implications than that. I will begin working on this paper this weekend with the objective of posting it within the next two weeks. If nothing else, it will help me clarify and focus my own thoughts on these issues.

In the meantime, I invite you to reflect on the meaning of the results of the following experiment. A fixed number of cards from an ordinary deck of playing cards were flashed on a television monitor at rapid speed (a fraction of a second) before a set number of participants. After seven cards were flashed in this manner, the participants were asked to write down from memory what cards they saw. The same experiment was repeated with the same cards and the same participants, only this time the cards were flashed at a half second slower speed that the first time they were flashed. Again the participants were asked to write down what cards they saw. The experiment was repeated for the last time with the same group of participants with the only exception being that the cards were flashed even slower than the second time at a speed of one second per card. Again the participants were asked to write down what cards they saw.

When all of the results were tabulated, here is what the researchers discovered. All of the participants correctly identified the same five out of seven cards regardless of the speed at which they were flashed. All of the participants failed to identify the same two cards even when they were flashed at the slowest speed. They failed to identify these two cards because they were trick cards. One was the two of hearts; the other was the five of spades. However, the hearts in the two of hearts were black, and the spades in the five of spades were red. Because the cards in question did not conform to the participants’ expectations of what those cards should look like, they were unable to “see” those particular cards. The same results occurred when the experiment was repeated with several different groups of participants.

Jim, what does this experiment reveal to you about our concepts regarding objective reality?

Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:03:23 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: A proposal and a question
Message:
We agree about his Michael. Good stuff:

Because the cards in question did not conform to the participants’ expectations of what those cards should look like, they were unable to “see” those particular cards.

This experiment proves that we definitely project our past into our present and future. Our thinking about the present and even our future refers to our past. We are definitely products of our past. We usually interpret the present using what we already know. It’s like steering your car using the rear view mirror. We are bound to have a few accidents driving this way and then we erroneously conclude that life is a bitch.

We live in our story, our internal dialogue, and when something new happens, we usually fit it into what we already know, ignore it or not even notice it. We see things as consistent with the way we have always seen them. That's living like a robot IMO.

We have to become empty before we can really see what is there. That is why I value meditation, any kind of meditation or discipline that gets us out of our past conditioning.

Yes, it's all subjective, there is no world without me. Where do films take place, on the screen or inside the viewer?

Since I always like to include a quote:

'I've found that the chief difficulty for most people was to realize that they had really heard new things: that is things that they had never heard before. They kept translating what they heard into their habitual language. They had ceased to hope and believe there might be anything new.'
P. D. Ouspensky

By definition, no human being can know what lies outside their tiny circle of knowledge. We are so limited. To claim you know there is no God or that you know it all, is to claim you have exhaustively searched every part of every universe and dimension with an infallibly accurate method of detecting every physical and non-physical entity that could possibly exist. To me this is the very hight of arrogance.

Could you describe winter to a mosquito? Do you think he'd buy it?

It’s like a blind person trying to convince himself that because he has never seen, everyone else claiming to see must be mistaken. In the realm beyond our present experience amazing things could dwell. No I guess I'm not a humanist like Jim. IMO human beings are not the measure of all things.

Deputy Dog

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 14:07:34 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Er, DD.
Message:
DD: Yes, it's all subjective, there is no world without me.

DD: IMO human beings are not the measure of all things.

No offense, Deputy, but if there is no world without you, you are the measure of all things.

It is the first claim that cannot sensibly be made... it's all subjective.

Like, is that a fact? or is it merely solipsist and subjectivist babbling (so to speak).

The claim it's all subjective cannot be true. It contradicts itself by making a claim about the real world -- a claim which it asserts to be (really and objectively) true. The claim Everything is relative contradicts itself in a similar way, for it is an absolute assertion, and therefore itself an example of what it denies.

It's NOT all subjective. It's NOT all relative.

OK?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:38:24 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Now look what you've done, Mike!
Message:
You've gotten Dog all excited. Holy cow, a universe that doesn't exist without me. Sign me up! (Or maybe I get to sign you up?)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 00:25:27 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Hey, here's an even better example!
Message:
Sorry for misrepresenting Pat’s sentiments as your own. I promise to be more careful in the future.

No problem. I never thought for a moment that you were intentionally doing that.

Regarding our discussions, it appears to me that we are talking past each other. I am, of course, in part responsible for this situation, which leaves me dissatisfied with my own contributions to this conversation.

Yes, of course you're part responsible (at least) because, as you recall, when I tried to hash this stuff out with you before (or at least the terminology part of it) you suggested that we drop it and 'agree to disagree'.

For us to have a more meaningful dialogue, whether or not we end up agreeing with each other, I want to take the time to lay out the foundational principles upon which I base my argument. In doing so, I will relate these principles to Maharaji and knowledge since that will help keep the conversations aligned with the purpose of the Forum although the principles themselves have far greater implications than that. I will begin working on this paper this weekend with the objective of posting it within the next two weeks. If nothing else, it will help me clarify and focus my own thoughts on these issues.

Great. Look forward to it.

In the meantime, I invite you to reflect on the meaning of the results of the following experiment. A fixed number of cards from an ordinary deck of playing cards were flashed on a television monitor at rapid speed (a fraction of a second) before a set number of participants. After seven cards were flashed in this manner, the participants were asked to write down from memory what cards they saw. The same experiment was repeated with the same cards and the same participants, only this time the cards were flashed at a half second slower speed that the first time they were flashed. Again the participants were asked to write down what cards they saw. The experiment was repeated for the last time with the same group of participants with the only exception being that the cards were flashed even slower than the second time at a speed of one second per card. Again the participants were asked to write down what cards they saw.

When all of the results were tabulated, here is what the researchers discovered. All of the participants correctly identified the same five out of seven cards regardless of the speed at which they were flashed. All of the participants failed to identify the same two cards even when they were flashed at the slowest speed. They failed to identify these two cards because they were trick cards. One was the two of hearts; the other was the five of spades. However, the hearts in the two of hearts were black, and the spades in the five of spades were red. Because the cards in question did not conform to the participants’ expectations of what those cards should look like, they were unable to “see” those particular cards. The same results occurred when the experiment was repeated with several different groups of participants.

Jim, what does this experiment reveal to you about our concepts regarding objective reality?

Nothing, as far as I can tell. It does say something about how prone we are to make mistakes in our observations and their recollection but that's a different story altogether.

I heard a story a few weeks ago about this other study wherein subjects were served by a 'clerk' at a store. The 'clerk' bends down, ostensibly to get something, and another 'clerk' arises in his place, dressed differently, different features. Guess what? A significant number of the subjects (something around 40% I think) never noticed the 'clerk' had changed and thought that they were dealing with the same one!

What's THAT say about our concepts regarding objective reality? Again, nothing I can think of.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 07:18:42 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hey, here's an even better example!
Message:
Jim:

I heard a story a few weeks ago about this other study wherein subjects were served by a 'clerk' at a store. The 'clerk' bends down, ostensibly to get something, and another 'clerk' arises in his place, dressed differently, different features. Guess what? A significant number of the subjects (something around 40% I think) never noticed the 'clerk' had changed and thought that they were dealing with the same one!

What's THAT say about our concepts regarding objective reality? Again, nothing I can think of.

Well, fortunately those folks made the mistake under experimental conditions where the error was noticed by an objective observer, or we wouldn't have anything to talk about at all. So, either many humans are prone to this sort of thing, but not *you*, or you might have made analogous mistakes, and won't ever know. You've completely incorporated them into your reality, and will never realize you've made the mistake. That says nothing to you about the nature of objective reality? Nothing at all? I guess you either have a lot of confidence in your own perceptions, or in the persistence of the universe to make sure that any mistakes of this order that are made must be trivial. Nice how that works out. Expectations conditioning perception? Nah, that's not relevant. No scar tissue around here.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 19:08:08 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: A question
Message:
Michael,

Thanks for that. But the question that obviously comes to mind is, surely given enough time to study the cards, one would discover the trick cards, and would presumably be able to describe them. It just takes longer to do that with trick cards that one has never seen before, as opposed to other cards, or anything else, that one already knows well. It isn't necessarily that one can't 'see' the cards because they don't correspond to past experiences with decks of cards. It just might take longer because you don't have the advantage of relying on prior learning.

Also, the participants in the study were essentially lied to. They were lead to believe that the cards would be real playing cards, and it requires more time to be skeptical about what one is seeing. But, again, given enough time, the trick cards would have been discovered.

I agree that things you have learned and accepted in the past affect how you learn things in the furture. Learning builds on what you already know. When material is observed that conflicts with prior learning, it takes longer to process it. And without enough time, or inclination, or willingness, or motivation, you might miss it.

I think this is because evolution-wise, it is more of a value to humans to be able to process information quickly based on prior experience, rather than having to re-learn it every time, than it is to pick up small differences in new information. But again, with time one presumably would.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 21:06:36 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: dettmers@gylanix.com
To: Joe
Subject: A question
Message:
Joe,

I'm on the road for the next three days so I don't have time to properly address your comments. I will do so, if only indirectly, in the paper I am planning to write.

In the meantime, let me briefly say this. Based on your argument, it would appear that you hold that whatever the participants did see was based on something they learned. In other words, the deck of cards to which I referred only exists within the context of our language, our traditions, and our concerns. The deck of cards has no meaning independent of the social context in which they were invented.

That is why I have said that we see with our eyes, but we observe with our distinctions. Distinctions in language are learned. People with different sets of distinctions live in different worlds. My question to Jim and to you is: What does this say about our concepts about objective reality?

To be continued ....

Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 21:32:30 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Not Exactly
Message:
Thanks Michael. Have a good time on the road. Just a couple of comments.

In the meantime, let me briefly say this. Based on your argument, it would appear that you hold that whatever the participants did see was based on something they learned.

No, not exactly. What I said was that people saw what they saw and if they had seen it before, it took less time to recognize it and describe it. (And obviously more time if they hadn't seen it before.) So, if you give people limited time, they are more likely to be able to recognize and describe what they have seen before. I just disagree with you statement that the people didn't 'see' the trick cards. I think they saw them, but it wasn't as easy to register and describe them because they were new to them.

In other words, the deck of cards to which I referred only exists within the context of our language, our traditions, and our concerns.

I'm not sure what you mean. I think the cards are the cards. And that set of cards had elements that were 'new' to the viewers. Because the viewers had not seen the trick cards before, it was harder to analyze and describe them. I mean, if you see something you have seen before, you can partly rely on memory to describe it, and if you haven't seen it before, you can't. So, you have to study it more to be able to describe it. True, if you think you have a correct set of cards, you might get more easily fooled on the trick cards, and assume they must be something they aren't, but you said the people couldn't name them at all.

An example comes to mind. A long time ago, when I worked for awhile with testing kids, we gave a test of photographic memory. We showed them a picture of birds sitting on a telephone wire, for a period of time too short to count them. Then, we asked how many birds were in the picture. A person with photographic memory could go back and count the birds based on the 'photograph' of the picture in their brain. Those without that ability, couldn't.

So, if you flash a bunch of cards in front of people, and they have seen them before, it's kind of like having photographic memory. They can pull up the imagse of the 3 of spades, once it's recognized and that makes it easy to describe. If they haven't seen it before, they only get the time the card is flashed to document the view, analyze it, and describe it, and they are less likely to be able to do it. Again, someone with photographic memory might be able to do that on seeing the trick card for the first time, even if the cards had no 'meaning' to them.

The deck of cards has no meaning independent of the social context in which they were invented

The deck of cards are stiff paper with shapes and numbers on them. Someone who has a 'context' for them in their memories because of the culture they live in, would have an easy time recognizing them. But someone who didn't still could do that, it would just take longer. The difference is that the viewer who comes from a culture that uses playing cards would only have a hard time with the trick cards. Presumably someone from a non-playing-card culture, who had never seen playing cards, would have an equal degree of difficulty recognizing both the trick and the non-trick cards.

Am I getting what you are saying?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 14:38:45 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: dettmers@gylanix.com
To: Joe
Subject: How about this
Message:
Joe,

Again I must be brief, so I will repeat what I said in an earlier post where I made the following claim: for human beings, reality is based in language. We observe whatever we observe according to our traditions, our distinctions, and our concerns. These are all linguistic phenomena. For example, without the distinction 'table,' I cannot observe a table. I may see an object with differences in color, shape and texture etc., but not a table. Eskimos, for example, have more distinctions for snow than most other people do. The difference is not a biological one. They have different traditions of distinctions based on different concerns for survival and living. Therefore, the question 'How many kinds of snow are really there?' only makes sense within a certain tradition of distinctions.

It is important to see our distinctions as distinctions and not just as names that things have. Things don't have names. We, as linguistic beings, give them names. And the process of giving them names often constitutes them as things. By making distinctions, we specify the units and entities that populate our world. We cannot observe something for which we don't have a distinction. This is why I said that we see with our eyes, but we observe with our distinctions. People with different sets of distinctions live in different worlds.

For human beings there is no such thing as a reality independent of language. Let me make this point clear. I am not saying that there is no reality beyond language. I am not denying the existence of an external reality. What I am saying is that about that reality we know nothing, since all knowledge itself is completely linguistic. Reality always shows up within a 'linguistic clearing.'

Language also constitutes significant dimensions of our reality. Social realities are normally linguistically generated. We go to war because we hold certain interpretations; we fall in love and build our relationships and marriage out of stories that we make in language; we play power games such as politics from our capacity to generate new realities through language; we develop our identities as stories about ourselves; and whenever we develop a written narrative as in a text, we are also inventors of reality.

For now, I am asking you to suspend judgment about this claim as I have not yet elucidated the principles upon which I make it. I will do so in the paper. Given what I have just said, however, I need to address a point you raise when you say: “I just disagree with your statement that the people didn't 'see' the trick cards. I think they saw them, but it wasn't as easy to register and describe them because they were new to them.” I agree that it would have been more accurate for me to say that the participants “saw” the trick cards but they did not “observe” them. I trust that this sheds some light on your questions.

Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 15:28:09 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: How about this
Message:
Again I must be brief, so I will repeat what I said in an earlier post where I made the following claim: for human beings, reality is based in language. We observe whatever we observe according to our traditions, our distinctions, and our concerns. These are all linguistic phenomena. For example, without the distinction 'table,' I cannot observe a table. I may see an object with differences in color, shape and texture etc., but not a table.

Mike, I really don't agree with this. I'd say that a person who doesn't know the word table but has regular vision would sureluy see a table and just not have a word for it. Just like all the other things we see but don't have names for. In fact, isn't that the stock in trade for a number of comedians, talking about and even coining terms for those things we all are aware of but have never named? You know, like that thingamuhjigger that comes in the front of CD cases where they put the artist's name, pictures and all that stuff? We all know what that thing is but how many people have a name for it? I sure don't. Why can't it be as simple as that?

Eskimos, for example, have more distinctions for snow than most other people do. The difference is not a biological one. They have different traditions of distinctions based on different concerns for survival and living. Therefore, the question 'How many kinds of snow are really there?' only makes sense within a certain tradition of distinctions.

Yes, but that's quite different. 'Kinds', in this sense, are arbitrary distinctions that we, the distinguishers, make up. We might not have the experience, interest, training or language to be able to disinguish between twenty kinds of snow but that doesn't mean that we couldn't, even without the language to assist, discern the differences if the differences started to mean something to us. Isn't it just a matter of how much attention we give to detail in this respect?

It is important to see our distinctions as distinctions and not just as names that things have.

Don't understand.

Things don't have names. We, as linguistic beings, give them names.

Agree.

And the process of giving them names often constitutes them as things.

Disagree. Naming something (other than an abstract noun) might distinguish it in our mind more but I can't see how you can say that it 'constitutes' something as if that thing didn't exist beforehand and now does.

By making distinctions, we specify the units and entities that populate our world.

Agree.

We cannot observe something for which we don't have a distinction.

Now are you talking about a distinction in language or one in observation? To me they're simply so different.

This is why I said that we see with our eyes, but we observe with our distinctions.

Hate to do this to you, but it sounds to me like you're doing something funny (i.e. unusual) with the word 'observe'. To me it means see only not just see but see with some attention as opposed to gazing absent-mindedly which could, I guess, still be a form of 'seeing'. But my point is that, with that definition, one could see something that one still has no name for like that thingamuhjigger in the CD case.

People with different sets of distinctions live in different worlds.

That's pretty hypberbolic, I'd say. Take the two most culturally diverse people you could imagine and drop them both at the Eiffel Tower. They're both going to see the thing although they will, of course, understand what they're seeing quite differently. Different worlds? I dunnnnooooo. That's a pretty big word for it, I'd say.

For human beings there is no such thing as a reality independent of language. Let me make this point clear. I am not saying that there is no reality beyond language. I am not denying the existence of an external reality. What I am saying is that about that reality we know nothing, since all knowledge itself is completely linguistic. Reality always shows up within a 'linguistic clearing.'

But what about thingamuhjiggers?

Language also constitutes significant dimensions of our reality. Social realities are normally linguistically generated. We go to war because we hold certain interpretations; we fall in love and build our relationships and marriage out of stories that we make in language; we play power games such as politics from our capacity to generate new realities through language; we develop our identities as stories about ourselves; and whenever we develop a written narrative as in a text, we are also inventors of reality.

I agree with everything but the last phrase.

For now, I am asking you to suspend judgment about this claim as I have not yet elucidated the principles upon which I make it. I will do so in the paper.

Alright. I'll do the same.

Given what I have just said, however, I need to address a point you raise when you say: “I just disagree with your statement that the people didn't 'see' the trick cards. I think they saw them, but it wasn't as easy to register and describe them because they were new to them.” I agree that it would have been more accurate for me to say that the participants “saw” the trick cards but they did not “observe” them. I trust that this sheds some light on your questions.

But I'd say that they did observe them, just not too accurately.

Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 16:27:30 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: A proposal and a question
Message:
Michael:

I will begin working on this paper this weekend with the objective of posting it within the next two weeks. If nothing else, it will help me clarify and focus my own thoughts on these issues.

A courageous project indeed. I expect to have to reconsider just what the relationship is between Action Theory, and Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action. I've never understood the former, so I'm eagerly anticipating your paper... or perhaps your version of the concept. Anything goes. However I've noticed that efforts to elucidate a theory are distinct from efforts to defend it. In some sense you have to relinquish the defensive arguments in order to clarify because you have to take into account the subjective priors of the listener, and I've a hunch that Jim will exploit this. In the end you won't be any closer than you are now to convincing him of anything. I still admire you for trying though.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 20:45:37 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: dettmers@gylanix.com
To: Scott T.
Subject: Good point
Message:
Scott,

I am doing this mainly for myself. If others find it useful, that's great. It may also provoke further dialoge and that may also be useful.

My objective, however, is not to convince Jim or anyone else for that matter about anything. I agree with your assessment about how Jim is likely to receive and respond to it. I will do my best to avoid making the focus of this paper an argument directed towards Jim's prejudices. By the way, I don't use the term 'prejudice' in a perjoritive sense as I am aware that we are all subject to varying degrees of cognitive blindness (i.e. we are unaware that in some domains we don't know that we don't know). I have great respect for Jim and I welcome his thought provoking comments and arguments. I especially appreciate his intolerance for bullshit, even if his definition of bullshit is based on an interpretation of reality with which I disagree.

Thanks for your comments.

Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 04:25:30 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Well, bye then. I'm leaving
Message:

You said: ''Fuck off.''

I say: ''Good advice. I'll take it. Thanks.''

In an thread below you say this to Dog but I know that it also applies to me:

''The problem with what you say, Dog, is that you're avoiding some pretty basic facts. Maharaji demanded a certain level of trust and obedience that you never gave. Thus, you weren't really a premie or, if you were, you were, at best, marginal. Indeed, he himself said exactly that a number of times, you know, 'just because you've received the techniques ....' The trip was to surrender to him and you balked. You can say what you want but the fact is you didn't trust him as much as he demanded and you were able to obfuscate the matter enough in your head that it's all mush now. You can't leave because you didn't properly enter. You're confused.''

Here's what I said in my first post: ''I never really got into it that deeply. I guess I am an un-premie.''

I never did surrender the reins of my life to Rev Rawat therefore I do not qualify as an ex-premie. I guess that's it in a nutshell. Thanks for clarifying it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 17:13:53 (GMT)
From: Postie
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: No, no, no Conlon
Message:
You can't just leave like that. Forum 5 needs a whole brain to function properly. If you check out, it would be like having part of the right brain cut out and tossed to the dogs. Just because the left brain needed some excercising, doesn't mean the right brain needs to split.

Go do some Old Fogey Armchair Yoga and then come back.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 18:53:47 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Postie
Subject: Thank you, Postie NT
Message:
x
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 16:59:16 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Waiting the word of the Master
Message:
Pat, to be fair and accurate about this, there must be several definitions of 'premie'. You know, like in many things, one could say 'there are premies and then there are premies' and it would mean something. When Maharaji said shit like that -- 'you're not REALLY a premie unless .....' -- he meant something. Some of us strived for years to always, always be at least in the running for that 'REAL' designation. You know, 'waiting the word of the Master'? Did you wait the word of the Master?

Dog didn't. Lots of people didn't. Then again, lots of people did. Let's not obscure that difference too, huh? I mean, it only makes a difference now, I think, when people like Dog use their marginal involvement as an excuse for Maharaji's oppression. You know, arguments along the lines of 'well, he never got any of it on ME...' Makes me want to say, 'Yeah, sure, but you were hiding in the shadows, weren't you?'

Fortunately for you, like many others here who never really 'waited the word fo the Master', you're honest enough to see that he did indeed demand a certain fealty you never mustered. That's of assistance to YOU because it helps you see the cult for what it is, see the cult leader for what he is. So it's a bit of a non-issue with you. Dog, on the other hand, tries to make his life in the shadows a justification for continuing to dance with Maharaji. Why? Because he never really danced with Maharaji before and now the dance is so obscure it's hard to say when it starts and when it ends. It's mush, especially if you want it to be mush which is what most PWKs seem to want these days. Maharaji does, that's for sure.

Too bad you didn't respond to my post to YOU rather than the one to Dog. I told you to 'fuck off' because you damn well asked for it. Hey, do you think you could talk to any of your street-smart, real-world, get-out-there-and-really-have-a-life people like you talked to me, a lily-white, cloistered, immoral creep like myself and gotten any different reception? I doubt it.

But let's talk about what we were really talking about before you took that tack. I say that if one really thinks that Knowledge can do what Janet claims, then it must be consciously weilded by some sort of spiritual force and that does raise some very serious questions about Maharaji. How could he NOT be a real guru if he's the one the conscious spiritual force uses to contact people?

This is a simple, fair question and there's not reason to go ballistic on me or to start pontificating about my supposedly-sheltered life as opposed, say, to the real vibrant existence of you wonderful Californians. Listen, Pat, I lived in L.A. for nine years before I came up here and I know your argument's bullshit. You owe me an apology although I don't expect it, not in the current climate of the forum. But you do.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 17:13:24 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Waiting the word of the Master
Message:
Jim:

Just to butt in here: I say that if one really thinks that Knowledge can do what Janet claims, then it must be consciously weilded by some sort of spiritual force and that does raise some very serious questions about Maharaji. How could he NOT be a real guru if he's the one the conscious spiritual force uses to contact people?

I actually had a rather lengthy conversation about this with David Lane. The gist of the conclusion was that there's nothing to prevent 'The Lord' from using buttholes to propagate some aspect of His message, or for any other purpose. A lot of people seem to implicitly accept this notion because of their experience with people like William Schockly, who was perfectly capable of inventing the transistor while harboring completely implausible notions about Caucasian racial superiority. Similarly people seem to put a lot of weight in the observations of a butthole like Jobst Brandt, about everything having to do with the sport of cycling, when in fact all he really knows anything about is building wheels. One could rightly observe that Schockly is not really an authority on race, that Jobst shouldn't be given credence regarding cycling or racing in general, and that Maharaji should not be listened to when it comes to the right way to live. So, it seems that the only real requirement for propagating a technique that might have some utility for spiritual insight (subject to argument with relevant criteria) is the desire to exploit it systematically, and the capacity to do so. Who'da thunk that God was a capitalist, huh... besides Max Weber, I mean? Now, in keeping with Michael's methodology I'll admit that this is an assessment of the implications of Weber's assertions about the nature of rationalization. I think it's at least plausible though, and that's all it needs to be to give you a shove.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:44:06 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim - Waiting the word of the Master
Message:
Jim, since you are talking about me, let me put in my own two cents worth.

I think, when people like Dog use their marginal involvement as an excuse for Maharaji's oppression. You know, arguments along the lines of 'well, he never got any of it on ME...' Makes me want to say, 'Yeah, sure, but you were hiding in the shadows, weren't you?

Yeah, I've been hiding in the shadows for 25 fucking years. How long did you last? Eight?

Fortunately for you, like many others here who never really 'waited the word fo the Master', you're honest enough to see that he did indeed demand a certain fealty you never mustered.

Once again, I've been true to Knowledge for 25 years Jim. That's not fealty? That's loyality writ large my friend.

Dog, on the other hand, tries to make his life in the shadows a justification for continuing to dance with Maharaji. Why? Because he never really danced with Maharaji before and now the dance is so obscure it's hard to say when it starts and when it ends. It's mush, especially if you want it to be mush which is what most PWKs seem to want these days. Maharaji does, that's for sure.

Life in the shadows? Okay, I never really danced with Maharaji, I don't like dancing with guys, hey I don't even like dancing with my wife.

How could he NOT be a real guru if he's the one the conscious spiritual force uses to contact people?

He is a real guru, just get him down off the pedestal and trust your own experience.

You know, if Knowledge is such bullshit why did you stick around for eight years Jim? I know at least 10 people who received K meditated for about a week and a half and then dropped it. What made you stick around for as long as you did?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 17:31:23 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Jim - Waiting the word of the Master
Message:
Dog:

Once again, I've been true to Knowledge for 25 years Jim. That's not fealty? That's loyality writ large my friend.

Well, it pales in comparison to the loyalty of some Soviet Marxists in the 20th Century. I think Jim's point is that, had you been willing to put yourself closer to the critical nexus you wouldn't still be around. More to the point, 25 years of masturbation doesn't make you an expert lover.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:15:38 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Scott - Waiting the word of the Master
Message:
We are not talking about jerking off here Scott, we are talking about living in the Spirit. There is a difference.

-- Dog

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 18:51:44 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I do apologise, Jim
Message:
You said: ''Listen, Pat, I lived in L.A. for nine years before I came up here and I know your argument's bullshit. You owe me an apology although I don't expect it, not in the current climate of the forum. But you do.''

Yes, Jim I do owe you an apology. I unfairly used you as a scapegoat or symbolic objectivist whipping-boy and directed many ad hominems towards you that do not apply to you personally.

PS LA is not at all like San Francisco. LA is part of the USA. SF almost isn't. You probably wouldn't like it here very much. There are only two Republicans out of 750,000. Those are my two little old Irish lady neighbors. But they are old-fashioned freedom-loving Lincoln Reps - well, I think they voted for him.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 02:05:48 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: One foot out, one foot in .....
Message:
Thanks, Patrick, but, in a way, no thanks. First, I know San Francisco and hung out there several times when I lived in L.A. Maybe you could have asked, huh? Second, you don't know what MY L.A. was all about, do you? Again, you could have asked. Third, you have no idea what I did, who I did it with or the like when I was in San Francisco, L.A. or the moon for that matter. 'Symbolic objectivist whipping boy' is right. Now cut that out please! :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 02:58:30 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Objectivism is not dogmatism
Message:
Jim, I just can't resist this little dig: ''What's the difference between your subjective LA and everybody elses' objective LA?'' I know, I know. I'm not the semantic nitpicker. I know what you mean.

I do realize that I walked away from a discussion with you and that I do owe it to you to address your arguments but I was somewhat put off by your dogmatism.

I can only guess at why you are so dogmatic. I was not here when EPO first started and I have no doubt that you had to do battle with some pretty outlandish and arrogant subjectivism that was based on the shared assumptions of premies regarding ''spirituality.''

Eventhough I subscribe to what you would consider some fairly outlandish ideas myself (yoga, polytheism and psychedelism) I probably would not have had the patience to deal with it. Instead of persisting in putting forward arguments against entrenched beliefs I would have probably retreated. I am hoping that your dogmatism is simply the result of your having had to be stubborn and uncompromising in your defense of rationalism and is not an incorrigible character flaw.

It is because I gave you that benefit of the doubt as to the cause of your dogmatism that I have never before challenged some of your more outrageous assertions which bordered on bigotry until yesterday. I also hesitated to challenge your defense of rationalism because you are greatly outnumbered not only on FV but in the everyday world of apathetic and unexamined thinking and fuzzy ''feelings.''

And I still don't either expect or wish you to be any different from what you are. I know that I need you to challenge some of my lazier thinking and keep me on my toes. If you were not here I would have to reinvent myself as the objectivist curmudgeon of FV just because I cannot stand unchallenged assumptions. And yes I can, if I want, be a stubborn nitpicking objectivist and often have to be in my business especially when dealing with lawyers and realtors.

But I have posted here with all my contradictoriness and willingness to stick my neck out and be misunderstood and make awful mistakes and learn from them. I am neither a subjectivist nor an objectivist but a scholar perhaps a synthetist or holist (in the true meaning of the word as it was first coined and used by my great uncle, Jan Smuts, in his 1926 book ''Holism and Evolution.'') I just want to learn and approach this world with an open-mind.

The reason that I talked about Aldous Huxeley was because he embodied that open-minded scholarship. He was born into an atheistical family of scientists and started his career as a writer who had no patience with shared asumptions whether social, political or psychological and he made his name by being a scathing satirist culminating in ''After Many a Summer Dies the Swan'' which you also enjoyed and which is a merciless parody of California New Agism and snake-oil ''scientism.''

Huxley never closed his mind to learning and he was just as willing to satirize his own shortcomings, admit the error of his ways and revise his thinking accordingly. After he wrote ''Doors of Perception'' he became the guru of psychdelic experimentation. The devotees that surrounded him were so idealistic and utopian that he was affected by their enthusiasm and wrote ''Island.''
That book drew even more idealists but also a lot of kooks and he began to back away from his own devotees because they were painting him into a corner.

This information is contained in a book which I have just started reading, a biography written by his second wife, Laura. Huxeley died with as open a mind as he lived. He retreated from his devotees because they wanted him to provide answers while he was willing to live with questions and to die with them.

I started this thread in the hopes that others would see the value in keepng an open mind and seeing at least two (if not more) sides to every thing. It was not a defence of Janet's subjective experiences but simply a defense of her style of expression. I will dismiss out of hand any cliche-ridden rendition of subjective perception but applaud any original and brave attempt to do so. I also had no intention of attacking you but found that I went that far because of my growing irritation with your dogmatism.

My attacks were unfair and I have apologized for that but I cannot back down from my contradictoriness. I believe you are overly dogmatic but am glad that you are. I believe that Janet is overly subjectivist but I am pleased that she tries to ''see the world in a grain of sand and heaven in a wild flower.'' (Your friend, Barry, also likes Blake.) I prefer to look at the world in a Rashomon-like way than to only ever see one side.

Which brings me to your either/or stance on Maharaj Jism. You say that, if Knowledge is a ''spiritual bounty'' as Janet and Sandy et al claim, then Maharaj Ji must be the donor of that bounty. I ignored that part of your post because it was not what I had in mind to discuss when I started the thread and also because I would have to address it from my perspective as a practioner of yoga which I felt you would not even be willing to listen to. I will address it now.

Because ''spiritual'' experiences are necessarily highly personal and therefore subjective, I can only speak for myself not others. I became interested in yoga because of my psychedelic experiences and through the writings of people like Huxley. I did three of the kriyas for two years before I got Maharaj Ji's ''Knowledge'' and found what I was looking for before I met him - a way of purifying my own consciousness.

When he came along I experienced him as a great yogi (one who has woken up and is fully aware) and I became his student. I tried the devotion aspect of Maharaj Jism but was held back from giving myself completely to him because I had already been severely heart-broken several times before as only a sentimental sissy can be and also, to be frank, because I did not find him physically or intellectualy attractive. Each time (twice) that I felt that I could ''surrender'' more to him by moving into the ashram, I balked at the last minute because I could not bring myself to trust the bureaucrats like Rev Smith.

I still think that he may be a great yogi (but I believe in yoga) and I also believe that he may indeed be Balyogeshwar (born lord of yogis) and therein lies the weakness. He was born to a yogi and raised by yogis in an ashram. He absorbed it by osmosis and therefore has never had to learn anything and therefore does not know how to teach. Good teachers are usually people who have started from a point of ignorance and advanced to knowledge. He is also flawed in his character and is lazy, corrupt, irrepsonsible, insouciant and greedy and, in the past few years, I have felt that he may even be loosing much of his yogic power.

My beef with him is that he is an incompetent teacher and an amoral person. What he calls ''Knowledge'' is known more traditonally as satchitanand (pure or clear consciousness and bliss) and he has deliberately mystified that. But it is not his ''Knowledge'' nor are the yoga techniques his, nor are the techniques the only way to achieve pure consciousness, nor is he entitled to call consciousness ''God,'' nor has he any right to call himself the ''Master.''

He is a religious huckster on a par with televangelists and is selling revivalist auto-suggestion and mass hysteria as the truth or knowledge of God. Like all priests, preachers and other God-vendors he is deliberately using secrecy, deception and obfuscation in order to make it appear more complicated and mysterious than it is and thereby to make money out of it.

There is no big deal to attaining peace of mind, clarity and contentment. It already exists. Yoga (or whatever other practice one uses) is simply the means to ''maintain'' mental health not to attain it. Maharaj Jism is a load of nonsense but I even hesitate to criticize premies because I'm a firm believer in the ''whatever yanks your chain'' school of thought. However I would like to see Mr Rawat be held accountable for whatever crimes and other trespasses he has committted against the people he has hoodwinked.

As I said I have hesitated to address this subject before bcause I can only talk about it as a practioner of yoga and that would necessitate explaining what I mean by that and I am very cautious about discussing it except with another consenting adult in the privacy of my own home as I do not want anyone to think that I have found answers when all I can really offer are more questions. I have no intention of being a teacher. There lies the slippery slope to dogmatism.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 07:04:27 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Objectivism is not dogmatism
Message:
Pat:

I collect posts, as a way of accumulating insights into this issue of charismatice leadership, but most of what I capture has to do with dialogue I'm participating in. I've kept two of your posts so far, because I think they're right up there with the best the forum has produced. And this is not a group of slugs either. Just wanted to let you know, a second time, that I appreciate your contributions.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:03:39 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: For crying in a bucket, Scott T
Message:
How the hell I am supposed to kick the FV 'spice' habit if I get flattery from the likes of eggheads like you. Anth knows I'm really only a frustrated quarter-Irish rhymster.

I had an idea tonight of a discussion between Plato and Socrates, in archetypical forms of course, concerning Maharaj Jism. Ideally it would be like the 'Symposium' with others joining in. I of course have first pick and would choose to be Socrates who represents the man of feeling in opposition to Plato's man of intellect - hopefully you.

And then I read your post where you say: ''I collect posts, as a way of accumulating insights into this issue of charismatice leadership, but most of what I capture has to do with dialogue I'm participating in.''

This thread, at Jim's insistence, has turned on his statement: ''I was saying that IF one assumes that Knowledge packs this big magic punch (like Janet described) and IF one assumes that Maharaji gave it to them, then, like I said, it's Turner time. In other words, on those assumptions, Turner's got it right and who can say otherwise? For those of us already firmly of the belief that Maharaji's a scam, there's still the question of what exactly K is.''

Socrates would say: ''Radhasoami guruism does indeed pack a big magic punch. Maharaj Jism is firmly in the tradition of the religion of bhakti/jnana yoga (simply the Hindu word for religion meaning union.) In that religion there is a tradition that the guru power, which is passed on, becomes more powerful all the time. The power is known as the Name. The Name is a feeling which is transmitted from guru to premie via shaktipat (contact high.) Maharaj Ji did indeed inherit the power of shaktipat and it was already built into the organization which his father had created and which he brought with him to the west in the form of his mahatmas. He did indeed give us a big magic punch. He is indeed a master, a great yogi. It was a three ring circus.

''BUT, it is not, as Jim believes, 'Turner time' (meaning I assume - Jim set me straight if I've got this wrong and if you're reading this, which I doubt - that we need to then enslave ourselves to a great yogi just because he gave us a big magic punch.) Why should we? If that big magic punch turned out to be that the very mortal Capt Rawat is greater than god then so are we.

''As a firm believer that all men are created equal I cannot imagine a GOD who would not create everything in its own image to be part of it and to have the potential and intelligence to know and understand everything including its origins. My same democratic convictions do not allow me to set any other human being or animal above me as a god. I cannot call any man Master. And of course it is inaccurate to use the word GOD to mean an original creator. It simply means a human being who has attained immortality. The gods are subject to the same laws as human beings and are also punished for hubris.

''All that remains is to answer Jim's question. 'What exactly is Knowledge?'

''I would answer: I cannot say that Knowledge is GOD. I have my ideas about the origins of this universe but they are theories and I would prefer to know than to conjecture and I am definitely pursuing that subject. All I can say about Knowledge is that it is ecstasy. Not all humans have been satisfied with ecstasy and some have sought and found satisfaction through philosophy.

''I have chosen ecstasy and follow in a long line of human beings who have done so since Dionysus and Shiva. Whether that ecstasy is biochemical or 'spiritual' is of no consequence to me because I do not see a separation between my body and my consciousness. I know I am not immortal. Since Gilgamesh found and lost the Flower of Everlasting Life men have sought immortality but have failed. So I will eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow I may die.''

I wonder what Plato, the cool intellectual, would say.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 04:42:04 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Jim, behind his back.
Message:
Pat, even though I like Jim and had a great time when I visited him in Victoria, I too became extremely irritated with his hard core dogmatism.

His training as a lawyer affords him a great advantage in argumentation and of course, that's his stock-in-trade. He is a master at twisting another's words around and making them sound like something you never intended, and that is a real plus in the court room as a defense lawyer. However, here I think it is unfair and Jim uses it almost sadistically to wound the people with whom he disagrees.

Of course, I'm an asshole too and I really don't need Jim to change for my sake. But I think he should be aware of the pain and frustration he causes, which is way out of proportion to the topic being discussed. This also puts a severe crimp on what people feel free to say and is an inhibiting factor with some people as to whether or not they will participate here.

I appreciate Jim's positive contributions but have to wonder where the balance lies and whether or not the good he does outweigh the the 'bad.' Fortunately it's not my call and I don't need to start any campaign. I just wanted to say 'I feel your pain.' We all have our hissy fits over Jim. You weren't around when I went postal on the lad. It wasn't pretty.

OT--I loved Huxley's book After Many Summers Dies the Swan. Thanks so much for recommending it. Don't know how I missed it. Also I've got to read Laura's book now. That's your fault too. You've been a bad influence on me, see? But you'll never get me to show you mine SO FORGET IT !!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 09:26:02 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Gerry, I need Jim to balance my flights of fancy
Message:
I also appreciate not only your sympathetic comments to me but your uncompromising approach and Hamzen's trainspotting cynicicm and Joe's sober assessments. I need all of those to balance out my Hindu hippie polytheistic imagination.

You said: ''I appreciate Jim's positive contributions but have to wonder where the balance lies and whether or not the good he does outweigh the the 'bad.'''

The balance lies in opposition - in dialectics. The truth is often arrived at by synthesis of opposites which is why Plato is still so enjoyable to read after 2,500 years.

PS I think you just did show me yours. Thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 19:15:16 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Patrick, with all due respect
Message:
You don't 'need' Jim or anybody else. You are just fine who you are, and if by discussion with others you change your opinions, well fine, but you will probably change others as well, maybe even Jim.

I don't think you any longer need to be purified, corrected, set straight (not that that would be possible) or anything of the kind. We had quite enough of that in the cult.

Can't wait to come by again for some of that great South African wine.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 20:51:18 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Thanks, Joe, you are right
Message:
No, I don't ever let people tell me what to think anymore but I value criticisms of how I communicate those thoughts. Also I do have a tendency to think out a loud and experiment with ideas. It's good for me to be laughed at if my ideas are fallacious.

Just let me know when you want to drink some more liquid sunshine from South Africa and I'll roll out that red carpet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:00:02 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Well, bye then. I'm leaving
Message:
Pat:

Look, I'm not sure that surrendering your life out of fear really counts as devotion... and there appears to have been a lot of fear involved in the growth of the ashram population after 1978 (or thereabouts). I never became 'austere' or even 'servile.' Sort of had a different philosophy about it. Ask Mike Armstrong, the wimp. :-) So, you shot yourself in the foot instead of the head. Nice going.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 04:31:53 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: that is bullshit Pat
Message:
Especially if you are letting Jim of all people run you off here.
I never got into it 'deeply' but I stayed into it a hell of a lot longer than Jim and a lot of these people. I figure quantity = quality in the end. especially since quality in this respect means shit.
don't leave because you got stung it happens to the best of us, why even me :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 18:56:19 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Thank you, Selene
Message:
No, Jim's not running me off. I think he gave me very good advice. Happy belated birthday. I'll miss your Aquarian camaraderie.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 21:37:19 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Pat, take a break if you need to, but please...
Message:
...don't leave forever. Unless of course that is what you really WANT to do.

Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:19:39 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Thanks Katie, can't leave - I'm in love with Jim
Message:
and you and about twenty other people here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:00:40 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: You go, girl!
Message:
Life is messy! Jism on the plexiglass, blood on the tracks, all synapses out of control on stage on call onward and upward excelsior...

And, to my mind, even in the calm moments at work, at home, there is so much more going on than can be described in prose or even in poetry. But hail to those of us who try to give voice to the ultra-human need to make sense of it all!

So count me in for cutting some slack for those who attempt to explain the unexplainable...which, by the way, would include cutting some slack for scientists/legalists like Jim, who are surely aware that the universe is beyond our ken (at least for the time being, if not theoretically).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 19:35:20 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Gregg
Subject: Thank you, Gregg
Message:
You said: ''So count me in for cutting some slack for those who attempt to explain the unexplainable...which, by the way, would include cutting some slack for scientists/legalists like Jim, who are surely aware that the universe is beyond our ken (at least for the time being, if not theoretically).''

Absolutely. My intention was never to take sides but to show that there are always at least two sides. My personal taste does not stretch to extremism of any sort and actually am I quite comfortable living with inexplicable mysteries, paradoxes and seeming contradictions and all the other general messinesses of this funny fractal universe in which we live.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 17:00:06 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Gregg
Subject: a scientist?
Message:
Jim's not a scientist.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 21:40:00 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: hey you Pat Conlon
Message:
you said
But that's fine as long as you realize that this forum will always JUST be a place for Jim and Selene, or Jim and Janet or Jim and Turner/Sandy to take potshots at
each other while the rest of us watch the interactive soap opera called Forum Five with wry amusement.

You forgot lots of others. Are you really including me in this mess ? oh well I guess I deserve it. the soap who will only grow IMO. Based on the history.

Selene who is half Irish and proud of it and thinks Irish people aren't really white int he sense you use it and Selene who doesn't understand why this has to be an issue but it obviously is

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 21:17:05 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: 'lily-white middle-class sensibilties'
Message:
'lily-white middle-class sensibilties'? - hey, I thought Jim considers that to be MY (quote 'knee-jerk') territory?

Whether or not Jim and his 'original thinkers' have their own 'deceitful strategies required to operate smoothly in their own rather buttoned down socio-political world' is something that Forum V can/might/ dare I say should? take on at their own pace, but ...

I'd like to say that I enjoyed your post, Pat,
(and I promise not to take sides on this - and, in the unlikely event - but who knows - of me telling YOU to fuck off tomorrow, you'll know it's because I feel like I mean what I say!)

PS I wonder how Jim took Saturday's thread about the Iraqi bombing? (it was deleted by FA before I got to read the weekend's responses).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 21:24:38 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: cq, so far I have not been able to disagree
Message:
with any of your posts and always enjoy them. And I'm not really taking sides either. I prefer to hear both sides.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 21:34:02 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Don't worry, Pat, the time will come ...
Message:
... or is that the kind of self-fullfilling prophesy that Jim has (subconsciously?) decided to see to its fruition?

I don't have a problem with people finding fault with my posts. In fact, if there are faults in my reasoning/logic then I'm grateful to those who point it out.

It's when people expect my reasoning to be faulty - that's when knees start jerking (probably on both 'sides')

The learning never stops. (or should I say, if it does, I'm in deep doo-doo).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 10:52:33 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: i just came back on-didnt know i was the subject
Message:
of such a hot debate.that said--let me elucidate my stand on this a little more.these techniques have existed for thousands of years. prem pal singh rawat has existed for 43 years.prem pal himself did not sit down with me in person and lay his hands on me and show me these techniques. he was no krishna to my arjuna. when he did finally show them to me in person, I had been doing them for 14 years the way i had been shown to, and it didnt make any difference.anyone with a human body can do these techniques. it doesnt matter how they get em or who they learn them from. like any yoga practice or biofeedback practice, they will have some effect on the person doing them, to varying degrees.the techniques, by the fact of their existence for thousands of years, predating prem pal, by definition are not some hokum he dreamed up to sucker people in. they were found by experience, eons ago, along with many other peculiar postures and breathing focus concentrations, by practitioners of various body and spirit disciplines. call it yoga, call it chi, whatever. it isnt hokum and it isnt prem pal's invention.i cannot deny that i had years of helpful experience with the techniques, not every day and not with each one every tme, but each one at its own time made a vast difference in my state of being, taking me from a state of distress, or high stress, to one of extraordinary difference. i cannot deny that sometimes, there was a genuine craving, to just let go and be pulled into whatever inner realm was calling me to go. there were other times when i tried to use those techniques to flee, and hide from external conditions, that demanded appropriate external action, and response in order to solve, and I learned to stop hiding my head in the sand, cowering from them, and to stand and answer.i now sneer at the use of the all purpose, lying term 'lila'. i have shattered and done away with too many guises of abuse that were perpetrated upon me, to ever tolerate that scam again. nobody plays games with me. period. not you, not him, no one. i want it real, or get out of my way; you're wasting my time here.i feel, that in retrospect, my adolescent despair for the state of the world was co opted, and perverted towards this disingenuous guy's megalomania. i think he came west, and saw what he could have for the taking, and did somethng with his father's command that his dad never intended. if he manages to carry it to the point of global satellite public access, he will still be fulfilling his father's command, and rewarding himself obscenely for doing so, all along the way. i have spent years, learning to identify and cut apart enmeshment, and codependency, and the subtle tricks of the abusive state of entrapment. I have no trouble separating prem pal from the techniques, or the experience i got from doing them. I don't worship the postman for bringing me a package do i?I don't idolize my landlord for sheltering me, do I?I don't follow the surgeon who operates on me and saves my life, do I?Do you?Our own mothers and fathers, who bring us into the world utterly helpless ans vulnerable, who feed, shelter, protect and teach us, aren't worthy of such servile devotion, in time. We begin rebelling in adolescence, seeing their flaws and errors, and from there, it can go anywhere-- from utter severance, to ultimate reconciliation as fully individuated adults on our own terms.We also pass through periods of seeing others in utterly unrealistic terms of idealization, from infatuated crushes on those we imagine we love, to fantasies about celebrities, to unwise relationships. We begin in illusion and we grow with each disillusionment. At the end of each, we are left with ourselves. And we take with us what we have learned.And every day the sun comes up, and a new day begins, and no one knows what the day will hold. The same day never dawns twice.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 20:52:39 (GMT)
From: Charles S
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Mistakes can show us what we REALLY value in life
Message:
Janet said:

''We begin in illusion and we grow with each disillusionment. At the end of each, we are left with ourselves. And we take with us what we have learned. And every day the sun comes up, and a new day begins, and no one knows what the day will hold. The same day never dawns twice.''

Thank you for that, Janet. Whatever we have been through as premies, I can't believe it was ALL for nothing. Mistakes are a part of learning. Life post M. is a new begining.

I really enjoy your posts. You have a way with words, and expressing feelings. I don't mind the lack of capitalization, but breaking it up into paragraphs, after you have written it out in your ''flow'', but before you post it, would help ENORMOUSLY. Your words would be so much more powerful, and appealing, with those breaks in between.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:23:20 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Charles S
Subject: time out for technical whining on this point:
Message:
this forum server messes with my posts. i write them out in excellent english. i proofread. i paragraph. i punctuate, i correct typos. i submit my post, and i get shown what it will look like when it goes up--SUPPOSEDLY.
SO I POST IT.

AND IT COMES OUT RUN TOGETHER AND A MESS TO READ.
THE SYSTEM LIES TO ME. WHAT IT SHOWS TO ME IS NOT WHAT IT THEN TURNS AROUND AND SHOWS ALL OF YOU WHEN IT PUTS IT UP.

IT IS ERRATIC, TOO. SOMETIMES IT IS FAITHFUL TO WHAT IT SHOWS ME, AND SOMETIMES IT DECEIVES ME.

WHEN YOU SEE IT COME OUT RUN TOGETHER , ASSUME IT IS THE SYSTEM AND NOT ME.

I WAS 10 POINTS OFF OF A PERFECT SCORE ON THE ENGLISH COMP PART OF THE SAT'S. I DO NOT WRITE IN CRAP.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:42:41 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: time out for technical whining on this point:
Message:
when i composed the above announcement, i did nothing different from what i am doing now. i did not have to go back and insert html tags to indicate breaks to the system reader. i did not have to go over my work 2 and 3 times to make sure it read like english.

i just typed it as i saw it on the screen, skipped the preview, and you see what went up.

if this one comes out differently, it will not be because of any error or change or laziness on my part. i can parse copy in html. i have used it on this forum and on our last server too.

this one seems to be better at faithfully conveying what i write, as i see it, directly up to the screen the same way it showed me it would look.

but not always. if that were always true, none of my posts would ever come out looking like the run- on one up higher. and i parsed that entry exactly the same way i am writing and looking at this one and the above one, now.

for the last time--

if it comes out run-on and unparagraphed, it is not my doing. i know how to write correct english. it is the server.

here-- you can bite this: the lack of capitals is mine. that much is in my control. you can yell at me for that, if you feel you must.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 11:08:47 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: HEY USE CAPITALS!!!!:-)
Message:
Janet said:-

here-- you can bite this: the lack of capitals is mine. that much is in my control. you can yell at me for that, if you feel you must.

Well, I don't know what you did with this post, but it was very easy to read. The lack of capitals just looks sloppy, but I can live with it:-)

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 17:07:30 (GMT)
From: Postie
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: janet: 1,000,000% better (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 16:04:15 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: icantreadtahtlongunbrokenstringofwords
Message:
Really, Janet -- enough's enough, huh? Everyone else seems to find a way to post so that other people can read their posts. What makes you so special?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:24:45 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Great post Janet!, but....
Message:
...I know you've been asked this before, but I really do wish you would take the time to format your posts. They really would be much easier to read. I know you have done occasionally, and I understand that you are sometimes 'in the flow', but please show a little more consideration for your audience.

I now make the effort to read your posts because I know there is usually content worth reading, but when you first started posting I didn't because it was just too much effort.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:03:14 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Your logic is unsound
Message:
Jim,

Let us assume for the sake of this argument that the meditation techniques can help us find something 'divine' inside us.

You then argue this implies that the person who taught the techniques must also be 'divine'. This doesn't follow. We already know that many people teach these techniques, so should we see them all as 'divine'? What if we learnt the techniques from a book, should we treat the author as 'divine'? At some point someone is likely to experience something having learnt the techniques from the EPO site. Does that mean that Brian and Katie are 'divine'? I actually was taught the techniques by Mahatma Gitanand. Should I view him as 'divine'? Those students of David Lane who experienced something did not, to my knowledge, view him as 'divine'.

No Jim, I can't see it. If the techniques can give a cosmic experience, then that does not imply that the person who taught them is something special.

Regarding the meditation experiences, my current position is that they are probably biological phenomena, but I really don't know.

John the Divine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 16:23:04 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: You're right, there's another step (or two)
Message:
OK, there's another step and that's this. IF you assume that your experience is an experience of God (better put it that way, rather than just calling it something more amorphous like 'spiritual magic') then you should conclude, based on what we mean by God, that God himself/itself/herself provided for the contact. Otherwise, God's just another commodity that really controls nothing. Why, it can't even control who's going to have life-changing visions of his/its/her beauty and who won't. No, that doesn't work. It especially doesn't work when one considers that people claiming such experiences -- me, for instance, back when I believed all that stuff -- are adamant about the 'grace factor'. You know, the feeling that this beautiful experience was indeed being 'given' and all that. Most, if not all, accounts of knowledge-related spiritual experiences vamp on that theme.

Janet's account is a prime example of this 'it-came-and-got-me' thinking:

...in later years it sometimes drew my consciousnsess together in an intensely concentrated way and seemed to raise my sensitivity to a finer ;level of perception

or:

the first time i plugged my ears and listened, i was sucked into successively more intricate levels of inner sound, one after the next, topping out at some faraway, edenic surroundsound with a corresponding place i felt and arrived in, inside my being. the outer worldwas gone for me , tho i was still sitting cross legged in the room with 25 others being initiated. and suddenly i was taken even beyond that level and felt as tho i was pulled into the vortex core of awareness, the mind of god, and knew all things in every place, the universe over. it was like an electrocution that didnt hurt but rather satiated my need to understand.

Clearly, for Janet, as it was for me and every other premie I knew, the Knowledge was a way to make myself available, ready and willing to be taken. But taken by who?

So here's the problem. Once you assume that there's this active spiritual power -- maybe that's all you need, forget about the word 'God' -- it all falls back on Maharaji. Like it or not, he WAS the one who ostensibly gave us this thing. No one else did. And if the thing is conscious, like Janet implies, then that must mean that the thing knew and intended that Maharaji would be its representative. That ends up being one strong endorsement for Maharaji, out come the lila arguments and yes, it's Turner time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 16:36:06 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You're right for the type of God you assume
Message:
Yes, if you assume that the God experienced in meditation is the type that makes detailed plans, then that plan must have included Maharaji being the agent for the revelation of the meditation techniques, and hence the experience.

But if we take the view that this God is not into the detailed planning as we imagine, but is just this cosmic conscious energy waiting for us little consciousnesses to find, then how the key to the experience is found becomes irrelevant, and I see no contradiction between being taught the techniques by Maharaji, experiencing God, and seeing Maharaji as a liar, a fraud, and nothing special.

But having said that, it's certainly a tricky and interesting theological question.

John

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:44:06 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: What Mishler said about premies
Message:
(And I know Jim doesn't agree with this either, but I think it's a good quote)

These people really do have an experience. They may be mistaken in attributing whatever inner spiritual peace they find within themselves to the guru. In fact, he really doesn't have anything to do with it, but they are sincere in placing their faith in him.

We must try to help them see that the guru really isn't responsible for whatever positive benefits they are deriving from their belief, and that therefore they shouldn't continue to allow their lives to be dominated by subservience to the guru.

Friends and relatives are going to have to try to understand the experience enough to be able to really relate to the people by not regarding them as mental defectives.

(From the Mishler interview.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 17:18:35 (GMT)
From: Postie
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Supreme Court Justice Mishler says it all! (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 18:30:00 (GMT)
From: Postie
Email: None
To: all
Subject: Time for another poll?
Message:
Do you believe 'God' exists?

If so, is it an 'active spiritual power' that can choose to act upon us mere mortals?

Or is it a 'cosmic conscious energy' that is just waiting for us to make use of it's power?

Or ...................................?

Essay question: How does the phenomenon of Maharaji and Knowledge fit into your belief system or theory?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 20:34:41 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Postie
Subject: Postie, Do you believe 'God' exists?
Message:
Q. Do you believe 'God' exists?

A. In the west ''God'' is used to describe an ''invisible power'' such as Yaweh or Allah. I don't believe in any uniformly and universally experienced concept of a ''higher power.'' The only ''invisible power'' that I can experience is my own consciousness. I don't know what that is but I'm exploring it.

I do think it is possible that human beings possess the intelligence to one day understand creation but in the meantime I do not want to attach primitve superstitious terms to it such as ''god.''

Essay question: How does the phenomenon of Maharaji and Knowledge fit into your belief system or theory?

M teaches yoga. Yoga is the art of becoming more conscious. He is not a good teacher.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 22:26:54 (GMT)
From: Postie
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Does 'God' exist?
Message:
Does God exist?:
I believe the universe and all it contains is the result of an ongoing 'creative urge'. I will probably be considering this question for at least this lifetime.

Connection to M&K?:
GMJ was the catalyst and focal point for my longing to know that 'creative urge'. It served my purposes at one time but doesn't now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 16:20:25 (GMT)
From: Lurker #27
Email: None
To: Postie
Subject: Does 'God' exist? God Schmod!
Message:
Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj

Eternal is He, Eternal is His Knowledge

If God is angry you have nothing to fear, for Guru will save you. So respect your Satguru wholeheartedly, and He will help you in every way.

God¹s mercy may come or go, it makes little difference, but without the Grace of Satguru, we are completely lost. I can give` up the Lord, but never can l forget my Guru.

I cannot see how God is equal to Guru, for the Lord gave us birth in this world, but Guru released us from the bondage of life and death.

God gave us five senses. Like five thieves, they are always eager to rob us. But it was Guru who saved us from being their helpless victims, by controlling our senses.

God cast a net of relatives over us, but Guru quickly cut the shackles of our attachments, and set us free.

God gave us disease and desire, but Guru purified us, and released us from every kind of bondage.

God deluded us with the chains of cause and effect, but Guru showed us the reality of the eternal Self, and we were freed.

God hid Himself from us, but Guru revealed His Light, and enabled us to recognise God.

God gave us the very ideas of captivity and freedom, but Guru dispelled all these delusions, and showed us the Truth.

=======================================================

God I love this stuff!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 16:29:05 (GMT)
From: Disculta
Email: None
To: Postie
Subject: Does 'God' exist? Deep thoughts!
Message:
Great stuff, Postie - let me quote you...

'I believe the universe and all it contains is the result of an ongoing 'creative urge'. I will probably be considering this question for at least this lifetime.

Connection to M&K?:
GMJ was the catalyst and focal point for my longing to know that 'creative urge'. It served my purposes at one time but doesn't now.'

I'm with you on this Postie. I've been exploring ways to take advantage of the creative urge by really flowing with it, and noticing the things that tend to block it. Not that you can stop it, but it can get uncomfortable.

I enjoy travelling over a wide swath of belief systems regarding this creative urge. For example, I just found myself in an environment (a healing seminar) where everyone was calling it God and even sometimes 'Jesus' and praying to it, and people had miraculous things happen. I enjoyed the God approach - it reminded me of the best feelings in my early days as a premie, when all sorts of miraculous things happened to me in the flow of life. Unfortunately, what I noticed was that I had severe resistance to the simple faith that was causing people around me to be totally healed of cancer without remission (and many other such miracles). This really pissed me off (my resistance) because it was directly related to my experience of betrayal and being used by MJ. Yet it was never really him I was praying to and who was answering my prayers.

I just grabbed a book from my bookshelf to quote something to you. It's called 'Prayer is Good Medicine' by Larry Dossey, the MD who has written several books about double blind studies proving that prayer works etc. etc. He talks about the various hypotheses for these nonlocal, possibly 'quantum' phenomena. Here: I'm going to write it out:

'But at the quantum level the mystery does not fade, it deepens. Quantum offers the illusion of understanding. Quantum is not a 'how.'

Other hypotheses for prayer exist. Some researchers in parapsychology have suggested that distant prayer is 'just' an example of psychokinesis, or mind over matter. But how does that work' others have suggested that the exchange of information, not energy, is involved in the action of intercessory prayer at great distances. Perhaps. But again, this seems to be replacing one unknown with another.

We probably won't know how distant prayer works until we understand how consciousness works, because love, empathy, and deep caring appear to catalyze or set the stage for prayer's effects. The search for an explanation for distant prayer is really a quest for understanding the ways of the mind.

In the light of our current ignorance in science about how distant prayer works, those who wish to believe 'God does it' should hold their ground. This explanation appears to be as good as any, and better than most.'

I especially love that last paragraph. Of course this doesn't mean I think premies should hold their ground. There is a human being using and abusing them and this is not healthy. However, the rest of reality is up for grabs, and I always go towards what feels the best, assuming that either impersonal evolutionary forces or the great God/dess will guide me through my feelings and desires.

So there are some deep thoughts for early morning.

Love Disculta

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 16:58:03 (GMT)
From: Postie
Email: None
To: Disculta
Subject: Deep thoughts indeed! Pertinent to CFS thread too.
Message:
Your post is food for thought on this fine morning.

'In the light of our current ignorance in science about how distant prayer works, those who wish to believe 'God does it' should hold their ground. This explanation appears to be as good as any, and better than most.'

I don't believe hardcore researchers and people of prayer (POPs) are at odds. Both groups are approaching the unknown with strong belief systems. It's certainly possible for scientific inquiry, at some future date, to map out the enigma we now call God in the same way the human genome mystery has been recently unravelled. The ancient Greeks thought Zeuss drove his chariot across the sky. Science proved them inaccurate but both the ancients and moderns were essentially describing the same phenomenon. Complying with scientific methods of his day, Leonardo DaVinci proved absolutely that the Earth's moon was covered with water. I think that as time goes on, the wall between the two 'sides' will vaporize and both will be at the same place.

Meanwhile, as always, we can each only do what seems best for us.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:36:46 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Postie
Subject: Deep thoughts indeed! Pertinent to CFS thread too.
Message:
Dear Postie,
Here's my answer for your poll:

Do I believe in God? Why?

Yes I believe in God. Why? Because without my belief I would kill myself, life would be too bleak.

Maharaji never contributed anything nor did he take anything away from my faith. I have always believed in God. Maharaji was a brief shopping trip in the spiritual supermarket of the 70's-80's that turned into a nightmare traffic jam resulting in a couple of severe body traumas. However, even though my faith in God wavers here and there it is pretty much a constant.

Helen

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 04:05:37 (GMT)
From: Postie
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: A brief shopping trip in the spiritual supermarket
Message:
Interesting reply Helen and thanks for your keen observations. Your posts have an intensity of purpose so I tend to read them. Glad you are here.

This belief in god poll should have been a new thread - sort of got lost amidst the various debates.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 21:37:45 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Postie
Subject: Thanks Postie (nt)
Message:
kfjfklsfj;
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 23:56:18 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: Postie
Subject: The human genome mystery......
Message:

.....hasn't been unravelled . Quite the contrary.

The fact that there are only 30,000 genes

deepens the bafflement.

This is far too few by a significant amount (tens of millions)

for them to be as important as all the hype around this subject has tried to make out.

The Horatios' have just been kicked in the goolies by their own method.

There's still more in heaven & earth than are dreamt of .... etc.

There are charlatans on both sides of the arguement is the depressing conclusion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 04:31:13 (GMT)
From: Postie
Email: None
To: Bin Liner
Subject: Human genome not that simple - thanks Bin (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 16:50:36 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: A) Is there another kind? B) Isn't that Janet's?
Message:
Gotta run!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 16:57:12 (GMT)
From: Barry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Mornen Jimbo!(nt)
Message:
mmm
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 00:14:09 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: sirdavid12@hotmail.com
To: Everyone
Subject: I have to post this
Message:
This is the reason why I started the contact message site. Just read Rocky's post on

Sergeant David's Lonely Hearts Club Band

I will move all the messages to some better software when I find some. Paradise/Hotboards does have limitations. For instance, a seachable database would be better. If anyone knows of one, please let me know.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 21:53:37 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Everyone
Subject: Amaroo and THAT invitation. How to act on it?
Message:
'All persons who have received the techniques of Knowledge are invited...' (to attend Amaroo). That includes me, you and exes everywhere.

When I received the 'techniques of Knowledge'[sic] I was assured 'Guru Maharaj ji' [sic] would always be there for me as guide, teacher, saviour, inner connection with 'infinite', God etc. We might turn our backs on Him, but Maharaji would NEVER turn his backs on us. Omnismelling, omnicrunching, fresh as an odour-eater, omniprecious and juicy, guru is ours for life and verse vicer.

Serious question: How do I get a smartcard?

I don't mean illicitly. There's no need for subterfuge: I am a legitimate delegate to the conference, event, wank-fest (or whatever it's known as nowadays) I would like to hear Maharaji's 'message' in real life. Hence I need a smart card. Who do I talk to?

Assuming Joe was also serious about that forum fund for sponsoring somebody (in the inactive) and assuming I would make an appropriate delegate..? Admittedly, after a couple in the bar, the odd half-remembered Larkin tune might issue forth spontaneously from the very bowels of my being, but if I owed a duty of gratitude to forum sponsors I could try to control myself and just keep it in. 'Go within' etc.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 23:25:16 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Nigel, you would be a great delegate
Message:
Sure, I would be happy to contribute and I think others would as well. Of course, you would deserve combat pay for doing something so awful.

Why not just apply for a 'smarcard?' See what happens.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:34:17 (GMT)
From: Know It All
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: We're still lining Rawat's pockets though
Message:
I am in favour of someone going to Amaroo. The problem I see is that you/we would still have to pay the $800 Rawat fee that is part of the cost of admission. It makes me choke to think we would be giving another dime to the charlatan.

What do you think about this, Nigel?

KIA

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 18:41:28 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Know It All
Subject: Remember the parable of the lost sheep?
Message:
remember how we used to sing 'I once was lost, but now I'm found' ???

and that parable - the one where the shepherd leaves the ninety and nine to search for the lost one?

Some shepherd the Maha is!

.
.
.

Do you think he could pay for just a couple of representative ex-premies to risk returning to the fold, by attending the Amaroo do?

(as long as it's not me!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:55:38 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Know It All
Subject: Can't you get in for free
Message:
if you join one of the slave labour gangs, and promise to work 18 hours a day for a cold plastic plate of rice and lentils, 'with a smile, because it's for heem.'

Anth the fugitive from Divine Justice

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:52:51 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: But Niegel
Message:
They have your picture. You are going to have to do something about it. A mask?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 00:16:46 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: What picture?
Message:
tell me more...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 01:30:44 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: What picture?
Message:
If I am not mistaken you posted Your pic here...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 02:33:38 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: SB
Subject: Oh shit - so I did...
Message:
Ok, EV - here's the guy to look out for on the door...

http://www.redcrow.demon.co.uk/articles/images/nobby2.jpg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 18:08:15 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Yeah, that's the picture
Message:
Now your plan isn't going to work!
:)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:00:16 (GMT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: How to act on it?
Message:
You need to go to a video meeting or whatever they call it and apply there. Ask for the smartcard synchronized team, make sure you take their name and phone number so you can contact them. Also you need to fill up a form of good behavior and a decleration stating that you will abide by the rules. You need to give them a thousands bucks as a bucksheesh, but only do that after your smart card is in your hand :)

EX-Premier political editor.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:55:16 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: salam and Niegel
Subject: How to act on it?
Message:
He can contact Elan Vital via e-mail and say that he just FOUND THEM, AFTER ALL THOSE YEARS!!! Like he was disconnected all that time.

lol

I think he is just fooling around.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:02:29 (GMT)
From: Barry
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: Bye SB, hey! Stay up on my band. Cool? Bye.
Message:
llll
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 00:04:07 (GMT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: Maybe
Message:
he is. But if he isn't I think he is known at EV.

I wonder what it takes to be good in EV's books. It's like that original sin, once out of heaven you've had it.

You listining EV, how do we come back to bozzom of the lord?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 00:07:23 (GMT)
From: sb
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Maybe
Message:
I guess I could be it. I still receive their divine mail.

Maybe because I was such a good servant those doors may open again for me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:05:46 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: How to act on it?
Message:
Thanks Salam. So how do I find a video meeting?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:32:37 (GMT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: you certainly need help
Message:
go to EV UK (I presume you live there) and look for something on the line of contacts, video presentation or events. You will either find a phone number to call, or you may get a listing of where the meetings are.

Have you contacted my representative in northern Europe, Anth? I also have another one in south of France, but he is always on the beach drinking wine and eating fish and chasing french women, his code name is JMKan. These two should direct you to the right team.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 22:54:51 (GMT)
From: Daneane
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Don't do it Nigel
Message:
They've got that new radar down there...they'll sense your active grey matter as soon as you exit the plane and know you are not pure.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 22:17:29 (GMT)
From: Coach
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Faster Than A Speedin' Bullet.......
Message:
Elan Vital UK Email Announcement - http://www.elanvital.org.uk

Amaroo International Event
24th - 27th April, 2001

Ivory's Rock Conference Centre,
Mount Flinders Road,
Peak Crossing,
Queensland, Australia

All people who have received the techniques of Knowledge are invited to attend this event. (including Scouser Nigel)

Amaroo Information Pack
An information pack concerning registration and reservations for on-site
and off site accommodation, international travel and ground transportation
is now available.

This information will be available at all local events, and at
www.events.elanvital.org and www.amaroo.org where you can find full
information about the event, register and book your accommodation online.

You can also request the Amaroo information pack from the Elan Vital
Office by fax on 01273 204337, or by post from Elan Vital, P O Box 999,
Hove, East Sussex, BN3 3HZ.

Smart Card
You will need a Smart Card to attend this event.

If you have not already applied, it is essential that you do so by 1st
March 2001 so that your card can be ready in time for the event.

Smart Card application packs are also available by request from
uksc@smartcarduk.co.uk and by post from the Smart Card office.

Please Post your application to the UK Smart Card office:
UK SmartCard Office, P O Box 1031, Corsham, Wiltshire, SN13 0RT.

Please write 'Fast Track for Amaroo' at the top of the application form.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 22:53:42 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Coach
Subject: Thanks, but please note...
Message:
I am not a scouser - but probably am an honourary one by now. Born in Leytonstone, east London.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:44:32 (GMT)
From: Coach
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: It's gettin' worse..
Message:
A Cockney Scouser. Only teasin', Nigel. Actually, to spend even a couple of days in the company of those stupid people would not be my idea of fun. Leave 'em to it. They're making a great job of self-destructing as far as I can see. No-one but no-one is even remotely interested in Maharaji or knowledge in UK. Latest thing I've come across is UK premies now have the opportunity to pay 125 sterling to attend a seminar in Leeds (Feb 10th, 2001) to teach 'em how to 'talk about knowledge.' That is premies cannot now be trusted to talk about their own 'experience' but need tuition. The question I ask is why? What's up. What's to hide? What's with all the control freakery.

Coach

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 22:15:39 (GMT)
From: gErRy
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Amaroo and THAT invitation. How to act on it?
Message:
Ah, lookin' to hitch a free ride back to Oz, eh Nigel. Transparent matey, bloody transparent. :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 22:38:40 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: gErRy
Subject: Not what you think...
Message:
I've decided to do Australia again this year for other reasons (and probably not the ones you think, either;). All I'd want from a forum fund would be admission fees. I'll sleep in a ditch, so bugger the $800 campsite. I'm good value, all round, I reckon.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 02:12:28 (GMT)
From: CW
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Not what you think...
Message:
So Nigel want's a Smart Card? Wants to attend the Event. Tell you what Nigel, I'll email you. You can be MY guest. I look forward to it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:12:00 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: Fuck off you brain-dead moron..please read...
Message:
Anth may vouch for you but all I see is an insipid bully/coward with nothing of substance to say but who loves to make threats at ex-premies (under a stupid alias, of course) to the same degree as he loves kissing fatso from behind.

Still it looks like some of us now know who you are. Would you like EV to know who you are? How about the forum regulars..?

BTW: There's no apostrophe in 'So Nigel want's a Smart Card?'


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:40 (GMT)
From: Cw
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Fuck off you brain-dead moron..please read...
Message:
Look Mr Abuse 2001 ,English Champion, I'd find that fascinating. Point being that they happen to be wrong and some-one else might suffer. Not unusual here.
But by all means make your way out there. I'll look out for you and extend you the hospitality you would expect.See you Nigel. It's always so pleasant.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:52:04 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Cw
Subject: And they might just be right, eh?
Message:
And since when did YOU care about anybody's suffering, Mr Anonymous? Fuck off.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 06:33:45 (GMT)
From: Cw
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: And they might just be right, eh?
Message:
Oh but I do Nigel . I do. And I see the sincerity in your anger. My offer is still standing. I will email you and you could tell me what you want.Or is it you that is gutless. Is it you that has become increasingly paranoid. I mean what the hell do you imagine the monsters from the cult will do to you. Suck your brains out with a vacuum hose and turn them into an intergalactic milkshake?
Try standing back and realising the bastards out there in the bush , ready to carve you up, hell, less than ten years ago you were one of them . So who is gutless? Gonna sneak in Nige? Or walk thru the front gate............
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 19:06:30 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Here's a good idea for Phase III
Message:
From the Times:

Cult scientists prepare to clone human baby

Lois Rogers, Medical Correspondent

WORK begins next month on creating the world's first cloned baby. It is intended to be given to a couple who want to recreate their 10-month-old son who died in a hospital operation.

The controversial process is being undertaken in America by a secretive commercial organisation called Clonaid, registered in the Bahamas.

A geneticist, a biochemist and an in-vitro fertilisation expert have been commissioned to produce a genetic copy of the dead baby.

The unnamed couple, described as deadly serious about their ambition, have paid £300,000 to fund the work.

Clonaid has recruited 20 egg donors and 50 volunteer surrogate mothers to carry the pregnancy. The clone will be created by inserting the nuclei of cells from the dead baby into cell 'envelopes' from the egg donors.

The project leader is Brigitte Boisselier, a French-born biochemist and scientific director of Clonaid. She has two doctorates and teaches chemistry at Hamilton College in New York state. She said the attempts at successful implantation will begin shortly, with the intention that the first cloned baby should be born by the end of the year. 'For us the purpose of this project is philosophical: to create eternal life,' she said.

Clonaid is owned by the wealthy Raelian movement, a religious cult which believes that all humans are cloned from a group of alien scientists from another planet.

A South Korean team already claims to have created a human cloned embryo, but nobody has attempted to implant it in a woman. Animal cloning has produced huge numbers of foetuses and offspring with gross abnormalities, and most scientists have shied away from the inevitable condemnation that would follow the creation of a deformed human baby.

Apart from cloning, the main preoccupation of Raelians is the creation of an embassy to welcome aliens arriving on Earth.

Unlike Britain, America has no legal ban on cloning but research has been hampered by a ban on the use of public funds. The country's Food and Drug Administration is monitoring the Raelian initiative.

Although some experts doubt whether the Raelians have the expertise to achieve success, others say it is simply a question of mathematical probability: 20 egg donors and 50 surrogate mothers would probably be enough.

The Raelians, who have 50,000 members worldwide including a number in Britain, are conducting the project at a secret location in America. Boisselier said 100 people have put their names on the waiting list for treatment, including five British couples, two of whom are homosexual.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 21:43:40 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What 're they gonna call the kid ?
Message:

Clonaid out of Raelian , gives Realclod .

That's bound to be a runner.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 21:19:40 (GMT)
From: Barry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Here's a good idea for Phase III
Message:
Jim! I am an ex raelian. I've never told you this before, for fear of your sticks and stones!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:26:40 (GMT)
From: Postie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Propogation could have a whole new meaning now
Message:
Amaroo - Day 3

'OK, all you blonde gopies walk through the blue tunnel over there while The Captain does Auto Knowledge into a jar.'

'Egg donors, line up in front of the special service tent.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 15:33:27 (GMT)
From: JTF
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Victims of premie sociopaths
Message:
As anyone knows who has studied behavior of cult members, sociopathic behavior tends to exist in a higher proportion within this group(which does include the rawat/Maharaji cult)than in the general population. The secrecy and fear of being able to speak freely are at least 2 reasons for this.

I am curious as to whether anyone out there knows of examples of these victims being given increased or more prestigious service opportunities as a hidden reward for their silence on matters such as being victimized by premie stalkers/rapists etc.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 21:27:07 (GMT)
From: Barry
Email: None
To: JTF
Subject: Victims of premie sociopaths
Message:
Ya! Want to hear some stories of reward vs. Catholic Church child abuse. Heres a pretty rosery now keep your mouth shut! The biggest kick ass cult in the world is sodomising innosence itself in exchange for cheap tringkets ( fuck I'm a bad speller!) I didn't even get a decent education out of those bastards!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 20:34:08 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: JTF
Subject: Victims of premie sociopaths
Message:
I'm not aware of premie stalkers or rapists, although there were some pretty strange and frightening premies.

I saw more psychological abuse. And I think the reason for this was that premies, especially ashram premies, were supposed to be surrendered and were very vulnerable to people who were given special 'service' by Maharaji. They pretty much had to take the abuse or risk being 'unsurrendered' to Maharaji and what he was giving them.

It might also be that Maharaji had been abusive to THEM, and they continued the pattern. We have heard numerous testimonies of Maharaji psychologically abusing people. I have recently been in contact with a PAM who hasn't posted before, and who has some stories to tell about that, which illustrate how Maharaji abused and terrified his followers, and I hope will be posting both his journey and other information soon.

Somebody down below mentioned David Smith, and I know I have said this before, but he was about the most psychologically abusive person in the entire cult, at least as I recall. He was given a position of power by Maharaji over ashrams and communities and proceeded to terrorize North America and Britain, to various degrees, over a period of years.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 16:30:13 (GMT)
From: Sandy
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Victims of premie sociopaths
Message:
Joe,

David Smith was my instructor when I received Knowledge. After reading about his international reputation for being abusive, I am thinking that maybe that's a contributing factor to my personal head situation. He got into my head when I was most open, most vulnerable, and most surrendered...the prep time approaching and including the Knowledge session. Back then, the instructor who personally revealed the techniques sort of became an icon in the image part of a premie's brain. 'Who was your instructor?' was a standard question at programs when premies would meet and greet each other. He definitely was strange, very quiet, but not in a comfortable way to be around. Some quiet folks are a pleasure to be around, but he put out a weird vibe.
I never sensed joy or happiness from him, even for all his professed devotion and his position. But once again, back then, we all were trained to question ourselves and not the program or the representatives of the Master.

Sandy

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 21:36:26 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Anyone could have waived the holy sword of truth
Message:
This is a bit misleading, I think, this individualized focus on premie abusers. Any one of us, at various times, abused the hell out of each other by simply perpetuating the anti-mind, anti-personality hindu garbage we called wisdom. Ann Johnson terrified some in her prime (not me, we got along for some reason). \Brian McDermott told me that I would have to wait seven years to renew my bond with Maharaji because I'd done mushrooms during my six month hiatus from the ashram. Think of what any of those Indians were telling us back in the day. It was all intentional anti-personnel material and we were the personnel. So we gave it and we got it.

Ironically, the only way people could claim 'clean hands' at all in this mess is if they never trusted Maharaji enough to become full-blowm premies to begin with. So that mistrust becomes the badge of honour a number of these marginal premies, like Dog perhaps, maybe CD, are so proud of to this day. Funny.

Okay, back to work -- I haven't forgotten, Joe.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:48:14 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Anyone could have waived the holy sword of truth
Message:
Jim, you said,

Ironically, the only way people could claim 'clean hands' at all in this mess is if they never trusted Maharaji enough to become full-blown premies to begin with. So that mistrust becomes the badge of honour a number of these marginal premies, like Dog perhaps, maybe CD, are so proud of to this day. Funny.

Interesting concept Jim, but I have a different take. First off I still consider myself a premie, always did, always will, I just did it my way. A part of me never bought into the bahkti trip with all that stuff about lotus feet and candle waving. It made me feel weird. I even felt a little guilty about it at times. You know, like I wasn't a company man, and wasn't with the program, maybe I was ungrateful.

You also said,

'To me, all the dirt on Maharaji is significant in that it really puts the heat on the lila theory. Makes one think hard about how we got into this shit in the first place. But so long as one respects K as spiritual bounty, I don't see how Maharaji himself can be far behind.

I value Knowledge to this day and am incredibly grateful I received it. Spiritual bounty yes, and Maharaji gave it to me so I guess I'm grateful to him. Trouble is I never associated the two to the extent you did.

If Maharaji fell off his yacht and drowned today, I could still meditate, couldn't I? So isn't it you know like my experience? What does he have to do with it?

My experience of K is one thing, and my experience of a guy living down in Malibu is something else. IMO the two things are different. I can hear about M doinking blondes and still have a good meditation.

Years ago I can remember an otherwise intelligent guy I know telling me that Maharaji had controlled the colors in the sunset he had just seen. I had to fight to keep from smirking.

And when ashramites (like you) would tell about the wonderful deal you got on a hotel room thanks to Maharaji's grace, I would often have a mild panic attack, because I would begin to suspect that I was hanging out with people who were deranged. I mean how could M have anything to do with a hotel room prices and vacancy rates?

No, I trusted the experience I had inside, that's all I trusted. And that's what I trust today. To thine own Self be true.

So it wasn't all wine and roses for me in those days. I was the outsider then. If it is a badge of honor, it's a badge I won unintentially and wear reluctantly. IMO the key is and will always be Knowledge.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:02:37 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Heard it all before, Dog -- you created the guru
Message:
The problem with what you say, Dog, is that you're avoiding some pretty basic facts. Maharaji demanded a certain level of trust and obedience that you never gave. Thus, you weren't really a premie or, if you were, you were, at best, marginal. Indeed, he himself said exactly that a number of times, you know, 'just because you've received the techniques ....' The trip was to surrender to him and you balked. You can say what you want but the fact is you didn't trust him as much as he demanded and you were able to obfuscate the matter enough in your head that it's all mush now. You can't leave because you didn't properly enter. You're confused.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 02:36:55 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Marginal Jim? I just didn't live in the ashram
Message:
Thus, you weren't really a premie or, if you were, you were, at best, marginal.

Marginal huh! I just didn't live in the ashram like 90% of the people who received K in the 70s. To classify us all as marginal is quite arrogant IMO.

Dog

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:14:27 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Come doggie, it was more than that
Message:
Dog,

There were all sorts of premies who didn't live in the ashram who still bit the biscuit, so to speak. You, by your own admission, didn't. Now come on, we gotta argue this one all over again? Sheesh!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 23:07:06 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: True, but the degree varied
Message:
I agree that the cult set up a format and a mindset in which we could, and probably all, were abusive at times, but the point I was making was that the cult environment allowed people who were predisposed to being abusive to have an excuse to be that way. This was because 1) just like fundamentalists the cult allowed people to use the belief system to terrorize people, and 2) people were vulnerable because they were trying to surrender.

I agree that no one has completely clean hands, but people like David Smith, Ann Johnston and others really did have the chance to excercise their demented mental problems on lots of people.

I think the thing with Ann was that she was a controlling bitch, but if you stood up to her, especially if you were male, you could avoid her wrath because she was also conditioned in her generation to be a submissive female, who was supposed to defer to men.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 16:42:22 (GMT)
From: I know
Email: None
To: JTF
Subject: Example; David Smith: Pay: Kiss his feet (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 17:57:19 (GMT)
From: Tim G
Email: |
To: All
Subject: David Smith story, the nerd
Message:
Late 70s I organised a visit of David Smith to my house. We were a small community around this remote and beautiful part of Ireland. Several premies from Dublin were invited too. I had to pick up David Smith from the train station and drive him the 60 miles to this house past the famous lakes over the mountain pass
and along the shore of the Atlantic ocean...still one of the most lovely drives on earth.
That Nerd Mahatma Smith told all the premies in the car to keep their eyes closed and be in 'Holy Name' (technique no.3 I believe) so that the Maya would not take them away from Guru Maharaj-Ji.
Meanwhile back in Malibu M was probably shagging some poor infatuated blonde gopi, who also had to close her eyes to remember Holy Name.
This David Smith behaved like a little Hitler and put off all the newcomers I had invited (THe Luckies).
Where is he now and how would he justify such behaviour?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 18:07:25 (GMT)
From: LOL
Email: None
To: Tim G
Subject: He doesn't have to justify his behavior
Message:
he is brainwashed that Lard is GOD incarnated.

He is mentally gone.
He is a real toe sucker devotee.
He is a nut.
He is an abuser.
He was programmed by the 'DIVINE LARD ORDERS'.
He is hated by many (most)premies.
He left a negative mark at every city he passed by.
He is an encarantion of 'hitler' (lol).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 05:42:01 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: LOL
Subject: He lost all his power if you didn't buy his bull
Message:
He would terrorize the ashram premies, get us together and scream at us about how we weren't devoted enough. He had one fit that was almost as good as M's Kissimmee arse ashram meeting tirade, 'SUCK THE RAT, IT'S FULL OF COCA COLA.'

David Smith (an instructor who will go unnamed called him Herr Schmitz) had the bros and sisters at an ashram meeting at Galewood Circle in San Francisco. He was going on and on with the psychological abuse, belitting all our efforts, saying the kind of words that were calculated to make everyone want to shrivel up and die and cry in our souls -- 'I am not worthy!' They he got on a manic tangent (he learned this cr*p at the feet of the Master, you understand) and started making fun of the ashram premies and their meditation blankets. He said that we dragged out little meditation blankets across the ashram floors until they were full of hairs and dust, just like horse blankets. Then he started yelling even louder about us neighing and braying through the house with our scummy little meditation blankets.

Instead of cringing in fear, I realized what a total pathetic cruel wanker he was. I never bothered to tell him. That would have been equally cruel, and I don't believe in tit-for-tat. As soon as someone told him satsang was boring, or that I didn't buy the whole ashram trip in a one-on-one meeting, he'd get meek really fast and listen to what I had to say. There was no use rubbing it in. I have nothing to go on but my own hunch, but I think someone with the smallest amount of personal power could break him in half. The only power M or the instructors had was that we thought we had to listen to them, and we assumed they were sane or knowledgeable human beings that had anything of value to teach us.

Yes, I found out they key was inside me, all right.

--f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 18:41:20 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: You had to step outside the belief system
Message:
I remember that 'satang' at Galewood Circle. It was the first time I had heard somebody say 'fuck' in satsang. I remember thinking 'what IS this guy so exercised about?'

David was about the most uptight, miserable person I ever met. If you did confront him, he usually did back down. You could kind of just reverse his spiel, saying he was a confused wanker just like the rest of us, so what could you do? But you had to kind of step outside the belief system to do that. You had to disagree with what he was saying, which was that you were supposed to be totally surrendered. Unfortunately, there were a number of premies who really tried to do what he said, and couldn't really resist his psychological abuse.

I remember when David Smith was really terrorizing the premies in San Francisco, I was community coordinator, and I remember calling up other Initiators and Coordinators, and they all agreed he was sick. But no one was going to cross him directly, because he supposedly had Maharaji's blessing to be that way. John Horton and Randy Prouty told me they thought David came from an abusive family, and that even his respiratory illness was psychosomatic, that he wreaked of paranoia.

I know it got around that I was bad-mouthing him, and a couple of months later he invited me to lunch to 'talk.' I was very skeptical, but it was in that conversation I told him he was mentally ill and had a streak of sadism in him that was very dangerous. He just looked kind of shocked, and really seemed to have no idea what a tyrant he was and how everyone hated him.

And I have said this before, that whole experience really made me question the whole 'Maharaji is taking care of me' belief that was the basis of the cult, especially for the ashram premies and the initiators. I made me really start thinking that Maharaji didn't have a clue what was going on with us and that he didn't care. It was the beginning of the end for me and the Maharaji cult.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 01:49:02 (GMT)
From: la-ex
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Joe-have youever told the wholestory on the forum?
Message:
Joe-

I was reading your post about David Smith, and was wondering if you have ever told the entire story on the forum.

I was interested in knowing more about the other coordinators and instructors assessments of him.

Have you ever told the whole story here?
It seems to have been a powerful turning point for you.

Just wondering,
La-ex

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 18:25:46 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: la-ex
Subject: Yeah, I think a number of times
Message:
I have told the story a few times, but maybe in pieces and not all in one place. Actually, Francesca, who witnessed much of the same stuff, has been talking about it and reminded me of a few things I had forgotten.

Most of the other initiators were too scared shitless to criticize Mr. Smith, I think because he had some power of them in the region in which he was Czar, but more for the same reasons that a lot of the ashram premies didn't stand up for themselves, because Smith was given his 'service' by Maharaji himself, and he had agya to 'clean things up.' So, by that logic, if you crossed him, you crossed Maharaji, the living incarnation of god on earth. What's a boy to do?

On the 'plus' side, one could also see David's sadistic behavior as the 'opportunity' to 'surrender to Maharaji,' (the living incarnation of god on earth.)

Most of the ashram premies, and a lot of the initiators were fairly fearful people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 01:00:22 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: I remember that period so well because ...
Message:
it was my breaking point. David S. made me community coordinator for all of a week or two (what was he THINKING?--part of his experimenting thing) and I fell apart physically because there was cognitive-mind-body-spirit dissonance at that point. By the time the catharsis really set in, Randy Prouty was there for a while (although I didn't discuss my potboiler with him), and then Smith came back. I was having informal exit interviews with everyone (including Smith) when I left the ashram because I was sick and couldn't leave until I could work part time (in order to keep a roof over my head). I'm kind of a talk it out person, and I also did not feel guilty when I left the ashram. I felt fine; I felt great about it. I did not feel like I failed anyone, including myself. I didn't feel inferior to ashram premies, like I wasn't pure enough. In other words, I was starting to listen to my inner voice. Several people who left before me were wracked with guilt. I tried to tell them not to buy into it.

One of my friends in the community took me in for cheap rent and I was outta there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 18:41:30 (GMT)
From: lol
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: He lost all his power if you didn't buy his bull
Message:
I can't, I don't want to get into details but I did screamed at him and told him to fuck off and that if he didn't I was going to write lard to inform him of his authoritative nut behavior.

The guy is nuts. He was always hearing the premies converstaions, interjecting, commenting always in what was been said, to put down somebody, often without knowing what we were talking about! You can imagine his surprise when I raised my voice. I guess he needed it. He never said nothing bad to me again. I had a 'position' of control in my community and he wanted to tell me what to do. He screamed and the phone to me also and I let him have it. It felt good! LOL

Yes, in a soft casual way he would always put guilt on the premies who were not 'doing' (giving$) enough. He pimps for Rat.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 06:16:19 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: He was a pathetic joke when I tracked him down
Message:
Try calling him now that you're out of the cult. I called him a couple of years ago and he was a pathetic, timid, wooden idiot on the phone. I was trying to get a message to his cult leader. I asked him if he could possibly assist. He was completely unable to carry on a regular conversation. I think I posted something about it then -- well, I know I did -- and will look through the archives when I get a chance because I can't remember all that much. Except that the guy was truly pathetic. Talk about paper tigers!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 04:06:14 (GMT)
From: bill--Yeah, dig that DS
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: post of your phone calls. It was good..nt
Message:
asdfg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 06:20:18 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Here's the post (June 1, 1997)
Message:
OP asked me to elaborate on my discussion with David Smith. First, he did NOT sound like he'd had a lobotomy. His diction was okay and ...well, how does someone sound when they've been lobotomized? I mean he was flat, impervious to reason and unexcitable. But I didn't hear any hospital sounds and don't they always institutionalize those guys? Hell, I don't know.
Anyway, did I say he was flat? Yes, but how flat, you ask. Oh my god! Two hands on temples (perhaps unconsciously protecting my own frontal lobes). Oh my god!

He had the curiosity of a bic pen. No, I want to be fair. Make that a cordless phone. I told him he was being villified for all the world to see right on this web site. That didn't phase him. He had no interest in checking this mess out. Such is the grace.

He told me he couldn't pass along a message to M. It wasn't his place. He knew his place and that wasn't it. He kept telling me to write him. I kept asking what if M didn't answer. He kept saying write another letter. (At one point I remember feeling grateful that I wasn't paying for this call). His interest in my end goal -- of establishing some communication with M -- was 'well-controlled' to say the least. To that end, did I say he was flat?

Mr. Smtih, unlike Deena, told no funnies. After all, what could be funny? Funnies are when M tells a joke. Those are funnies. I felt he was saving himself.

Mr. Smith was as warm as roadkill and NOT the furry kind. He was as cordial as a rotten mango. (Know what a mango tastes like? Don't answer -- that's the first question they use to get you into cults. Stay away from all Mango talk!)

Mr. Smith reminded me of ...... I felt that he was already screwing up his barogon as we got off the phone. I can't wait for his fiftieth birthday party. We're all invited and I hear it's going to be something else. Cake, cookies (right, OP?) and you name it. Songs. Soda water. You can wear a tie, you can NOT wear a tie. Your call. We're talking PARTY!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:48:48 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thanks for all your posts Joe....nt
Message:
fgns
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 13:04:47 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Sure, Jer. You, too (????!!)....nt
Message:
bbbb
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 22:03:26 (GMT)
From: Coach
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Tres Amusant, James
Message:
Jim

I'm glad you dug that one up. I laughed heartily. But so true.
This knucklehead is really an undercover X. A real lurch. He keeps many, many people out of the cult by his pure obnoxiousness(?). Ths last EeVee thing I went to of any significance he was the guest speaker. As he droned on I realized how much I enjoyed being out of the sort of situations I'd brought myself into that evening. I longed for the fresh outside air. Instant claustrophobia in a hot, fetid hotel function room. He had a mac and was waving some sort of light wand at a screen. The locals looked bemused like natives catching their first glimpse of a mirror or shiny beads. I learnt how many times Maharaji had flown to the moon and back, how many tons of lentils it takes to feed a herd of hephalumps and other such useful titbits. Oh, yeah. And that they needed 3 mill (US) to take care of the santitation at Ammytiville. The evening was split into two. I left at half-time. Fuck it, enough's, enough. Outside the evening was beautiful. I remember it.

People like that gave mangos a bad name.

Glad to hear you're having fun with your music. Let's have one or two lo-fi mp3's up somewhere as a taster, please.

Coach

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 19:07:22 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thanks for digging it up
Message:
I guess that 'surrender the reins of your life to me and I will give you peace' was the root of the problem. Yes, for those of you that weren't around, he not only said it, it was in the 'Who is Guru Maharaj Ji' propagation movie which I must have seen 100 times or more.

Of course, most of us had little or no personal contact with M -- so the communications had to be trusted through those folks that he picked to deliver the message, who weren't supposed to be questioned. I remember when I told Marsha Leitner (the SF community coordinator) that instructor Grace Wallis needed to be told to stop draining the Oakland sister's house with her expensive tastes and expensive medical cures. I said that Grace needed some boundaries set. It's the only time I ever got in an argument with Marsha, but it's right before I left the ashram, and I wasn't buying any of it anymore.

Somewhere in that several month period David Smith, with his rather large frame, leaned back on one of our chairs. Do you think he apologized? 'Cheap chair,' is what he said.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 09:10:45 (GMT)
From: Connie
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: First time poster
Message:
Hello everyone,

I am finally mustering up the courage to post.

It's hard to know what to say or where to begin. I have not been looking here very long, in itself a very definitive step, which led to a lot of thinking, to put it mildly.

All I can say is that I have been/am going through quite a process, and have been shaken to the core of my being. I still find it hard to compute that I was in a cult and its' leader was not who I 'knew' he was.

I think part of me is expecting to wake up one day and everything will be back to normal. Funny because I hated what normal had become.

Thanks to all those posters who have made me think, question and importantly laugh


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:10:33 (GMT)
From: Brian S
Email: None
To: Connie
Subject: First time poster/ Way to go Connie!
Message:
Congratulations on taking your first step in posting here. As a recent Ex (about 2 months out for me) I can freshly relate to what you are going through and the trepidation that you might be feeling.

It was quite a revelation for me to realize the depth of my attachment to the cult, especially since I never thought that I was even in a cult. That was my first shock, and after that domino started to tumble it set in motion a whole sequence of realizations that started knocking down the huge line of lies and deceit that had kept me enslaved for 29 years.

Once I found out that this Knowledge or this group of techniques that we received via M were readily available through many other sources I began to see the chinks in the armor. This knowledge does not belong to M, He lied when he claimed ownership.

I had many clues over the years that I disregarded and paid no heed to. I was shown a book revealing the techniques through another Master shortly after receiving knowledge, and I thought it was just a phony attempt to discredit the Lord of the Universe.
Such was the extent of my desparate need to believe and belong.

I remember being in India in 1972 and running into this old Mahatma in New Delhi who was purported to be a devotee of another guru. He engaged a few of us with his spiritual discourse and then suddenly we were ushered away from him just as he was beginning to open up about the common significance of the meditation techniques. Even though this man looked, talked, dressed and gave the same sort of satsang as the DLM or M's Mahatma's, I sensed that somebody in power there did not want us Western premies to identify just how simple and accessable this 'knowledge' was from many other sources besides M. The Indian community director pulled us away and out of there and fast, even though many of us pleaded a strong case to bring him back to the ashram with us, (we thought that he was one of ours) he was wisked away.

Once I started unraveling the various lies about who Maharaji was and peeling back the falsehoods, it became apparent to me that I had bought into this thing much more than I had realized. I was comfortably hooked, I had put myself under the ethers of the cult for so long I was actually unconscious to the effects that it had on me. I had given up my own free will, and for years I thought that I hadn't, I thought that I was free, all the while I was enslaved to this belief system, this religion, this cult and I was pretending like I wasn't.

I am still processing out of the bondage of this whole thing and the work that I was able to accomplish with the help of the people here on forum has been an invaluable resource for me to restore my own self awareness and my free will.

Keep coming back, and please keep on posting, you are on the right track, I sense an honest and sincere inquiry here from the tenor of your post. I hope that I am not assuming so but, You seem to be open to engaging tough questions and are looking for honest answers, if so, this is much farther along than I was when I first jumped in.

When I got here, I thought that I had all of the answers, and that these people on the forum needed some straightening out. Was I ever in for a big surprise!

The truth shall set you free, keep peeling back the layers, you are already much closer than you think

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:59:03 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Connie
Subject: how's that courage feel?? pretty exhilarating??
Message:
when i came here to post the first time, i was seething with years of pent up rage at all the cruel things i had endured at the hands and mouths of supposedly 'enlightened, loving' premies. i was quite astonished to be greeted with apologies and genuine welcome and open support. that was a first. as i have been reading the forum regularly since, nearly every night, it has come to me that this is the only place in the world i can come, and talk about anything and i am among my own. what a surprise. i have found satsang again--I'm back in the company of truth. this time without the dogma, doctrine, censorship, pretenses, judgements and fears. ironic as all get out. where else am i gonna go, to talk about what i did all my adult life?? who else is gonna be able to follow it?? but here, you guys already know.

take great deep draughts of that courage. its powerful stuff.

i am very interested in hearing your story, your viewpoints. say more.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:36:06 (GMT)
From: Aussi Ji
Email: None
To: Connie
Subject: First time poster
Message:
Hi Connie,
Welcome Connie.I hope you are enjoying your newfound freedom.I have been out for about 6 months after being in for 26 years.It is an interesting process,but one well worth it.

Cheers Aussi Ji( from downunder obviously)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:41:33 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Connie
Subject: First time poster
Message:
Welcome, and do stick around. You'll see from all the posts below that you have a lot of people willing to talk about the familiar exit problems. Anyway, it's cool here - more fun than the cult will ever be.

We all made one big mistake in our lives, but at least lived to tell the tale.

Take care,
Nigel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 02:36:21 (GMT)
From: bill burke
Email: None
To: Connie
Subject: perhaps?....nt
Message:
sfhhsa
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 20:53:54 (GMT)
From: Barry
Email: None
To: Connie
Subject: First time poster
Message:
Way to go Connie, welcome back to the anything but normal world. But hey! Thats where the laughs come from!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 19:57:22 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Connie
Subject: First time poster
Message:
Are you from MI? If so, I might know you. I used to be called Nellie.

Whether you are the same COnnie or not, welcome to the site and feel free to email folks if you want more privacy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 17:32:07 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Connie
Subject: First time poster
Message:
Hi welcome all that stuff.

It helped me a lot at first to read the different pages on the site. You may have already done that. some of the journeys and, depending how long you've been in the cult, the Bob Mischler interview really hits home.

Hope to hear more from you. It's hard but not all that hard really once you start to feel what a relief it is not to have all that baggage weighing you down.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 17:07:17 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Connie
Subject: Greetings to Connie
Message:
Hi Connie -
It's really good to hear from you - nice to know that people out there read the forum and site.

Other people in this thread have said this, but the process you are going through is quite difficult (as you said), so remember to take care of yourself. It's tough to lose a belief system that you've had for a long time.

Hope you'll continue posting!
Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 13:19:29 (GMT)
From: Kelly
Email: None
To: Connie
Subject: First time poster..welcome
Message:
Hi Connie,
I relate very strongly to what you say. I first posted here last November, and I remember well how nervous I was!

I really know what you mean when you say that you have been shaken to the core of your being, me too, and how!! and for the same reasons. The absolute shock to discover I really was in a cult after all and that its leader who, for all this time, I had believed to be basically sound, was deeply deeply flawed, to the point of corruption. I felt such a fool for not having seen through it sooner and I also felt I would never be able to trust my judgement again. Everything went up in the air and all my beliefs had to be re-examined...it's still going on.

Nonetheless, I am just so glad that I finally woke up, no matter how painful a process it's been. And you will find so much help here, on the site generally which I recommend you read, and also on this forum from people who have been through the same process.
I wish you all the very best.
Love Kelly

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 11:21:20 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Connie
Subject: First time poster
Message:
Dear Connie,
Hi and welcome to life, normal out here is subjective I guess but in the cult as you mentioned normal wasn't so great. At least out on your own you get to change what is going on in your life if you don't like it.
Welcome back to the driver's seat of your own life. Scary at times for anyone but what a great thing really.
Good luck, I'll look forward to hearing/reading more of your story and supporting your exit. :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:36:26 (GMT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: First time poster
Message:
nice to see a new face (for a change).

Well am sure you'll make it, slowley slowley catch monkey. Watch out for the nasties they are up and about.


rAAbyn, how you've been keeping? Nice to see you still hanging around. Big hug.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 09:19:31 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Connie
Subject: First time poster
Message:
Welcome Connie,

Waking up from the cult is a bit like waking up from the Matrix (if you've seen the film - if you haven't don't worry!). For all Maharaji's claims that it's about experience, it is definitely a belief system, with the belief that Maharaji is a special sort of person central. The facts are that anyone can meditate and have cosmic experiences, anyone can teach the meditation techniques, and many do, and only a bad teacher would insist that the teacher is permanently necessary for the student to experience anything from meditation. Of course, there is debate here about the interpretation of the meditation experiences. Some believe they are biological phenomena, while others believe they are spiritual. Others, like me, just don't know:-)

Anyway, take your time, get up to date with the info here - I recommend a few days browsing the Nuts and Bolts section linked from the main www.ex-premie.org page, and of course the Journeys section. Pretty much everything you need to know is there.

Again, welcome!

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 10:02:55 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: pdconlon@yahoo.com
To: Connie
Subject: Hi Connie, welcome and thanks for posting
Message:
JHB said: ''...it is definitely a belief system, with the belief that Maharaji is a special sort of person central. The facts are that anyone can meditate and have cosmic experiences, anyone can teach the meditation techniques, and many do, and only a bad teacher would insist that the teacher is permanently necessary for the student to experience anything from meditation. Of course, there is debate here about the interpretation of the meditation experiences. Some believe they are biological phenomena, while others believe they are spiritual. Others, like me, just don't know:-)''

John (JHB) lives in Latvia and that cold northern air has cleared his head enormously and this is very clearly put and I agree completely with what he has said. Except maybe the last sentence I would say: ''Others, like me, just don't know - but I intend to find out and have fun doing it on my own without an intermediary guru, preacher or pundit standing in my way, thanks.''

I first posted here 6 weeks ago and it's been a bit of a roller-coaster ride. I have had moments of quite fiery anger at being duped and then my tendency to forgive kicks in and I realize the folly of assigning blame. Anyway just take it easy and I hope you have someone to talk with off the forum about it because it helps to take the pressure off.

I hope you'll tell more about yourself. For instance my first question to you would be: ''When did you receive Knowledge?''

I don't know how long you've been reading the forum. I hope you read it longer than me before you posted because it took me almost a month to get the hang of the characters who frequent it and not be shocked or hurt by certain people. Some real sharp knives here also lots of deep folks. Don't hesitate to email me if you need some tips.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 10:43:45 (GMT)
From: Tim G
Email: timgitti@indigo.ie
To: Connie
Subject: Hi Connie, welcome and thanks for posting
Message:
Hi Connie and welcome aboard this whacky ship. No doubt it was a big step for you to post here. Take the wise advice of John and Pat and 'take it easy'. Talking to someone off-site is a good idea too. When I dipped my toe in here I received some very mixed responses but have come to enjoy the extreme diversity of opinion especially when I remember then narrow party line of the premie community.
Yes, there is life after Knowledge and in bucketloads.I can't describe the relief of being handed back my life and discrimination.
Freedom, to be Freedom, means we have to be brave enough to meet life on the chin and not be hiding behind someone else's 'spiritual coat-tails'. Not to rely on some prescribed method or interpretation of experience but learn from our own day by day experience.
Anyway, enjoy the ride and tell us about your actions and reactions to the Cargo Cult.
Love
Tim
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 10:35:21 (GMT)
From: Marianne
Email: delores@gofree.indigo.ie
To: Connie
Subject: Welcome Connie
Message:
Hi Connie. Thanks for taking the leap and putting up a post. New voices help the rest of us to have new and better understanding of the cult experience.

Could you tell us a bit more about yourself? When and where did you receive k? Did you live in the ashram?

Did you start questioning your involvement with the cult on your own? Did the forum help you? What information most contributed to your decision to leave?

We'll be looking forward to hearing from you. Feel free to email me if you want.

Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 17:37:43 (GMT)
From: Postie
Email: None
To: Connie
Subject: Welcome Connie and ditto the other comments
Message:
Additionally, I strongly recommend writing down a history / journal / diary of how you came to M & K, what experiences you had, and what you think and feel today. It's not neccesary to post these thoughts, they are for you. It has helped me put the last 29 years into clearer perspective.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 20:13:31 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: Postie
Subject: Welcome Connie and ditto the other comments +
Message:

I felt the same way , core of being wise , when I finally realised , courtesy of this site , that the pied piper had been playing a tune with my life .

That was 7 months ago , & the wierd feeling of having your legs kicked out from under you is a great deal less , if that's any consolation .

I found all the stuff about the Indian Background a big help .

That's just me , of course ; how deeply you were into it all , is mainly the thing.

The higher you rise etc.

Anyway , all the best .

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 00:38:37 (GMT)
From: Connie
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Thanks for the welcome, and
Message:
Responding to some of the questions and comments:

I took knowledge in 1973.

I lived in the ashram.

I do not think I know anyone here.

I have looked at the whole site in depth.

I have become familar with the styles of those who post on the Forum.

I posted for two reasons:

Firstly, I saw I had some fear of doing it. I don't want to be controlled by fear, and guess what, it was fine.

Secondly, some of the posts affected me, especially the Mike Finch ones. If Mike is in the same boat as me, I feel for him (as I do for any people just reading, if in a similar state). Sir Dave's post about his anxiety attack at a program I also related to, having had the same quite a few times and want him to know that someone knew what he was talking about.

My understanding from the first was that the whole thing was about devotion - today gratitude (I have read all the stuff on bhakti). The techniques were an important incidental, doing them was just one expression of devotion. Trust was the glue. Someone asked me recently what/how was I feeling and what did I want before I took knowledge. The answer I came up with was love.

When Maharaji used to talk about how it would take only one? true devotee to spread knowledge, I used to want to be that devotee, one he would be proud of to call his own. Something happened (slowly) along the way though, and recently it got to the stage where I started asking myself if I was proud of him. Trust was eroding for some reason. I started finding myself thinking if I had a say in what the Master was like it would definitely not be anything like him. What a turn around!!!

Then I read this website. I can make no excuse (not even the convenient lila) for some instances, which deeply distressed and disgusted me. Talking to others with knowledge about the Jagdeo and hit and run incidents, I was shocked at how everyone excused Maharaji's part in them, happy to relegate them to the crazy days of yesteryear. Seeing this reaction, and seeing that I had been doing the same for years, I could not make sense of it being good for getting rid of my concepts etc. It seemed I was being asked to adopt an amoral stance. I can't.

I'm the kind of person who when hearing of the Clinton/Lewenski thing thinks if he lied so easily and earnestly about that, what else has he lied about, subsequently finding it hard to trust anything he said, regardless of what the party line and political analysts are reporting about the social and economic good he has done.

Thanks again for the welcome and will post if I have something to say.

C

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 08:09:20 (GMT)
From: DeProGram Anand Ji
Email: not given
To: Connie
Subject: Thanks for the welcome, and
Message:
Welcome you are taking a big step, 29 years of following Guru Maharaj Ji. I can't imagine having stayed in it that long! I also recieved K in 1972 and dropped out long before (1976), but never completely stop believing. I just thought that I did not have the self-disipline to be a 'good devotee'. So to save face I stopped coming around. I was kind of hyperactive and had hard time meditating ect. Also since I was 12 years old and just starting puberty when I recieved K, I had alot of unruly sexual urges that I found hard to control. That sort ruled the ashram life out. (unless you happen to be M) Sadly I really did buy into the whole God incarnate thing and became very alienated form my family when they tried to convince me that M was just a greedy fake. I argued fanatically against my parents and siblings, it was very destructive to our family relationship.

I don't know how others tolerated the regimented lifestyle that the cult imposed on it's most devoted follows. Rising early in the morning to meditate, being celibate, (did I already mention that one?) , having a very restrictive diet, constantly bible thumping at 'satsangs'. And the endless boring videos and lame repetitive speeches yuck! I must have been more mentally healthy than I thought, because I subconsciously resisted having my whole life plotted out and controlled. Or maybe I'm just lucky i did not become entirely immersed in the CULTure. Who knows. Around 81' while taking some college courses I did some independant reading on cults and brainwashing and began to recognize what had happened to me. I also read the Mishler papers as a part of this research. Unfortunately I was heavy drinker and drug user by this time and had a few more years of hellish existance before I found my way into real recovery. I am still trying estimate how much of a role being brainwashed as a kid played in becoming as sick and maladjusted as I became before hitting bottom. It's a fucking miracle I'm still alive. I thank the Real God of my understanding for putting Real People in my life to help me recover. For that I am truly grateful.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 23:23:58 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: DeProGram Anand Ji
Subject: Thanks for the welcome, and
Message:
If you received K aged 12, that suggests to me that your parents were premies, but you also say that your family told you that M was a greedy fake which suggests they weren't. How did you get into M in the first place, and are you OK now regarding the drink and drugs?

Also, did you see the thread started by Abi? Although your story may not be typical of those she is looking for, it might add value to her research.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 19:27:03 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Connie
Subject: Thanks for the welcome, and
Message:
Dear Connie,

I found your first post very touching and this one even more so. Thank you for caring about the Jagdeo issue. I still find it shocking that people I once thought were good and honorable can deny the reality of what happened. I am glad the cult was not able to steal away your conscience.

I look forward to reading more of your posts, and welcome!

Susan

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 02:40:05 (GMT)
From: la-ex
Email: None
To: Connie
Subject: Welcome, Connie. I relate to your journey...
Message:
Connie-

Thanks for posting.
I can relate to a lot of your journey: I received k in 1972,and after being really into it for so many years, came across this site about 2 years ago.
Not being on-line at the time, I filed it away, and sort of forgot about it, until about a year ago, when I went on line, and began to peruse the site again, in a more regular fashion. It was very intruiging to me, and 'filled in ' a lot of the missing pieces to the puzzle....it also made me very glad that I never really surrendered and gave him my all, as he was recommending for so many years...

Basically, I credit EPO with doing everyone a great service, in that it provides insight into the everyday life of m, and shows people a lot about the man 'off the stage', how he lives etc...

I credit it with being the single most important thing in allowing me to see through what I was into all those years, although I didn't know a lot of it, as it was hidden from most of us.

It's a great place to come to in the 'exit' stage, even if it is a bit raucous and OT at times...

Good luck in your journey...

La-ex

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 00:48:29 (GMT)
From: Ooramamaroo
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: www.amaroo.org
Message:
www.amaroo.org goes online for registration Monday 2.19.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 02:03:50 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Ooramamaroo
Subject: Just in by first class email
Message:
Some exciting news!
Beginning Sunday, February 18, all Visions International
broadcasts on DISHNetwork will no longer be encrypted, and will be accessible to anyone who subscribes to DISH and tunes into channel 9602 (and occasionally 9601).

GETTING DISHNETWORK
DISH is constantly having promotions to attract subscribers. It is currently possible for anyone in the US to have a satellite dish and receiver installed at no cost (rebate) for the equipment and installation (of one receiver) with a 12 month commitment to a monthly
programming package (currently a minimum of $39.98 per month).
Call DISH for details of current promotions: 1-800-333-DISH (3474).
Or go online at: www.dishnetwork.com

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 03:58:05 (GMT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Question
Message:
Did you recieve this info straight into you e-mail system. If so, haven't EV figured out who you are and blocked you from accessing the system?

Just a thought.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 04:39:38 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Salam - answer
Message:
A premie friend of mine who is a city contact sent it to me. I never had first class email because I could not bring myself to fill out the ''Participation'' application form which you need to do to get it. Yuck.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 06:14:20 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: I never get e-mail from EV
Message:
Pat:

I was getting their snail mail notices and signed up for their e-mail and haven't heard a thing since I did. You'd think at least they would have told me about Amerscroo. There are two possible explanations:

1) they monitor this site and cut exes that have 'outed' themselves off or

2) they are just so screwed up it never worked

Could be either one -- or both!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 07:24:03 (GMT)
From: Brian S
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: I never get e-mail from EV/ I don't get anymore
Message:
emails either, not since I blatantly outed myself about a month ago under my real name Brian Smith, up until then I got both local and International communications all of the time. Then lo and behold they suddenly stopped, I was just thinking about that earlier today. I guess I made the EV offendors list, otherwise it sure is a coincidence.

There must be some truth to the fact that EV is trolling this site and blacklisting known defectors.

So what, I feel better about myself and my position for being up front. A small price to pay, geez, no more e-mails from the guru putting the squeeze on me for one thing or another, usually money, or time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 01:30:59 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Brian S and everyone
Subject: Who else stopped getting EV e-mails
Message:
and snail mails after posting their real names on this site?

--F

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 17:44:04 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Brian S
Subject: Brian S, based on experience on this forum...
Message:
...EV appears to delete SOME people who post here from their mailing lists, but not all (John Brauns had to beg publically to be deleted at one time!)

Less spam in your mailbox is always good, IMHO :)

Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 18:36:15 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Katie, I'm confused....
Message:
Katie,

I don't recall this public begging. Are you referring to my spoof post on ELK where I wrote an ambiguous thank you to Maharaji 'expression' that they published. I then posted the true meaning here after someone found it and posted it here. Two weeks later it was still on ELK, so I had to tell them it was a sendup.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 18:43:38 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: What I remember
Message:
Once you posted that you were very frustrated that you were STILL getting mailings and invitations to programs from EV even though you had been posting here using your real full name for several months, and publically asked EV to cut it out. (I used the word 'beg' in jest.) I know it was you that spoke about this.

It IS funny that some people (like Gail) get so stigmatized by the premie community, and others keep getting all the mailings, etc. like nothing ever happens.

I remember that ambiguous 'expression' too - pretty funny. Do you still have a copy?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 18:56:30 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: John
Subject: P.S. to John
Message:
Did you ever STOP getting invitations to programs, or did you have to move to Latvia to escape them? :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 20:13:56 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: P.S. to John
Message:
Katie,

I remember posting about still receiving mailshots from EV after I posted here, but don't remember publicly asking EV to stop sending them, but I could be wrong:-) I haven't received anything for a while now, and I still get some junk mail sent to my old London address, so maybe I have been removed from their list. I have though subscribed to their Rapid Communications System where they send quotes from Maharaji every day. That's under my own name. It's called rapid, but the Amaroo info pack appeared here two days before I received their email about it.

Regarding the 'expression', I'll have to have a look for it.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 09:41:23 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Brian S and Francesca
Subject: I never get e-mail from EV - get it from a friend
Message:
Francesca,

That email thing you signed up for never got off the ground. That was quite a few years ago. Then probably around about the time Capt Rawat (actually I must stop using that name - he would like it) got paranoid about the internet, 3 or 4 years ago, EV instituted first class email.

In order to receive it you had to either already be known to the in-crowd or sign up for it online using the Participation application. I had been out of it for too long to know anybody on the inside so I would have had to fill out the form. I balked at that idea for the same reason that I balked at the idea of going into an ashram in 1973 and again in 1978 - I hate bureaucracy and anything that smacks of Big Brotherism.

The person who sent me the email was the second PWK that I told that I was leaving the urug. You know who - Michael L who is CC in Arcata.

Brian S,

I got my tax form showing that I had given EV money last year and with it came a card with a pic of the urug and a special thank you gift of a book entitled ''Listen to Your Heart - Something Wonderful is Being Said.'' It's full of sillyisms which I do not have the patience to transcribe.

I got this after I had posted here under my own name. I have also had dinner with the local instructor and her partner a couple of times. I wrote a post about her friend our local industrial-strength church-lady and her husband. The exes really dissed them. These are all people who work for EV. I haven't told them that I post here because I assumed that they would already know but they are still treating me in a very straightforward and trusting manner.

So, I don't think it's pretty much business as usual in the cult. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. There may or may not be monitors. They may make reports to send to the urug which could be highly confidential but my guess is the urug throws them away and watches TV instead.

You say: ''There must be some truth to the fact that EV is trolling this site and blacklisting known defectors.''

Maybe - but I doubt it. If you stopped sending them money they may have dropped you from their mailing list. I guess I will not be getting too many free gifts anymore.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 07:37:58 (GMT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Brian S
Subject: did you get feedback in the past
Message:
on questions that you e-mailed?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 03:49:04 (GMT)
From: bill--we predicted that,
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: bad news for the stray viewer/sucker..nt
Message:
sdfg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index